Yesterday–in a patented playbook move–some top Microsoft execs didn’t miss a chance to slap around Yahoo over its shareholder vote debacle, letting it be known to industry insiders (on the very loud QT, of course) that the Internet company knew full well that its biggest investor, Capital Research & Management, was going to vote a large number of shares against it.

Thus, it was just a hop, skip and a leak before their sentiments got hand-delivered to the doorstep of BoomTown HQ.

In essence, Microsofties are arguing that knowledge of a major investor’s dissatisfaction should have prompted Yahoo (YHOO) to question its unusually positive voting results at its annual meeting on Friday and ask the outside voting tabulator to recheck its numbers before officially releasing them.

As it turned out, the tally by Broadside Financial Solutions, an outside firm that conducts the tabulating for investors, was highly inaccurate related to the number of shares withheld by investors for particular board members.

As reported Friday, for example, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang only had 14.6 percent of shareholder votes withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him, which was better than the year before.

The new results saw Yang’s disapproval more than double what was previously reported, rising to 33.7 percent.

This huge delta was due to errors in counting the no votes from funds owned by Capital Research, which holds an overall stake of about 17 percent in Yahoo.

“They had to see the discrepancies,” said one source close to Microsoft’s (MSFT) thinking. “Yahoo was hoping no one would notice.”

While BoomTown is careful to consider the sources here–the collapse of Microsoft’s takeover bid for Yahoo has left quite a bit of acrimony between the pair–they actually might have a point.

Sources at Capital Research certainly agree, saying they unequivocally told Yahoo leadership that they were going to withhold a substantial number of votes from certain members of the company’s board.

Those targeted included Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and Chairman Roy Bostock (pictured here), as well as several other board members.

“They knew our intention,” said one source at Capital, referring the many news stories about, in particular, the disgruntlement of Capital Research Global Investors fund head Gordon Crawford. “Everyone knew.”

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and its Capital World Investors fund owns 9.8 percent.

As this column previously reported, Capital Research’s proxy committees had recommended to its various funds that they withhold votes from Yahoo leadership.

But sources familiar with Yahoo’s thinking said that while the company was surprised by the better-than-expected vote last Friday announced after the meeting.

They noted that while opposition was a “little light,” Yahoo could not tell exactly which votes came from where.

Yahoo sources acknowledged that while the company was well aware of the unhappiness from Capital Research, they received no definitive communication–such as a letter–outlining its exact voting intent.

They also assert that Capital Research’s many custodians who handled the voting for the investment giant’s many funds made have made the voting more difficult to parse.

In addition, Yahoo sources said that Capital Research waited until late in the week to vote, which also added to the confusion.

The new correct vote did not impact the re-election of Yahoo’s current directors, although the much lower numbers for leaders like Yang and Bostock are a significant sign that they are actually operating from a much weaker position.

It is a weakness that a company like Microsoft, as well as other critics calling for Yang and Bostock’s ouster, could take advantage of in the coming months, especially if Yahoo stumbles in any way.

In any case, Yahoo was not at fault for the tabulating errors made by Broadridge, mistakes which were corrected today.

Sources at Yahoo said the company did not think there were problems until Capital Research called Yahoo and Broadridge about problems in the vote.

“We double-checked their results,” said a source close to Yahoo about the wrong numbers the company received from Broadridge Friday. “But mistakes got made.”

That, in fact, is the definitive understatement of this whole mess.

Broadridge Financial Solutions’ corrected tabulation of the vote at the Yahoo annual meeting on Aug. 1, without the “truncation errors,” came out and, it seems, shareholders are actually mighty irked at Yahoo leadership.

Most glaringly, the new result shows Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s disapproval more than double what was previously reported, rising from 14.6 percent votes withheld to 33.7 percent. Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock saw his shares withheld rise from 20.5 percent to 39.6 percent.

Yang (pictured here), who has been under fire for his management of Yahoo (YHOO), is likely to now endure yet another round of questioning about whether he should stay in his job in the wake of this massive show of disapproval by investors.

Here is part of Yahoo’s press release, with the correct and incorrect tables below:

Yahoo! Acknowledges Tabulation Error by Broadridge

Jerry Yang (893,055,602/85.4%; 153,039,982/14.6%)

Here’s the full statement (below) from the outside firm, Broadridge Financial Solutions, that tabulated Yahoo’s recent shareholder vote.

