Rio Tinto, the $160 billion global mining giant, has successfully resisted an activist investor's push to review its dual-listed structure, with shareholders overwhelmingly voting against the proposal. The London-based hedge fund Palliser Capital had sought to unify the company's listings under a single Australian entity, arguing that the current structure is outdated and could unlock significant value for shareholders. However, less than 20% of the votes cast at the annual general meetings supported the review, falling short of the threshold required under UK corporate governance rules to mandate further consultation.

The outcome represents a significant victory for Rio Tinto's board, which had strongly opposed the proposal, citing potential tax costs in the mid-single digit billions of US dollars and asserting that unification is not in the best interests of shareholders or the company as a whole. The board's stance was supported by a wide consultation with shareholders, who ultimately agreed that the dual-listed structure should remain in place. This decision underscores the challenges activist investors face when attempting to sway large, established corporations with complex global operations.

Palliser Capital's campaign had drawn parallels with BHP's decision to move its primary listing to Sydney in 2022, following pressure from activist investors. However, Rio Tinto's shareholders, particularly those holding UK-listed stock which comprises about 77% of the investor base, showed little appetite for change. The Australian-listed shares, trading at a premium of about 25%, reflect the tax advantages available to Australian shareholders, a factor that may have influenced the voting outcome.

The rejection of Palliser's proposal also highlights the broader debate about the future of London's stock market, which has seen several high-profile companies consider or execute moves away from the UK. Despite these challenges, Rio Tinto's decision to maintain its dual-listed structure signals confidence in the current setup, at least for the foreseeable future. The company's ability to fend off the activist campaign may serve as a case study for other corporations facing similar pressures, demonstrating the importance of board-shareholder alignment in corporate governance decisions.

Families of the 29 victims killed in the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash are escalating their decades-long fight for answers, preparing to deliver a petition with more than 47,000 signatures to Downing Street demanding a public inquiry. The Chinook Justice Campaign has published 110 "critical questions" they want answered about the tragedy that claimed the lives of 25 intelligence experts and four special forces crew members when the aircraft crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on June 2, 1994.

The campaign comes after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer rejected calls for a judge-led inquiry into the incident, prompting families to declare they will "see the UK government in court." Among those delivering the petition on Tuesday are brothers Andy and Matt Tobias from Watford, whose father John Tobias was killed in the crash. The petition delivery will be accompanied by an attempt to deliver a letter directly to the Ministry of Defence.

Central to the families' concerns are questions about mission authorization, aircraft selection, and whether those on board were properly warned of risks. The campaign has gained momentum amid revelations that key documents related to the crash have been sealed until 2094—a century after the incident occurred. David Hill, technical expert for the Chinook Justice Campaign, characterized the government's position as "a betrayal by the state of them and their loved ones."

The crash investigation has followed a contentious path over the past three decades. Initial findings blamed pilot error for the tragedy, but this conclusion was overturned in 2011. The continuing secrecy surrounding the incident has drawn criticism from campaigners who argue it "undermines trust not only in the MoD but in the government itself." As families prepare to confront the government directly, the case represents one of Britain's longest-running military accountability battles.