There will be a single class F share that will allow the holder 50.1% voting rights.

***

I find it absurd that such a thing is ever permitted. I suppose since it is all disclosed up front, people voluntarily invest into 90+% of the company while agreeing to never have true control of it. Would WEB ever agree to such a thing?

He has, but typically it depended greatly on his judgment of the investee's management and business.

In 2025 Q3, Buffett initiated the purchase of what became (as of June 30, 2026) 78.8 million shares of Alphabet Class A common stock, with one vote apiece; and 27.2 million shares of Alphabet Class C common stock, with zero votes apiece. This is in contrast to the 748.0 million shares of Alphabet Class B super-voting common stock owned by cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, with ten votes apiece (a few others also own some Class B shares).

The following was pieced together from my untrustworthy memory and a little AI sleuthing:

In addition, I think the following are true, or close enough for jazz: I think Buffett voluntarily gave up his Capital Cities / ABC voting power by handing his voting proxy directly to CEO Tom Murphy in 1985 or so. In 1992 or so, I believe Buffett granted his General Dynamics voting proxy to CEO William Anders.

And The Washington Post protected its independence through a dual-class share structure. The Graham family owned Class A shares, which held the vast majority of the company's voting control. Berkshire owned Class B shares, which were primarily economic but carried limited voting rights. Buffett always retained his right to vote his Class B shares; however, he vocally supported proposals that mathematically reinforced the Graham family's voting dominance, meaning he never had to surrender his proxy because the family already held an ironclad grip on the company.