Voting Rights in Corporate Governance

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing debate over the optimal corporate governance structure, particularly with regards to voting rights and shareholder control. One of the most commonly used rules for electing controlling management is the simple majority voting rule, which gives each shareholder one vote per share. However, there has been increasing criticism of this rule, with some arguing that other majority rules or multiple classes of shares may be more socially optimal. To address this debate, we conducted a study to determine the conditions under which the simple majority voting rule for electing controlling management and one share-one vote constitutes a socially optimal corporate governance rule. Our findings suggest that under certain conditions, this rule is indeed socially optimal, as it allows for a fair and democratic decision-making process that takes into account the interests of all shareholders.

In contrast, we found that other majority rules and/or multiple classes of shares are not socially optimal. This is because these rules may result in a concentration of power among a select group of shareholders, leading to decisions that are not necessarily in the best interests of the company as a whole. In addition, such rules may create conflicts of interest among different shareholder groups, further complicating the decision-making process.

Overall, our study suggests that the simple majority voting rule for electing controlling management and one share-one vote can be a socially optimal corporate governance rule, under certain conditions. However, other majority rules or multiple classes of shares may not be optimal, as they may create imbalances of power and conflicts of interest. As such, it is important for companies to carefully consider their corporate governance structure, and to ensure that their voting processes are fair, transparent, and accountable.

Introduction to Voting Rights in Corporate Governance

Voting rights are an essential aspect of corporate governance, as they allow shareholders to participate in the decision-making process of a company. In a corporation, shareholders own a portion of the company and are entitled to vote on important matters, such as the election of directors, mergers and acquisitions, and changes in the company’s bylaws. The voting rights of shareholders are typically determined by the number of shares they own, with each share representing one vote. Voting rights have been the subject of heated legal battles in U.S. political elections since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 and thirteen years later in Shelby County v. Holder. The result has been legal action, academic debate, and media attention focused on Americans’ voting rights.

Shareholder voting rights in the United States are similar, although they have attracted much less attention. Many aspects of shareholder voting rights are currently in flux, with important changes affecting the two-tier structure, ballot access, broker voting, and general proxy voting. Behind the scenes, asset managers are using pass-through and client-directed voting mechanisms to transfer direct voting rights back to their clients – a trend that threatens to shift power in companies when votes are close. The current trend dates back to the Gilded Age – the last major period in which shareholder voting rights underwent fundamental change. In a new article, I draw a connection between the old Gilded Age and the current New Gilded Age and shed new light on an old puzzle in corporate law history: What explains the rise of the unitary share with one vote in American corporate law? At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the one-vote rule was not yet the prevailing voting rule in the United States, but by the end of the century it had taken hold. The importance of voting rights in corporate governance cannot be overstated. Shareholders who exercise their right to vote can influence the direction of the company and hold management accountable for their actions. In addition, voting rights can help to ensure that the interests of shareholders are aligned with those of the company and its management.

Types of Voting Rights for Shareholders

There are two main types of voting rights for shareholders: common voting rights and preferred voting rights. Common voting rights are the most common type of voting rights and give shareholders the right to vote on all matters that require shareholder approval. Preferred voting rights, on the other hand, give shareholders the right to vote on certain matters, such as the election of directors or changes to the company’s bylaws. In addition to common and preferred voting rights, shareholders may also have cumulative voting rights, which allow them to cast all of their votes for a single director candidate, rather than spreading their votes across multiple candidates. Cumulative voting rights are typically used by minority shareholders to ensure that they are represented on the board of directors. Shareholder voting rights are the rights granted to shareholders to participate in the decision-making process of the company. The shareholders exercise these rights by voting on various matters related to the company, such as the appointment of directors, the adoption of new policies, and the approval of major corporate actions such as mergers and acquisitions. In this article, we will discuss the different types of voting rights for shareholders in accordance with corporate governance.

Ordinary Voting Rights

Ordinary voting rights are the most common type of voting rights granted to shareholders. They give shareholders the right to vote on matters that require a simple majority vote, such as the election of directors or the approval of routine business matters. Typically, each share of stock carries one vote, and shareholders can vote in proportion to their ownership.

