學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
The TELUS Share Conversion Proposal
內容大綱
On February 21, 2013, TELUS announced a proposal to convert the firm's non-voting shares into voting shares on a one-to-one basis, thereby eliminating the firm's dual class structure. Shareholders were scheduled to vote on the proposal at the firm's annual general meeting (AGM) on May 9, 2013. Despite strong support from management, the board, two proxy advisory firms, and several large shareholders, the proposal was opposed by Mason Capital Management, a New York-based hedge fund. Mason, which controlled almost 20% of the voting shares and a large short position in the non-voting shares, had filed a dissident proxy circular recommending that shareholders vote against the proposal based on both procedural and substantive grounds. With the success of the vote in doubt, the board had to decide what to do. Should they proceed with the vote as planned, postpone the vote with the intention of re-introducing the proposal at some point in the future, or cancel the proposal for good? And what should they do with Mason, which management viewed as an "empty voter" in this matter?