1) Q: Shareholders are generally perceived as being very “passive” in nature. Briefly explain what this refers to. Shareholders as owners of a share of stocks in corporation, are granted special rights based on their classes of stock. They are not involved in day to day management. In addition, they are not liable for the debts of a corporations, and the benefit of them is delegated and governed by the board of directors. Therefore, they are generally perceived as being very passive.
2) Q: Ackman’s behavior is certainly anything but passive. Do you believe his actions were justified? Why or why not? I believe Ackman’s actions were justified. This is because the intentions of the actions taken were “changes to the underperforming railway”, which was “understandably defensive”. His tried to benefit the corporation by proposed for re-election when he believed the former CEO was unable to lead Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd to expected success. Also, Ackman did not take any irrational actions, he had a plan and worked out well finally. Ackman was trying to protect his and the corporations’ benefit. Therefore, His actions were reasonable and justified.
3) If you were a CP shareholder would you vote in
…show more content…
Firstly, Ackman was a shareholder, not one of the board of directors, considering his unprofessionalism compare to the board of directors. I would be unable to give him full trust that his plan would work. In addition, since the corporation did not support this proposal and even chastise Ackman, I would rather believe in the corporation, which was more authoritative. Moreover, Ackman ‘s proposal “including hiring a chief executive who had just retired from its closest rival”, this would be difficult for we shareholders to understand, and be worried if the new CEO could do his job with previous enmity disregarded. Therefore, I would not vote in favour of Ackman proposal as one of CP
Ralph Nader, Mark Green and Joel Seligman, in an excerpt from Taming the Giant Corporation (1976, found in Honest Work by Ciulla, Martin and Solomon), take the current role of the company board of directors and suggest changes that should be made to make the board to be efficient. They claim the current makeup of the board does not necessarily do justice to the company because “in nearly every large American business…there exists a management autocracy” (Nader, Green and Seligman, 1976, p.570). The main resolution they present is to make the board more democratic with the betterment of the company as its first priority. Currently the board no longer oversees operations, or elects top company executives and they are no longer involved in the business operations to the extent they should be. Nadar, Green and Seligman argue that that all of these things need to be changed. For a corporation so large to be successful there must be separation of powers just as there is in any current government system ( p.571). They claim this is the only and best way to success (Nader, Green and Seligman, 1976, p.570-571).
Jumping handcuffed from a third-story window at the Fulton County Pretrial Services in Atlanta, the man who leaped from the window fell head first and died. The 22-year-old man, Tyquan Devoun Richard was going to enter a drug intervention program at the Fulton County Superior Court at 10am when criminal law arrest him for a weapons charge.
Have you ever felt stuck? Wherever you are, it’s the absolute last place you want to be. In the book Into the Wild, Chris McCandless feels stuck just like the average everyday person may feel. Chris finds his escape plan to the situation and feels he will free himself by going off to the wild. I agree with the author that Chris McCandless wasn’t a crazy person, a sociopath, or an outcast because he got along with many people very well, but he did seem somewhat incompetent, even though he survived for quite some time.
The CEO Dick Kovacevich became the head of the company in 1998 after its merger with Norwest Corp. ?Business Week? classifies him as one of the best managers: ?While many of his peers have been embroiled in one scandal or another, Wells Fargo & Co. CEO Richard M. Kovacevich, 59, has kept his bank safely out of the fray? (BW). Kovacevich obtained his MBA from Stanford after an injury in his shoulder kept him from becoming a pitcher for the New Yorker Yankees. Nevertheless, Kovacevich transports his athletic attitude to his business ?pitching hard and fast? in his industry (RMA Journal). For him, mistakes are unavoidable part of business but he treats them as opportunities to learn and grow. His core strategy is to sell as many products as possible to each customer. Currently, four products are sold on average to each customer, which is double the industry average. Furthermore, Kovacevich admits to his willingness to sacrifice a little profit margin for the purpose of building lasting and trusting relationships with their customers. Kovacevich has also invested in building better relationships between the management and the workers because for him having the right people on the team is crucial. He acknowledges the need for decentralization in such a big company, for the purpose of which the right people have to be picked and allowed to run the segment as if they own it. Ever since becoming a CEO, he has made worker satisfaction a top goal for Wells Fargo. He has also introduced incentives for his ?people goals? expressed in the generous bonuses (ranging from 10 ...