Preferred Voting Rights

Preferred voting rights are given to certain classes of preferred stockholders. Unlike common shareholders, preferred stockholders do not have a right to vote on ordinary business matters. However, they may be given special voting rights that allow them to vote on certain matters that affect their interests, such as changes to the company’s charter or the issuance of new preferred shares.

Cumulative Voting Rights

Cumulative voting rights are granted to shareholders in order to give minority shareholders a greater voice in the election of directors. Under cumulative voting, each shareholder is allowed to cast all their votes for one candidate, or to distribute their votes among multiple candidates. This allows minority shareholders to have a better chance of electing at least one director to the board.

Supermajority Voting Rights

Supermajority voting rights require a higher threshold for approval than ordinary voting rights. For example, a company may require a two-thirds or three-fourths majority vote to approve certain actions, such as changing the company’s bylaws or approving a merger. Supermajority voting rights can help protect the interests of minority shareholders and ensure that major corporate actions are taken only with broad support from shareholders.

Proxy Voting Rights

Proxy voting rights are granted to shareholders who are unable to attend shareholder meetings in person. A proxy is a person who is authorized to vote on behalf of a shareholder. Shareholders can appoint a proxy to vote in their place by filling out a proxy form and submitting it to the company. Proxy voting can help ensure that all shareholders have a voice in the decision-making process, even if they are unable to attend meetings in person.

Voting Trusts

Voting trusts are a mechanism used by shareholders to consolidate their voting power in order to achieve a specific objective. Under a voting trust, shareholders transfer their voting rights to a trustee who then votes on their behalf. Voting trusts are often used in situations where a group of shareholders wants to gain control of the company or block a particular action.

Dual-Class Share Structures

Dual-class share structures are a type of share structure that gives different classes of shares different voting rights. For example, a company may issue Class A shares to the public with ordinary voting rights, and Class B shares to the company’s founders with super-voting rights. This can help ensure that the founders retain control of the company even if they own a minority of the shares.

In conclusion, shareholder voting rights are an important aspect of corporate governance. They provide shareholders with a voice in the decision-making process and help ensure that the company is managed in the best interests of all stakeholders. The different types of voting rights discussed in this article provide

Role of Proxy Voting in Corporate Governance

Proxy voting is an important aspect of corporate governance that allows shareholders to vote on important matters without being physically present at a shareholder meeting. In proxy voting, shareholders appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf, either by mail or electronically. Proxy voting is typically used by individual shareholders who are unable to attend shareholder meetings, as well as institutional investors who hold large numbers of shares in multiple companies. Proxy voting plays a critical role in corporate governance, especially in large publicly traded companies. It allows shareholders to participate in decision-making and hold the board of directors accountable, even if they are unable to attend a meeting in person. Proxy voting also helps to ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of all shareholders, not just the board of directors or a small group of shareholders. There have been several high-profile shareholder voting issues in recent years. One of the most notable was the battle between Apple Inc. and activist shareholder Carl Icahn over the company’s cash reserves. Icahn argued that the company should use the cash to buy back shares, while Apple’s management wanted to keep the cash for future investments. In the end, Apple agreed to buy back $14 billion worth of shares, but it was a compromise that did not fully satisfy either side.

Another example was the shareholder vote on the merger between Dell Inc. and Silver Lake Partners. Some shareholders argued that the deal undervalued the company, while others believed it was the best option for shareholders. Ultimately, the deal was approved, but it highlighted the importance of shareholder activism in corporate decision-making.

However, there are some drawbacks to proxy voting. For example, shareholders may not have enough information to make an informed decision, and they may not have the time or resources to research all the issues on the ballot. In addition, proxy voting can sometimes be influenced by external factors, such as activist shareholders or proxy advisors. Proxy voting can have a significant impact on corporate decision-making, as institutional investors often hold a significant portion of a company’s shares and can use their voting power to influence the direction of the company. However, proxy voting can also be controversial, as some investors may use their voting power to pursue their own interests, rather than the interests of the company and its shareholders.