Bottom line: An underreporting of shares withheld for certain directors, which the Lake Success, N.Y., shareholder services firm is calling an “isolated incident” and also a “truncation error.”

That sounds painful.

And it is likely Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang will feel much of that pain, as sources said the shares are largely those that were withheld from him by disgruntled shareholders.

While the mistake will not change the vote’s overall outcome, in which all current Yahoo (YHOO) directors were re-elected, it will surely make the no-vote tally worse than first reported for many directors, and underline more clearly the increased investor disappointment directed at Yahoo leadership.

As reported Friday, for example, Yang only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him, which was better than the year before.

A Yahoo spokesman said the company was redoing its results, based on the new information, and would release the new numbers soon. The Internet company did not do the vote tabulation.

The examination of the results was prompted by an unusually positive Yahoo shareholder vote, when it did not seem to include the withheld votes of one major Yahoo shareholder.

Thus, Capital Research & Management asked Broadridge for a recount of its votes.

The problem centered on how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting, specifically related to a group of votes withheld by Capital Research Global Investors.

That fund owns almost seven percent of Yahoo, and its head, Gordon Crawford, had recommended withholding votes from Yahoo.

Here is the statement from Chuck Callan, Senior Vice President Regulatory Affairs at Broadridge:

On August 4, Broadridge was notified by an investor of a potential discrepancy in a reported vote at the Yahoo Annual Meeting on August 1.

On August 4th Broadridge notified Yahoo’s Inspector of Elections and Tabulator of the problem, and a revised report was issued on August 5th.

All Yahoo needs now is for former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to show up and start recounting votes.

It could happen, given all the crazy characters who have been drawn to the much-beleaguered Internet company like a magnet, in 2008.

It’s almost as if there is a voodoo curse on Yahoo (YHOO).

So, you didn’t think the digital gods would let it have more than one weekend of good news, did you?

No, they will not, it seems.

After the annual meeting last Friday, which went off without a hitch and, more importantly, without an expected major shareholder vote against the company’s management and board, you could feel a palpable easing of tension among Yahoo leadership and its exhausted PR team.

By Monday, the Yahoo shareholder kerfuffle–in essence, one major shareholder of Yahoo has asked for its outside tabulator of investor votes at the annual meeting for a recount–had landed with a thud.

The problem is how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting, specifically around whether a group of votes withheld by Capital Research Global Investors was not counted, counted incorrectly or even voted incorrectly by the investor.

Parent company Capital Research & Management confirmed that it had asked Broadridge Financial Solutions, a Lake Success, N.Y.-based financial services company that does securities clearing and processing, to investigate whether those votes were correctly counted on behalf of its Capital Research Global Investors fund.

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and Capital World Investors owns 9.8 percent.

Capital Research Global Investors is run by legendary media investor Gordon Crawford (pictured here), who has become disenchanted with Yahoo over the last year.

Because of that, sources close to the fund’s thinking said Crawford had recommended that the fund withhold votes from CEO Jerry Yang and some other board members.

It’s not clear whether that actually happened or, if it did, whether the votes were tallied properly.

That’s because Yang, for example, only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him.

The votes withheld seemed low to Capital, considering Crawford’s large stake and how many shareholders have been deeply unhappy with Yahoo management this year.

Instead, overall results for Yang and the Yahoo board were mostly better than last year.

Everyone is investigating, of course–from Capital Research to Broadridge to Yahoo, which does not do its own tabulation, although it has hired an outside proxy solicitor to manage the process–to try to find out what’s what.

It is likely there’s a nonsinister reason for the voting results.

And there might be a lot of possible explanations, but I am partial to blaming the confusion that followed after activist investor Carl Icahn pulled his proxy fight a week before the meeting and made nice with Yahoo.

Unfortunately, Icahn’s golden proxy ballot was already in the hands of investors, many of whom might have voted for it and then had that vote essentially voided.

