Example collocations logo

Shareholders in sentence

665 examples of Shareholders in a sentence

These private sector improvements, however, are nowhere to be seen among large businesses controlled by Government, even though many of these firms have a substantial minority of private shareholders who need protection from managerial abuse.
When shareholders balked, Chubais sought to neutralize his opponents, unilaterally changing the agreement with the Bank of New York to control the votes of most holders of American Depository Rights (ADRs).
Disgusted, many UES shareholders sold their shares.
Others are fighting on – calling an extraordinary shareholders meeting, complaining to Government, possibly suing.
The issue, again, is shareholder value, with shareholders worrying that billions of dollars are disappearing from the company.
Shareholders know of hundreds of agricultural enterprises, hotels, luxury villas, banks, investment companies and corporate jets owned by Gazprom.
Indeed, subsidiaries where managers hold shares through their children and other relatives – say, the huge construction company Stroitransgaz which has billion-dollar contracts with Gazprom – are created regularly and shareholders seem powerless to stop such practices.
Shareholders also hear of Gazprom providing financial guarantees to parties which – officially at least – have nothing to do with its business.
The possibility of being rejected in a real election would naturally make board members accountable to shareholders, indirectly making the executives accountable as well.
Companies with a public share worth less than $75 million were exempted, and shareholders who want to propose a slate must hold at least 3% of voting power of the company’s securities and have held it continuously for at least three years.
This unprecedented intrusion into areas historically reserved for the states would handcuff directors and boards, shut out the vast majority of retail shareholders, and exacerbate the short-term focus that is now seen as one of the root causes of the financial crisis.”
Ironically, in 2007, in response to an earlier SEC proposal to grant shareholders’ access to proxy, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen ampamp;Katz, a law firm famous for its anti-shareholders’-rights positions, used the opposite argument: “No real-world crisis has shown that the current system needs radical revision.
Following the suit, the SEC suspended not only the application of its rule mandating companies to grant access to qualified shareholders, but also a rule that was making it easier for shareholders to introduce a bylaw granting them access, even though the Business Roundtable had not challenged that rule.
Shell's Corrupt Shell Game in NigeriaUnder fire from shareholders, and facing investigations in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands for misrepresenting its oil reserves, Royal Dutch/Shell is trying to shift the blame to Nigeria.
While this was happening, the European counterparts of America's managers, with a few exceptions, have either been busy reconciling the demands of their “hard core” shareholders – composite groups of stakeholders, rarely united by common interests – or sought to secure government assistance and protection against international competition.
As majority shareholders in the multilateral development-bank system, the largest contributors of ODA have a key role to play in aligning public- and private-sector incentives.
As Holger Spamann and I show in our research, executive payoffs should be tied to the long-term value delivered not only to shareholders, but also to other contributors to banks’ capital.
As it is, bank executives expect to share in any gains that might flow to common shareholders, but they are insulated from the consequences that losses, produced by their choices, could impose on preferred shareholders, bondholders, depositors, or the government as a guarantor of deposits.
Insulating executives from losses to stakeholders other than shareholders can be expected to encourage them to make investments and take on obligations that increase the likelihood and severity of losses that exceed the shareholders’ capital.
Nevertheless, while such a compensation structure would lead executives to internalize the interests of preferred shareholders and bondholders, thereby improving incentives, it would be insufficient to induce executives to internalize fully the interests of the government as the guarantor of deposits.
In the past, bank executives’ bonuses were often based on accounting measures that are of interest primarily to common shareholders, such as return on equity or earnings per common share.
The common shareholders in financial firms do not have an incentive to induce executives to take into account the losses that risks can impose on preferred shareholders, bondholders, depositors, and taxpayers.
Consequently, governance improvements that make directors more focused on shareholder interests cannot be relied on to tie executive payoffs to the interests of shareholders and non-shareholders alike.
Getting executives to internalize perfectly the expected losses that their choices might impose on contributors of capital other than shareholders is complex.
It was the equivalent of a “Chapter 11” restructuring of American corporate debt, in which debt is swapped for equity, with bondholders becoming new shareholders.
The implicit pact between banks and savers was broken in late 2015, when four troubled local banks were bailed in and the shareholders took the hit.
They felt like powerless minority shareholders.
The plan fell apart when some major IMF shareholders could not accept the burden-sharing arrangements that would be necessary in case of losses due to exchange-rate movements.
In July 2014, the Permanent Court for Arbitration in The Hague ordered Russia to pay $50 billion to former shareholders of the oil company Yukos for having illegally bankrupted the firm and distributed its assets to Rosneft, a state-owned producer.
In a separate case, in June 2014 the ECHR ordered Russia to pay Yukos’s shareholders more than $2 billion “in respect of pecuniary damage.”
BackNext