Canadian operator Telus and New York hedge fund Mason Capital Management have buried the hatchet after a bitter feud over the telco’s plan to collapse its dual-class share structure.
Telus said that it can now proceed with the share exchange after…
Canadian operator Telus and New York hedge fund Mason Capital Management have buried the hatchet after a bitter feud over the telco’s plan to collapse its dual-class share structure.
Telus said that it can now proceed with the share exchange after Mason agreed to abandon all litigation relating to the swap.
The wireless operator said the agreement did not include a payment.
New York hedge fund Mason Capital had fiercely opposed the exchange, arguing that the 1:1 conversion ratio did not reflect the “superior value” of the existing common shares, which have historically traded 4%-5% higher than the non-voting shares.
“Having a single class of widely-traded shares is going to benefit all of our shareholders through enhanced trading volumes, liquidity and marketability,” said Telus’ CEO Darren Entwistle.
The operator expects that its approximately 151 million outstanding non-voting shares will be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange on 5 February and from the Toronto Stock Exchange on 8 February.
An equivalent number of additional Telus common shares would then be listed and begin trading on the NYSE for the first time under the symbol “TU,” the same symbol under which Telus’ non-voting shares have traded on the exchange.
Telus expects the additional Telus common shares issued as a result of the exchange will be listed and begin trading on the TSX on 11 February.
Telus will have a single class of approximately 326 million common shares listed and trading on both the TSX and NYSE.
Telus announced its intention to collapse its dual-class share structure in February this year but its first attempt failed in May after Mason effectively blocked it.
The battle between the operator and the firm has been acrimonious with Telus accusing Mason of empty voting.
In October Telus received the necessary approvals from shareholders, however Mason was unhappy and took the operator to court. That litigation had continued up until today.