Wrote one BoomTown reader and Yahoo shareholder:

“I hold 23,000 shares of YHOO. I had 17,000 on the date of record. I voted to ‘withhold all’ … I think twice. Then I voted for all of Carl’s team. Now I have learned that the Carl votes did not count and a day AFTER the annual meeting I received my new ballot. I wonder how many other people were disenfranchised??? Who can I complain to?? Is this how Jerry got his support??”

Another commenter on the site also wrote:

“As a stockholder, I was curious *which* of my proxy letters actually was counted–I received four. One was from Icahn, the other three were from Yahoo. The last of which arrived today, August 4th. Does this strike anyone as odd?”

Actually, Yahoo’s twisting journey passed odd a long time ago and is now headed toward “The X-Files” territory.

(So let’s all triple-hope Yang’s upcoming trip to China for the Olympics goes smoothly. Have a good time, Jerry, we’ll be back here counting!)

There is a mini-tempest brewing over how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting last Friday, specifically around whether a group of votes withheld by one of Yahoo’s major shareholders was not counted, counted incorrectly or even voted incorrectly by the investor.

According to sources close to the thinking at Capital Research & Management, the proxy committees for its two large funds that hold a significant stake in Yahoo (YHOO) recommended last week that they withhold votes specifically from CEO Jerry Yang and from various board members, such as Chairman Roy Bostock, to register disappointment with their performance.

Thus, the investment fund confirmed it had approached outside vote tabulator Broadridge Financial Solutions, a Lake Success, N.Y.-based financial services company that does securities clearing and processing, to investigate whether those votes were correctly counted on behalf of its Capital Research Global Investors fund.

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and Capital World Investors owns 9.8 percent.

Capital Research Global Investors’ investor Gordon Crawford has been vocal about his disappointment with Yang and the board at Yahoo.

And sources close to the fund’s thinking said Crawford recommended that it withhold votes from Yang and some other board members.

Capital World Investors has been less critical of Yahoo, but sources said it was also leaning toward voting at least some of its stake against the company’s leadership.

But Yang, for example, only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him. Bostock fared worse, grabbing only 79.5 percent of the yes vote, with 20.5 percent withheld.

That would mean, assuming a large part of Capital Research’s votes to withhold were counted, that only a few other investors voted against Yahoo.

This is highly unusual in a year when many shareholders have been deeply unhappy with its management.

But, in fact, overall results for both Yang and Bostock were actually better than last year.

I called Broadridge for comment and am awaiting a response.

Yahoo does not do its own tabulation, which must be done by a third party, although it has hired MacKenzie Partners as a proxy solicitor to manage the process.

Said a spokesman in response to my inquiry about the situation:

“The independent inspector of elections certified the results of the election and Yahoo! accurately announced those results. Yahoo! did not participate in the execution of the votes and was not a party to any errors which may have been made either by a voting institution or a proxy processing intermediary acting on behalf of banks, brokers and institutions.”

While the recommendations of the proxy committees at Capital Research are apparently not binding on some individual directors of smaller funds that make up the larger ones, they typically follow along with the overall decision from the top.

They might not have in this case, of course, or they might not have voted the shares at all, although it is also possible they could have voted incorrectly or that the votes were not tallied properly.

This is better than a hanging chad!

Another unusual issue around the voting: The amazing drop in the number of shares that were voted at all.

In 2008’s shareholder tally (see below for individual director numbers), only 75.8 percent, or 1,046,095,584 out of 1,381,008,701 possible share votes, were cast.

There were 1,205,435,371 votes cast in 2007 and 1,276,175,601 in 2006, a much higher percentage of overall votes.

Sources at Yahoo speculated that this could be due to the fact that most investors vote automatically in an uncontested election and were waiting for an outcome in the proxy fight between activist investor Carl Icahn and Yahoo.

After that issue was settled right before the annual meeting, though, some investors might not have even bothered to vote.

