The TELUS Share Conversion Proposal
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?
Collection: HBSP (USA)
Ref: HBS-214001-E
Format: PDF
Number of pages: 18
Publication Date: Oct 23, 2013
Language: English
Review date: Sep 30, 2014
What material is included in this case:
Description
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?
Read more
Year: 2012
Geographic Setting: British Columbia;Canada;New York;United States
Industry Setting: Broadcasting; Hedge funds; Telecommunications
Leave your rating
"The TELUS Share Conversion Proposal"
Register for free with IESE Publishing and enjoy all the advantages
What type of account do you want to create?
Choose account type
Professors
Academic Institutions
Companies
Individuals