James Murdoch under pressure after protest votes
A majority of independent News Corporation shareholders have voted against the re-election of Rupert Murdoch’s sons James and Lachlan Murdoch. James Murdoch received the largest vote against his re-election at 35%.
34% of shareholders voted against Lachlan Murdoch. After subtracting the shares controlled by Rupert Murdoch, 67% of the votes went against James Murdoch and 64% against Lachlan.
Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive officer, received 86% of votes, though a number of shareholders (representing 12 million votes) abstained.
Murdoch went into the meeting with at least 47% of voting shares on his side, thanks to the family’s control of the company’s voting shares and the support of their largest outside shareholder, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal.
Shareholder critics called for the Murdochs to step down at a meeting in LA on Friday and criticised the pay deals of the company’s top executives.
Meanwhile, Les Hinton, former chairman of News International, defended James Murdoch saying he saw no reason why he should resign his position.
Read the full Guardian article here.
When is the majority a minority?
Something in the region of 12% of the shares are owned by the Murdoch clan. However, the division of A and B class shares give the Murdoch’s 40% of the voting share capital.
This was a resounding vote of no confidence in James but News Corp shareholders (the ones that can vote on major issues) wouldn’t be financially foolish enough to vote old Rupe out.
Surely over the next few months there will be more pressure with a further parliamentary appearance. I would think the first role to go (maybe soon after the 10th November select committee) will be James’ resignation as a non-exec for GSK. Responsibility for a non-exec is good corporate governance… surely out of kilter with everything that has happened with the “phone-hacking” scandal.