This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"Odds stacked in their favour", there is access to certain corporate resources to opponents of management, under different regimes. E.G. to call a special general meeting, propose resolutions, write to shareholders. These need to be mentioned by someone who knows the details under at least one legal framework. Also shareholder apathy... RichFarmbrough, 12:17 27 November2006 (GMT).
Actually, as a professional in these kind of situations, I would 100% agree with the statement "Odds stacked in their favor." In a US proxy fight management has a significant advantage because all non-voted shares are voted in favor of management. Its a legal ploy that makes mounting an effective proxy solicitation a real challenge. R550D 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the second comment. I don't see bias. In most cases, incumbent-type officials (including management) have more resources than those fighting against them.
There should not be any mention of the Yahoo deal in the article and the "Odds stacked" is a bit of an overstatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The "odds stacked" section should be modified in advantages and disadvantages for both perspectives: incumbant management and proxy management. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)