Cruise begins: "Rupert Murdoch's multi-million dollar campaign to win back the hearts and minds of News Corporation's independent investors suffered a new blow on Friday after another key shareholder group called for his eviction from its board."
News Corp. publishing magnet Rupert Murdoch testifying before the British Parliament inquiry in phone-hacking allegations, 07/19/11. (photo: Rex Features)
News Corp Investors to Vote Against Murdochs
15 October 11
upert Murdoch's multi-million dollar campaign to win back the hearts and minds of News Corporation's independent investors suffered a new blow on Friday after another key shareholder group called for his eviction from its board.
Hermes Equity Ownership Services (HEOS), the shareholder advisory service affiliated to Britain's largest pension fund, issued a rallying cry to investors to vote against all Murdoch family re-elections to the board of the embattled media group at next week's annual general meeting on October 21.
"The time is right for the company to appoint an independent chairman to rebuild trust, help correct the governance discount, and ensure that the interests of all investors are properly represented," Jennifer Walmsley, Director of Hermes Equity Ownership Services, said.
"We have a battle on our hands to demonstrate the strength of shareholder opposition because so many shares are held by the family or by people affiliated with the family," she told Reuters.
The organization, which votes on behalf of the BT Pension Fund and more than 20 other institutional clients running $140 billion of assets, has also called for an independent investigation into the phone hacking scandal that led to the closure of top-selling British tabloid The News of the World.
Besides seeking the removal of Murdoch and sons James and Lachlan, HEOS - whose members hold 0.5 percent of News Corp's shares - Hermes is also withholding support for the re-election of directors Arthur Siskind and Andrew Knight, citing concerns for their independence.
The statement from HEOS is the latest in a flurry of anti-Murdoch lobbying from corporate governance watchdogs and proxy voting companies all over the world.
Earlier this week, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) said Murdoch and 10 other News Corp directors should be ousted from board in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, which it said "laid bare a striking lack of stewardship and independence."
The ISS statement prompted News Corp, which has bought back more than $1 billion of its stock since August, to step up its appeal for shareholder support with a letter that reiterated its strong financial performance in the face of the flagging global economy.
But Walmsley said investors were growing impatient for fundamental change that would see the infamous 'Murdoch discount' gone for good.
News Corp shares typically trade below rival media groups because the market applies a discount to reflect Murdoch's tight control of the company and a tendency to make decisions that shareholders may not support.
"There's an enormous groundswell of opposition and I think there are a lot of investors out there who feel ... the governance structures in place are clearly not sufficient to safeguard the interests of minority investors," Walmsley said.
"There is a huge problem with shareholder democracy at News Corp - it breaches what we see as a fundamental shareholder right of 'one share, one vote'," she said.
The war of words between News Corp and its shareholders over the need for a sweeping purge of its board is likely to revive a debate over whether James Murdoch should be forced to give up his role as chairman of British Sky Broadcasting.
Investors in BSkyB - News Corp's erstwhile bid target - will vote on the make-up of their board next month.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Chicken Little
Stood around
Underneath a tree.
Something fell and
Hit her head.
She said, "Goodness me!"
"Oh my goodness!"
She did screech.
"The sky is falling!"
She ran around
Yelling out,
"We must tell the king!"
Goosey Loosey
Was the first
To hear Chicken's tale.
I think they both
Must have been
Drinking too much ale.
Goosey Loosey,
Chicken, too,
Saw Ducky Lucky.
They told him, and
Then he said,
"That is quite sucky."
I'm just tired of the "sky is falling" kind of journalism when it comes to the republican party. It is not. The republicans are indeed divided but they know how to come together when they needs. Sadly, the same cannot be said for democrats, whose divisions are really driving the party into national political irrelevance. OK, the republican lost in Alabama, but the was a terrible candidate who'd lost twice for governor and was removed from the supreme court.
The republican party is not the party of Trump. It is the party of big money and of winning. It will use whatever wedge issues it needs to win. And it has mearly perfect the techniques to voter suppression and vote rigging.
The Trump-Gillibran d spat is something both want. Before this most people never heard of Gillibrand. And Trump get to be seen as standing up to a liberal.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/47306-time-for-a-fundamental-break-with-the-world-order
In contrast the Dems, rather than being divided as you claim, appear to be presenting a united political alternative to Trumpism, and in this respect is the direct and forceful opposite of sliding into "national political irrelevance" as you maintain.
Indeed, the Dems defining opposition to sex harassment will energize women voters from the independent group, as well as chip away at the 15 percent or so of GOP voters who still seem to have a brain.
In short, the GOP has made such a mess for their own party's outlook that all the Dems need do is avoid any big mistakes -- the rest of the work and all the heavy lifting has been done by the GOP on behalf of the Dems.
