Sentences with phrase «so shareholder voting»

So shareholder voting within corporations (where someone with a 3 % share in the company has 3 % of the voting power) is not an acceptable answer?

Not exact matches

Proposals to declassify the board and require majority voting are almost always popular with shareholders, so it's not like these companies are going out on a limb.

Second, performance of directors should be much more public so shareholders can make a more informed decision when they vote.

Kalanick's large holdings of Class B shares, which awarded him 10 - to - 1 voting power, will transform so each shareholder has one vote per share, The New York Times reported.

They are asking for policies that most well run companies have adopted; things like majority vote standards, so directors are only elected to the board if a majority of shareholders want them there.

Netflix's board is divided into three separate classes, so shareholders don't even get to vote for or against all the directors every year, just a selection of them.

On a conference call to discuss first - quarter results on Thursday, Crescent Point executives said they would not comment on which side is leading so far in shareholder voting.

So it's curious that ahead of a shareholder meeting in February, Apple's board of directors is recommending that investors vote against a proposal to increase the diversity of its board and senior management.

If your Shares are held of record by a bank, broker, or other nominee, we urge you to give instructions to your bank, broker, or other nominee as to how you wish your Shares to be voted so you may participate in the shareholder voting on these important matters.

Section 951's so - called «say on pay» mandate, requiring periodic shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation.

If you own shares of record, meaning that your shares are represented by certificates or book entries in your name so that you appear as a shareholder on the records of Computershare, our stock transfer agent, you may vote by proxy, meaning you authorize individuals named in the proxy card to vote your shares.

Employee stock ownership under ESOPs gives workers confidential voting rights on major corporate issues, so that they have some formal corporate governance rights in closely held corporations, and in stock market companies, employee owners have the same rights as other public shareholders.

The goal of this report is to provide detailed information about corporate political spending so that shareholders can make more informed proxy voting decisions.

These so - called «broker non-votes» will be included in the calculation of the number of votes considered to be present at the meeting for purposes of determining a quorum, but will not be considered in determining the number of votes necessary for approval and will have no effect on the outcome of the vote for Directors, the advisory vote on executive compensation, the amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the shareholder proposals.

kronkes influence over the club is minimal at best how many decisions does he actually make in the public club domain that we all know of, i am only guessing here but just because he is majority shareholder it doesn't mean he can just do what he wants without the other board members say so, i suppose the rest of the board would vote him out of power and liquidate his shares if he did something really wrong like leveraged the club against a big debt.

Ah, of course the shareholders can vote on use the reserve funds (around 370 million) for other activities but they didn't so here we are.

«There is no point giving shareholders a vote on executive pay without the greater transparency needed so they can discern the aggregate remuneration executives receive under the complex arrangements currently in place - David Cameron has shown he is simply out of touch.»

The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1 / Nth the company, and entitles you to 1 / Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1 / Nth of the entire shareholder body.

While shareholders are not required to vote, it is definitely in their best interests to do so.

So, although shareholders do get some voting rights, the stock does not represent any actual equity value in the team.

That's not so much about the great value I see, more about making sure the shareholder vote gets approved and we can get this liquidation done so the value in the existing shares don't get taken down.

An Argo shareholder was so damn sure he wanted his AGAINST vote to count... he actually drove 150 KILOMETRES to ensure he had physical proof of ownership as quickly as possible from his broker when submitting his vote!

The shareholders voted against the liquidation on Friday so this probably gives greenlight to pursue acquisitions.

Financial covenants often limit the borrower's purchase of new assets, changes in control, the use of the borrowed funds, and the payment of dividends (so that shareholders can not vote to pay themselves huge dividends, leaving nothing for the creditors).

The great thing about being a shareholder is that you get to choose the course of your company, so make sure you do read up on these and vote accordingly.

It's obviously a bad deal, so unless the dissident shareholders all throw in the towel and sell, it will be voted down.

So in April 2007, Connecticut treasurer Nappier wrote to fellow Exxon shareholders urging them to withhold votes for Boskin's re-election to the company's board.

Proxy access resolutions have won a majority of shareholder votes at many other oil companies so far this year, including ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum Corp., Marathon Oil Corp., Hess Corp., Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Murphy Oil Corp. and others.

So, for example, it might seem logical to give the majority of shareholders the right to decide whether new shares should be issued... but what happens if one shareholder has 51 % of the capital and the vote is to him alone?

Aurora also sought an order shortening the 105 - day minimum period for its bid to 35 (so that it would expire at about the same time as the shareholder votes on the Newstrike deal).

The Federal Court of Appeal had to decide whether the agreement qualified as a unanimous shareholders» agreement («USA») under the Canada Business Corporation Act, and if so, whether the voting restrictions ought to be considered part of the USA.