The company said it would give shareholders the most convenient way to move forward with voting on resolutions from both itself and the New York hedge fund, whose net economic ownership position Telus described as “a mere” 0.02 per cent.
Through a variety of long and short positions, Mason Capital has a 20 per cent interest in Telus.
Telus wants to “collapse” its share structure which involves the conversion of non-voting shares into a common shares on a one-for-one basis.
New York-based Mason Capital sees Telus’s proposal as unfair and is seeking a higher conversion premium as Telus voting shares have historically traded higher than non-voting shares.
“Telus’ shareholders are exceedingly well informed and have a comprehensive understanding of both our share exchange proposal and the perspective communicated by Mason Capital,” said Telus’ president and CEO Darren Entwistle.
“I am looking forward to our meeting on October 17 and bringing this matter to a conclusion in a manner that is clear, convenient and fair for our shareholders.”
Monday, a Canadian court rejected a New York hedge fund’s attempt to challenge a share exchange proposal.
The court confirmed the validity of the order it had initially granted to Telus enabling the company’s shareholders to vote on its proposal to exchange non-voting shares for common shares on a one-for-one basis.
In a response, Mason Capital said it would pursue appeals of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
“Mason believes that these decisions disenfranchise the Telus voting shareholders,” the hedge fund said in a statement.
“First, a simple majority vote for the voting shareholders on the Telus arrangement is less than the law of British Columbia and Telus’ articles require, and less than Telus offered when it first sought to collapse its dual class structure.
“Second, as a result of the orders sought and obtained by Telus, the arrangement resolution and Mason’s proposals will be put to a vote without voting shareholders having been provided with complete information or a reasonable opportunity to consider and provide instructions on how their shares should be voted.”