Cumulative Voting

One-share-one-vote grew more widespread, especially around 1850, but it diminished the influence of minor investors in comparison to wealthy, powerful holders. Politically, this was troublesome. In order to strengthen small holders, cumulative voting was introduced after 1870, frequently as a state constitutional privilege. This was a third, counterbalancing development. Small shareholders now have a way to get information and a say on the board thanks to cumulative voting, which allows owners to combine their votes for director candidates. By 1900, twelve states had constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote cumulatively, while other states had enacted laws requiring it. The explosive growth of cumulative voting and the widespread constitutionalization of it as an individual “right” during this period show how popular politics influenced corporation law. Corporate law making involved balancing three sets of competing political and economic interests, not only the interests of management and an undifferentiated group of shareholders.

By the end of the nineteenth century, most of the components of modern corporate capitalism were in place, including a strong proxy system that tipped the scales in favour of managers, the one-share-one-vote rule that benefited large shareholders, and cumulative voting, which was intended to increase the voice of small shareholders but had little real-world impact. For nearly a century, corporate law developed into a framework that was largely stable. Today, there is a lot of change happening. This transition is best illustrated by the new universal proxy, which was implemented by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2021 and mandates that businesses (or anybody seeking a proxy) list all board candidates on a single proxy form that resembles a political ballot. (See SEC, Universal Proxy, Exchange Act Release No. 34-93596, November 17, 2021). All public businesses will be required to offer shareholders with a full slate of candidates in competitive elections for the first time during the 2023 proxy season.

Other recent advancements in shareholder voting include modifications to broker voting regulations as well as the emergence of pass-through voting and advanced voting instructions at big asset managers. The power relationships between corporate management, big asset managers, and small/beneficial holders are being rebalanced by these events. The fact that this power rebalancing took place twice, during the New Gilded Age and the original Gilded Age, both characterised by considerable wealth inequality, raises the possibility that shareholder vote politics and wealth distribution are related. The development of contemporary shareholder voting rights occurred in the late nineteenth century, which coincided with the first wave of intensive corporate involvement in American politics. It began with the 1896 presidential election and persisted until the 1907 Tillman Act, which outlawed corporate campaign financing, was passed by Congress. If history is any indication, the beneficiaries of the current voting rights amendments may become more active in politics in the years to come. The increasing political pushback against the influence of asset managers, especially asset managers’ high-profile ESG activism, is being explained by the high stakes of shareholder voting.

Examples of Major Shareholder Voting Issues

There have been numerous examples of major shareholder voting issues in recent years, including the controversy surrounding the election of directors at Wells Fargo in 2018. In this case, several institutional investors voted against the re-election of several directors, citing concerns about the company’s handling of a scandal involving the creation of fake customer accounts.

Another example of a major shareholder voting issue occurred at Facebook in 2019, when several institutional investors called for the removal of CEO Mark Zuckerberg as chairman of the board. The investors cited concerns about the company’s handling of data privacy issues and its impact on the company’s reputation.

 Impact of Voting Rights on Corporate Decision-Making

Voting rights can have a significant impact on corporate decision-making, as shareholders who exercise their right to vote can influence the direction of the company and hold management accountable for their actions. In addition, voting rights can help to ensure that the interests of shareholders are aligned with those of the company and its management.

However, the impact of voting rights on corporate decision-making can be limited by a number of factors, including the size of a shareholder’s stake in the company and the level of participation in shareholder voting. In addition, some shareholders may not have the information or expertise needed to make informed voting decisions. Shareholder activism is a contentious issue in corporate governance. Some argue that it is a necessary tool for holding companies accountable and ensuring that they act in the best interest of shareholders. Others believe that it can be disruptive and undermine the long-term interests of the company. Voting rights are a critical aspect of corporate governance. They give shareholders the ability to participate in the decision-making process of the company, and they help ensure that the company is managed in the best interests of all stakeholders. In this article, we will discuss the impact of voting rights on corporate decision-making.

Board of Directors

One of the most significant ways in which voting rights impact corporate decision-making is through the election of board members. Shareholders use their voting rights to elect members to the board of directors, who are responsible for overseeing the management of the company. The board of directors is also responsible for making important decisions on behalf of the company, such as approving major corporate actions like mergers and acquisitions.

The election of board members can have a significant impact on corporate decision-making. Shareholders can use their voting rights to elect candidates who they believe will act in the best interests of the company and its stakeholders. This can include candidates who have expertise in a particular industry or who have a track record of making sound business decisions.

