This is a change. In the US period of hostile takeover bids (before the '86 - '87 events; i.e. indictment of Boesky & destruction of Drexel), attempts to get US unions to play through pressuring the fund managers (by, among others, my old comrade then semi-leftie risk arb Roger Alcaly, who was well trounced this summer on LBO-list for his NYRofBooks piece blowjobbing Greenspan) got nowhere.
This Vodafone statement looks like it got a thorough going-over by lawyers for the fiduciary duty stuff Nathan is learning about. Having litigated fiduciary duty more than a bit, as you will find out, Nathan, discretion will trump fiduciary duty 9 times out of 10.
Also tried & got shot down with the extortion/RICO bit when fiduciary duty got nowhere in greenmail cases (check out Viacom v. Icahn, 2d Cir 1991 - don't have full cite here) & my old tax prof Joe Sneed - sitting by designation - asked if we were intending to outlaw capitalism! On behalf of Viacom! (that's precisely how I saw it of course, but not what we told Viacom's in-house counsel).
US Courts have a most excellent nose for the class interests of the US ruling class, and attempts affirmatively to use the courts to challenge those interests head-on are a dumb waste of time. Tom ("how many lawyers can fit on the head of a pin") is surely correct. But lefty lawyers have in the past had an interesting role in these inter-ruling class conflicts (like Vodafone) - Nathan, put our predecessor Abe Pomerantz' name into Westlaw & check out his career - & it's good to see the "Office of Investment" trying to be a player in Vodafone.
john mage