Reference no: EM132938874

Question - Goodcorp holds its shareholder meetings in June. In January, four administrative assistants employed by Goodcorp, each of whom owns 3% of Goodcorp's outstanding shares entitled to vote at the meeting, submitted to the corporate secretary of Goodcorp three shareholder proposals.

a. The first proposed that Goodcorp appoint a special committee of the Board to review Goodcorp's charitable giving program and recommend to the full Board any changes to such program that would increase Goodcorp's reputation as a good corporate citizen. This proposal had been submitted for shareholder approval 3 years ago and was rejected by the shareholders.

b. The second proposed that Goodcorp's Article of Incorporation be amended to provide for cumulative voting in the election of directors.

c. The third proposed that salaries for Goodcorp administrative assistants be increased by 5% annually. Each of the administrative assistants had proposed such an increase to her supervisor within the past six months and each had been turned down.

The corporate secretary of Goodcorp sent a letter to the administrative assistants refusing to submit any of the proposals for a shareholder vote at the shareholders meeting in June. The administrative assistants filed suit to force the corporation to submit the proposals to Goodcorp's shareholders for a vote. How should the court rule as to each of the proposals? Please briefly explain each of your answers.