Shareholder Proposals

Another way in which voting rights impact corporate decision-making is through shareholder proposals. Shareholders have the right to propose resolutions that are put to a vote at the company’s annual general meeting. These proposals can cover a wide range of issues, such as executive compensation, environmental sustainability, or social responsibility.

Shareholder proposals can have a significant impact on corporate decision-making. If a proposal receives a majority of the votes, the company is required to take action in accordance with the proposal. Shareholders can use their voting rights to promote changes that align with their values and beliefs. This can help ensure that the company is managed in a way that is consistent with the interests of all stakeholders.

Merger and Acquisition Decisions

Voting rights can also impact major corporate decisions, such as mergers and acquisitions. In many cases, these decisions require approval from shareholders. Shareholders can use their voting rights to approve or reject proposed mergers and acquisitions.

The impact of voting rights on merger and acquisition decisions can be significant. Shareholders who believe that a proposed merger or acquisition is not in the best interests of the company or its stakeholders can use their voting rights to oppose the deal. This can force the company to reconsider its decision and look for alternative options.

Executive Compensation

Voting rights can also impact decisions related to executive compensation. Shareholders have the right to vote on executive compensation packages, and they can use their voting rights to approve or reject these packages. Shareholders may also propose resolutions related to executive compensation, such as proposals to link executive pay to company performance or to limit executive pay.

The impact of voting rights on executive compensation decisions can be significant. Shareholders who believe that executive compensation is excessive or not in line with company performance can use their voting rights to oppose compensation packages. This can send a message to the company’s management that they need to re-evaluate their compensation policies.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Issues

Finally, voting rights can impact corporate decision-making related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Shareholders have the right to vote on resolutions related to ESG issues, such as proposals related to climate change, human rights, or diversity and inclusion.

The impact of voting rights on ESG issues can be significant. Shareholders who believe that the company is not doing enough to address ESG issues can use their voting rights to push for change. This can help ensure that the company is taking its responsibilities to society and the environment seriously.

In conclusion, voting rights have a significant impact on corporate decision-making. Shareholders use their voting rights to elect board members, propose resolutions, approve or reject major corporate decisions, influence executive compensation, and push for change on ESG issues. There are also concerns about the influence of external factors, such as proxy advisors, on shareholder voting. Some argue that these advisors may have conflicts of interest or biases that can skew their recommendations.

Debate Around Shareholder Activism and Voting Rights

The debate around shareholder activism and voting rights has intensified in recent years, as institutional investors have become more active in using their voting power to influence the direction of companies. Some investors argue that they have a responsibility to use their voting power to promote the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders, while others argue that they should focus solely on maximizing short-term returns.

The debate around shareholder activism and voting rights has also been influenced by the rise of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing. ESG investors use a variety of criteria to evaluate companies, including their environmental impact, social policies, and corporate governance practices. ESG investors may use their voting power to promote companies that align with their values and to hold companies accountable for their actions. The debate around shareholder activism and voting rights in corporate governance has been ongoing for many years. On one hand, some argue that shareholder activism is a necessary tool for holding companies accountable and ensuring that they are managed in the best interests of all stakeholders. On the other hand, some argue that shareholder activism can be disruptive and may not always be in the best interests of the company.

Proponents of shareholder activism argue that shareholders have a right to have a say in how the company is run. They argue that shareholder activism can lead to improved corporate governance, increased transparency, and better long-term performance. Shareholders may use their voting rights to push for changes that improve the company’s environmental or social performance, or to ensure that executive pay is aligned with company performance.

Additionally, shareholder activism can be used as a tool to hold companies accountable for unethical or illegal behavior. Shareholders may use their voting rights to vote against directors who have been involved in scandals, or to push for greater transparency around the company’s practices. Opponents of shareholder activism argue that it can be disruptive and may not always be in the best interests of the company. They argue that some shareholder activists may be more interested in short-term gains than in long-term success, and that their actions may harm the company’s long-term viability.

Additionally, some argue that shareholder activism can be expensive and time-consuming for companies, as they may be forced to spend significant resources responding to activist proposals. This can be particularly challenging for smaller companies that may not have the resources to devote to these efforts. Another concern is that some shareholder activists may have conflicting interests. For example, a shareholder who is also a competitor may use their voting rights to push for changes that benefit their own company at the expense of the target company. This can create conflicts of interest that may not always be in the best interests of the company or its stakeholders.

