MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277813538 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1058

Was Magna in the Public Interest?

2011· article· en· W2277813538 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anita Anand

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic interestPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THE RECENT COLLAPSE OF Magna's dual-class share structure was one of the largest sale of control transactions in Canadian history.The transaction involved the purchase by Magna of all of the Class B (preference) shares-constituting 0.6 per cent of the equity but 66 per cent of the voting rights--owned by the Stronach Trust, the holding entity of Frank Stronach, in exchange for US $300 million and nine million Class A subordinate voting shares.'The effect of the transaction was a significant dilution of the Class A shares as well as a premium paid to the Stronach Trust of approximately 1,800 per cent.The Magna board neither made a recommendation to shareholders nor provided them with a valuation or fairness opinion.The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) declined to stop the transaction under its public interest power.The OSC reasoned that regardless of its own views regarding the fairness of the transaction, the Class A shareholders should decide whether to accept the transaction by a vote, which is required as part of the statutory arrangement process. 2 The OSC's decision was flawed.To determine the fate of minority shareholders, the OSC relied on both the shareholder vote and the Ontario Superior Court ofJustice's application of the "fair and reasonable" test pertaining to the law of arrangements.3 The OSC did not consider whether the transaction would be injurious to minority shareholders specifically or to capital markets generally if permitted to proceed.It thus did not fully consider the public interest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207