Why not talk about the 1000 elected offices that democrats have lost to republicans just since Obama took office. Here's a map showing how much of the nation is controlled by republicans:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/14/1598918/-Republicans-now-dominate-state-government-with-32-legislatures-and-33-governors
An honest assessment shows the democratic party in collapse. This is what I care about. The republican party is the party of big business and banks. In the 1980s, the Democratic Leadership Council decided that if the Democratic party could also become the party of big business and banks, it would begin to win elections again. It has only lost steadily.
If the Democratic party were an honest progressive or democratic socialist party and gave up its support for war, the CIA, and the like, it would easily be the majority party in the US.
That's what I care about. You can't change the democratic party by telling people the republicans are about to collapse. That is as much as to tell democrats that they don't need to change. They are fine.
"The strategy repudiates many of the security and foreign policies of the former President Barack Obama who sought to subordinate American power and influence in seeking greater comity with foreign states and international organizations.
The strategy reflects many of Trump's presidential campaign statements and promises that brought him to power, such as the need for tighter immigration controls, including a border wall, adopting trade policies more directly favorable to U.S. interests, increasing defense spending, and for the first time since the end of the Cold War, aggressively promoting American ideals such as liberty, constitutional democracy, and free trade."
I've worked with adolescents as a high school teacher for almost 40 years and am confident that, while they may do foolish things occasionally, they are not so dumb as to sacrifice their futures to the stupidity of the Cheeto Mussolini.
We are looking to the Democrats to produce a sensible alternative that inspires hope and action. Defending and extending the New Deal looks to me the next step forward.
I think the article is one of the best analysis of where we find ourselves that I've seen. A realistic take on strengths and weaknesses of both sides. I think the midterms will be devastating for Republicans but as the article points out, Democrats could still screw it up.
Trump is the biggest motivator of Republican opposition I've seen. Once he's gone, Republicans will regain their strength unless Democrats do something to move in a progressive direction, I don't see that happening.
Living in the south, I've always been mystified by Republicans strength here. Huge percentages of African Americans, a growing immigrant population. Parts of my city are beginning to look like California when I lived there, very diverse. Almost every urban area votes 'blue', reflecting a decent percentage of white liberals.
Virginia and Alabama revealed that there are enough more liberal voters but they don't vote normally. We can rightfully blame Democrats but I think we can rightfully blame voters also. If we did put Democrats in office, we could challenge the establishment in the primaries with progressive candidates. That's what the Tea Party has done, that's how Trump won the nomination.
I think most feared Cheney as much as many now fear Pence, but that can not be allowed to prevent real investigation (actually impeachment like all the previous ones that did not result in direct removal from office, just one resignation).
"People have to know whether or not their President is a Crook." ~ Richard Nixon ~
The impeachments did force major changes in behavior.
Even though they did not result in the conviction (and removal directed by the Senate) of Andrew Johnson, Nixon (who technically admitted guilt with the Pardon he accepted after resigning), nor Bill Clinton, they did very much to change future behavior of (only elected as Vice President succeeding Lincoln when he was assassinated)An drew Johnson in particular, and many others under Presidents who's certain behaviors they could not risk legal consequences or moral dilemmas in continuing to serve while meeting their oaths.
There is a credible case to be made for removal for impaired Mental Health, too (which in cases like Woodrow Wilson, and perhaps Warren Harding, could apply under Mental or Physical Health limitations for however long required).
And no, I do NOT want President Pence! He would be able to do all the horrible stuff that Trump has been unable to. He looks respectable, and the country would be so relieved that we would give him free rein.
Yes, his tirades against black people, his utter contempt for women. Had NBC released just a tiny bit of the outtakes at the Apprentice, Trump would not be president right now.
Instead they are attempting to pass large tax cuts for their donors, They pay for it by running up the deficit and extracting
wealth from the underclass. They have no problem removing millions from
health insurance, but say thy are 'pro-life'.
As they run up debt, they will work to cut back Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that vulnerable depend on.
Because their agenda is unpopular they need to suppress voters, gerrymander, and in a variety of ways suppress democracy.
They deserve to lose big time.
http://gopiswrong.com/democracy.htm
Is the president getting ready for a twinkie defense if he is ever held accountable for ordering an irresponsible military action, such as starting a nuclear war?
constitution.
" President Trump is just a man that believes in the majority of U.S. constitutional issues, common sense issues, U.S. sovereignty, real authentic science, a strong growing U.S. economy and America exceptionalism, but to many Americans and Western leaders Trump is the devil and the anti Christ who is a super threat to all secular globalist aspirations and a threat to global elitist and their power grab for a global tyrannical rule."
follow the money and expect war.