In conclusion, the debate around shareholder activism and voting rights in corporate governance is complex and ongoing. While some argue that shareholder activism is a necessary tool for holding companies accountable, others argue that it can be disruptive and may not always be in the best interests of the company. Ultimately, the role of shareholder activism in corporate governance will continue to be a topic of debate as companies seek to balance the interests of shareholders with the long-term success of the company.

Future of Voting Rights in Corporate Governance

The future of voting rights in corporate governance is likely to be shaped by a number of factors, including the increasing influence of institutional investors, the rise of ESG investing, and the growing importance of technology in shareholder voting. In addition, regulatory changes may also have an impact on the future of voting rights in corporate governance.

One potential development in the future of voting rights is the use of blockchain technology to facilitate shareholder voting. Blockchain technology can provide a secure and transparent way for shareholders to cast their votes, reducing the risk of fraud and increasing participation in shareholder voting. As the business world continues to evolve, the future of voting rights in corporate governance is a topic of great interest and speculation. In this article, we will explore some of the trends and potential changes that may shape the future of voting rights in corporate governance.

Increased Focus on ESG Issues

One trend that is likely to shape the future of voting rights in corporate governance is the increased focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Shareholders are increasingly interested in how companies are addressing these issues, and they may use their voting rights to push for greater transparency and action on ESG issues. In the future, we may see more shareholder proposals related to ESG issues, as well as more shareholder engagement on these issues. Companies may also be more proactive in addressing ESG issues, as they recognize the importance of these issues to their stakeholders.

Digital Voting

Another trend that is likely to shape the future of voting rights in corporate governance is the use of digital voting. In the past, shareholder voting has often been done through paper ballots or in-person meetings, which can be time-consuming and inefficient. However, with the rise of digital technology, companies may increasingly use digital voting platforms to allow shareholders to vote more easily and efficiently. This could increase shareholder engagement and make it easier for shareholders to exercise their voting rights.

Increasing Shareholder Activism

Another potential trend in the future of voting rights in corporate governance is increasing shareholder activism. Shareholders are becoming more vocal and active in using their voting rights to push for changes at companies. In the future, we may see more shareholder proposals related to executive compensation, board composition, and other governance issues. Shareholders may also become more active in seeking to influence the company’s strategic direction and long-term performance.

Proxy Access

Proxy access is another potential trend in the future of voting rights in corporate governance. Proxy access allows shareholders to nominate candidates for the board of directors, which can increase board diversity and improve corporate governance. In recent years, there have been efforts to expand proxy access in the United States, and we may see more companies adopt proxy access policies in the future.

Greater Scrutiny of Proxy Advisors

Finally, in the future, we may see greater scrutiny of proxy advisors, which provide research and recommendations to institutional investors on how to vote on shareholder proposals. Proxy advisors have come under criticism for potential conflicts of interest and lack of transparency, and there have been calls for greater regulation of these firms.

In conclusion, the future of voting rights in corporate governance is likely to be shaped by a variety of trends, including increased focus on ESG issues, the use of digital voting platforms, increasing shareholder activism, proxy access, and greater scrutiny of proxy advisors. As these trends continue to develop, it will be important for companies to be proactive in addressing shareholder concerns and promoting good corporate governance.

Recent Developments in Voting Rights and Corporate Governance

Recent developments in voting rights and corporate governance include the increasing use of proxy advisors, the rise of index funds, and changes to the SEC’s rules governing proxy voting. Proxy advisors are firms that provide research and recommendations on proxy voting to institutional investors, while index funds are passive investment vehicles that track a market index.

Changes to the SEC’s rules governing proxy voting could have a significant impact on the role of proxy advisors and the use of shareholder proposals. The SEC has proposed changes that would require proxy advisors to provide companies with their voting recommendations before they are provided to investors, and would limit the ability of shareholders to submit proposals. Growing use of proxy advisors, which provide research and recommendations to institutional investors on how to vote on shareholder proposals. Some have criticized the influence of proxy advisors, arguing that they may not have enough information to make an informed decision. Recent years have seen significant developments in voting rights and corporate governance, driven by the growing demands of shareholders and the wider public for greater transparency and accountability from corporations. In this article, we will explore some of the key recent developments in voting rights and corporate governance.