In the Introduction of the article of the author Lynn A. Stout pointed out the two arguments in regard to shareholder primacy that were made by Adolph A. Berle and Merrick Dodd.
“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both” (Roosevelt). The goal of America’s legal system as we know it is that everyone is given an equal opportunity to stick up for what they may or may not have done, as described by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Also this is what officials strive for, it is not always the case. Facts can be skewed, distorted, or misrepresented to make one side seem to be guilty without a doubt and to make the other side seem as if they have done nothing wrong. The Crucible by Arthur Miller begins and ends with one-sided accusations of witchcraft. It all results from a group of girls who had been dancing in the woods. After two fall sick, the accusations begin. The girls who were dancing, especially Abigail Williams begin blaming others to look less guilty themselves. Accusations are flying left and right so that soon, hundreds are in jail and over a dozen are executed. Abby’s main goal is to get rid of Elizabeth Proctor, so she can be with John Proctor, a man she previously had an affair with. However, John is not interested in Abby and his
This is actually an example of mixed corporate governance. There are independent board members in order to make sure that the operational and financial health of the company can gauged accurately from time to time. Peter Langerman did an in depth enquiry into the financial matters just because Dunlap had offered to resign in response to a trivial question. The board should have kept a watch on the firm’s financial health from the beginning. But after realising the gravity of situation, board was prompt and unanimous in firing Albert Dunlap which shows good corporate governance.
In contrast , the shareholder theory organisations or organisation's decision-makers only have the responsibility to their shareholders by increasing the organisation profits and should only make the decisions to increase as much as possib...
This purpose paper examines the proper self by deconstructing and analysing the following videos/ads: “Seeing Sociologically-Marginality and Crisis, “Date Rape” and “Eating Disorders.” Sociological perspectives enable us to see things from four points of view: see the general in particular, see the strange in the familiar, seeing society in everyday lives and lastly seeing sociologically-marginality and crisis. The later (marginality and crisis) has two perspectives which are important to us. The first point to the perspective is living on the edge; whereby being an outsider brings to your knowledge the social forces that shape an individual’s life; the poor and minority groups. The second point to the perspective revolves
This separation between ownership and managerial control in this instance can be problematic as the principal and the agents have different interests and goals. In a large publicly traded corporation such as NOL/APL, shareholders (principals) lack direct control when the CEOs (agents) make decisions t...
He goes on to explain how they are treated as completely separate from the companies in which they hold shares and receive dividends yet they are not responsible for the company’s debts or liabilities. Furthermore, the companies in which the hold shares must be run in their best interests. Therefore, the interests of the company, which is a separate legal entity, is directly linked with those of the shareholders. “The law treats separate legal personality very seriously in some contexts (shareholders liabilities) while ignoring it in others (shareholder primacy, shareholder control rights).
Using equity as a source of finance would mean that Barra Airways would be increasing the level of shareholder accountability it currently has. In the future, Barra Airways may find that in the future its freedom to make conduct business freely is hindered, if it issues more equity. The legal action taken by shareholders against companies has risen substantially since 1996 [7]. If this trend continues into the future then the likelihood of Barra Airways experiencing shareholder activism is significant.
...the agents to be the gatekeepers for keeping the corporation alive. While some of Dr. Friedman’s opinions came across bold and harsh, ultimately I feel that he presents a strong case for developing a profit-motivated company that does not treat its stockholders inappropriately.
There has been a drive towards corporate governance which has been driven by a greater need for shareholder protection. If investors feel well cushioned then there is a higher chance that t...
If shareholders do not receive what they believe to be a fair return on their investment they are unlikely to contribute to the future requirements of the company.