Salient Facts:

Key stakeholders, interest, and impact

How do the stock structure of Google and Under Armour compare to each other?

His B shares have 10 times the voting power of Class A shares the ones everyday investors can buy. Now, he
wants to issue a third class C shares which have no voting rights at all. Google Inc. took similar steps to
keep founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin firmly in control.

The main distinction between UA and UAA shares comes down to voting rights. UA stock, formerly trading under
the UA.C symbol, stands for Class C shares, with no voting rights. UAA stock, formerly trading under the symbol
UA, stands for Class A shares, which confer one vote per share to the owner.

Another small difference between UA stock and UAA stock results from this discrepancy in voting power.
Because Class A shares actually allow shareholders to vote on governance issues, UAA stock will typically trade
at a premium to UA stock, which doesn't have voting rights.

In April 2016, Under Armour shareholders received one share of Class C stock as a special dividend for every
Under Armour share they owned, allowing Under Armour to cut its stock price in half, just as it would have in a
2-for-1 split, without giving shareholders any additional voting power.

What are the voting rights for owners of A, B, and C shares? Who owns the majority of each?

That's because founder and CEO Kevin Plank owns tens of millions of Class B shares, which aren't traded publicly
and confer a disproportionate number of votes per share to him.

Under Armour would issue up to 400 million shares of Class C common stock, which will be listed on the New
York Stock Exchange. The company also plans to use Class C shares to compensate employees and make
acquisitions without diluting Plank's voting control.

Under Armour expects to issue Class C stock through a stock dividend to all existing holders of Under Armour's
Class A and Class B common stock, which will have the same effect as a two-for-one stock split. Each holder of a
share of Class A or Class B stock will receive one share of the new Class C stock. Except for voting rights, the Class
C stock will have the same rights as the existing Class A stock.

Why did the founders of these two firms originally choose to offer two tiers of stock (A & B)?

Why did they add a third class (C)?

Considering what Monks and Minow write regarding the rule one share, one vote, what concerns might shareholders
have?

In both cases, shareholders have launched lawsuits after the stock split. Why?

On the other hand, why do many shareholders seem unconcerned about the split? How might keeping control in the
hands of the founders benefit these companies?