Increased Focus on Board Diversity

One significant recent development in corporate governance is the increased focus on board diversity. There is growing recognition of the importance of diversity on corporate boards, and shareholders are increasingly using their voting rights to push for greater diversity. In the United States, for example, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) has adopted a diversity policy that requires companies in which it invests to have at least one woman on their board of directors. Other institutional investors and shareholder groups have also been pushing for greater board diversity.

Say-on-Pay Votes

Another recent development in voting rights and corporate governance is the rise of say-on-pay votes. Say-on-pay votes give shareholders the right to vote on executive compensation packages, providing a mechanism for shareholders to express their views on executive pay. Say-on-pay votes have been adopted in a number of countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These votes have given shareholders a greater say in executive compensation, and have helped to promote greater transparency and accountability in corporate governance.

Proxy Access

Proxy access is another recent development in corporate governance that gives shareholders the right to nominate candidates for the board of directors. This can increase board diversity and improve corporate governance by giving shareholders a greater say in the composition of the board. In the United States, there have been efforts to expand proxy access, and a number of companies have adopted proxy access policies. Proxy access has also been adopted in other countries, including Canada and Australia.

Shareholder Proposals on ESG Issues

Shareholders are increasingly using their voting rights to push for greater action on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Shareholder proposals related to ESG issues have been on the rise in recent years, with a growing number of investors recognizing the importance of these issues to long-term corporate performance.

Shareholder proposals related to ESG issues can cover a wide range of topics, including climate change, human rights, and executive compensation. These proposals can help to promote greater transparency and accountability in corporate governance, and can also help to drive positive change on important social and environmental issues.

Greater Focus on Corporate Social Responsibility

Finally, there has been a growing focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in recent years, driven by the demands of shareholders and the wider public for companies to take a more responsible approach to business.

Companies are increasingly being held accountable for their social and environmental impact, and are expected to take proactive steps to address these issues. This has led to a growing focus on CSR in corporate governance, with companies adopting CSR policies and practices, and investors using their voting rights to push for greater action on CSR issues.

Legal Considerations for Voting Rights in Corporate Governance

There are a number of legal considerations for voting rights in corporate governance, including securities laws, state law, and the company’s bylaws. Shareholders must comply with securities laws, including the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which govern the manner in which securities are sold and traded.

State law also plays a role in voting rights in corporate governance, as state law governs the formation and operation of corporations. In addition, the company’s bylaws may also impact voting rights, as they may specify the procedures for voting and the rights of shareholders.

Conclusion

Voting rights are an essential aspect of corporate governance, as they allow shareholders to participate in the decision-making process of a company. There are two main types of voting rights for shareholders: common voting rights and preferred voting rights. Proxy voting is an important aspect of corporate governance that allows shareholders to vote on important matters without being physically present at a shareholder meeting.

The future of voting rights in corporate governance is likely to be shaped by a number of factors, including the increasing influence of institutional investors, the rise of ESG investing, and the growing importance of technology in shareholder voting. Legal considerations for voting rights in corporate governance include securities laws, state law, and the company’s bylaws.

References:

Partch Meghan – The creation of a class of limited voting common stock and shareholder wealth 

Journal of Financial Economics (1987)

MayersDavid et al. –Ownership structure and control: The mutualization of stock life insurance companies

Journal of Financial Economics (1986)

LeaseRonald C. et al. –The market value of control in publicity-traded corporations

Journal of Financial Economics (1983)

JarrellGregg A. et al. – Shark repellents and stock prices: The effects of antitakeover amendments since 1980

Journal of Financial Economics (1987)

DeAngeloHarry et al. – Managerial ownership of voting rights: A study of public corporations with dual classes of common stock

Journal of Financial Economics (1985)

BerkovitchElazar et al. – A theory of acquisition markets – Mergers vs. tender offers: Golden parachutes and greenmail

BhagatS. et al. – Cumulative voting: The value of minority shareholder voting rights

Journal of Financial Economics (1984)

BlairDouglas et al. – Unbundling the voting rights and residual profit claims of common shares

Journal of Financial Economics (1986)

EasterbrookFrank H. et al. – Voting in corporate law

Journal of Law and Economics (1983)

GilsonRonald J. – Evaluating dual class common stock: The relevance of substitutes