Rogers won’t appeal B.C. court ruling on board fight

Rogers Communications Inc. says it won’t enchantment Friday’s British Columbia Supreme Court ruling which gave Edward Rogers regulate more than the board of a single of Canada’s most significant telecommunication companies.

On Sunday the firm issued a sparse push release containing one particular sentence.

“Rogers Communications Inc. declared currently that it will not seek an attraction of last week’s British Columbia Supreme Courtroom ruling.”

Edward, the son of the company’s founder Ted Rogers, used his authority as head of the loved ones have faith in — which retains 97.5 per cent of voting shares — to exchange various board customers with his possess hand-picked administrators following he was ousted as chair.

The lawful dispute began with Edward’s thwarted endeavor in September to oust CEO Joe Natale. When the board pushed again and rather fired the prospect Edward had in intellect for CEO, he commenced a campaign to remove five impartial administrators and switch them with his possess nominees.

The company’s primary board voted to clear away Edward as chair, but the new board subsequently re-elected him to the part. He filed a court docket petition last week in B.C. the place the organization is included. He sought confirmation that he could take out and replace the directors in composing and without having likely to a shareholder assembly.

(David Peterson, who is one of these impartial board members, is also vice-chair of Torstar Corp., which owns the Toronto Star.)

The telecom heir’s mom Loretta and sisters Martha Rogers and Melinda Rogers-Hixon (who are also board users) opposed the moves expressing they went versus the company’s governance procedures.

Spokespeople for equally Edward and Melinda declined remark on Sunday.

Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick on Friday affirmed Edward’s authority to make modifications to the board without the need of holding a shareholder meeting. She also awarded him authorized expenses in the circumstance.

Fitzpatrick concluded that the B.C. legislation, in live performance with the company articles or blog posts of Rogers, allow Edward as chair of the rely on to exchange administrators using just a published resolution and without having calling a shareholder conference.

In a assertion Friday, Loretta, Martha and Melinda known as the determination a “black eye for fantastic governance and shareholder rights (that) sets a dangerous new precedent for Canada’s capital markets by allowing the independent administrators of a community business to be removed with the stroke of a pen.”

“The organization now faces a pretty authentic prospect of management upheaval and a prolonged period of time of uncertainty, at most likely the worst doable time,” the three included.

Edward’s opponents concern major improvements to the management team could be coming just as the business tries to seal its program to obtain Shaw Communications Inc. for $26 billion (like financial debt).

Edward claimed on Friday that he took “no pleasure in the selection or the gatherings of the previous weeks” and that the ruling confirms that he “acted appropriately, in accordance with Rogers’s articles and relevant company regulation.”

With documents from Christine Dobby and The Canadian Push