More to come, but here are the pertinent stats on the Yahoo vote as of Friday:

Roy J. Bostock (Shares for: 832,023,657/79.5 %; Shares Withheld: 214,071,927/20.5%)

Ronald W. Burkle (849,373,291/81.2%; 196,722,293/18.8%)

Eric Hippeau (948,862,579/90.7%; 97,233,005/9.3%)

Vyomesh Joshi (971,594,650/92.9%; 74,500,934/7.1%)

Arthur H. Kern (814,871,925/77.9%; 231,223,659 /22.1%)

Robert A. Kotick (967,044,818; 92.4%; 79,050,766/7.6%)

Mary Agnes Wilderotter (964,939,727/92.2%; 81,155,857/7.8%)

Gary L. Wilson (856,006,576/81.8%; 190,089,008/18.2%)

Jerry Yang (893,055,602/85.4%; 153,039,982/14.6%)

It is not exactly news that influential major Yahoo investor Gordon Crawford (pictured here) was displeased with Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, given the amount of money Crawford must have lost by now, backing the troubled Internet company.

While BoomTown referenced it in a more veiled way last week, the New York Post yesterday reported that the Capital Research Global Investors honcho was considering withholding votes from Yang and others on its current board at Yahoo’s annual meeting Friday to show his unhappiness publicly.

More to the point, I would assume the move is to perhaps prompt others to ponder whether Yang should remain in his current job for much longer.

What effect that will have on Yang, though, will probably be negligible–except for perhaps feeling badly, as he has great regard for Crawford–because I think he has never been more determined to stay put.

In fact, I predict a series of partnerships and high-profile announcements–starting this week ahead of the annual meeting–to give Yahoo and Yang the image of momentum they dearly need.

While many kibitz over Yang’s fate and wonder who activist investor Carl Icahn is dreaming of replacing him with once he gets on board (AOL’s Jon Miller? Google’s Tim Armstrong?) at the company, I think Yang is aiming at finally getting the chance to prove he can run Yahoo without the Sturm and Drang of a hostile takeover hanging over him.

Yang (pictured here) clearly thinks he deserves more time to turn around Yahoo’s core businesses and improve employee morale.

And he will probably get it, if he wants to stay, because there is actually no one who can effectively oust him, until, that is, Yahoo (YHOO) stock drops to the mid-teens based on troublesome future financial signals.

That could come if the Google (GOOG) search-ad outsourcing deal does not pan out as well as expected, for example, especially in the current economic downturn, or if Yang cannot hang onto the talent he has left to work with.

But all these chickens, should they come home to roost, are at least six to nine months away, the same amount of time Yang has been caught in Yahoo’s current Twilight Zone of mess.

Of course, due to all that, Yang’s tenure has been particularly rocky, almost since he took over in a rush from former CEO Terry Semel.

It was at last year’s board meeting on June 12 that Yang told those assembled that he had no interest in filling the then-open CTO slot, even jokingly saying he preferred to play golf.

Of course, he was in the CEO seat within a week, part of some still-mysterious moves that got Semel out and Yang in.

Does it feel like 134 years since then, or is it just me?

It certainly must feel like a long time to Yang, although he seems only to have gotten more emboldened throughout this whole circus, made up largely of what feels like an endless series of freak acts.

Such hijinks are a nightmare to mannered investors like Crawford, who frowns on such behavior from all sides and tries to convince the leadership of companies he invests in to act with more realism and less emotion.

Too bad the Yahoo situation has been a soap opera from the start, which is definitely not what Crawford likes.

I wrote about the troubled relationship between Crawford and Yahoo when the threat of a proxy fight by Icahn was still looming.

Sources then told me that Crawford was considering backing Icahn, who is not exactly his first choice. But his dissatisfaction with Yahoo leadership was by then running very deep.

I also posted, for Yang’s benefit, an excerpt from my second book about how the normally polite, erudite and calm Crawford had finally had enough with AOL Time Warner’s (TWX) Steve Case and helped give him the heave-ho many years ago.

Crawford’s Capital Research Global Investors fund–one of two separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings. (Capital World Investors, which is not run by Crawford, owns 9.8 percent.)

Thus, when he wants to, Crawford can wield a mighty cudgel–and a vote of “no confidence” by withholding votes, especially such a big stake, would clearly look bad for Yang, even if it were largely a symbolic move.

But bad does not mean fatal, and it could be, once again, that Yang will live to fight yet another day.

Called “The Comeback Id” (oh, how pun-ny!), the article has gotten a lot of attention for pointing out the rampant speculation that Clinton’s well-known penchant for marital infidelity had returned.

And the reason for that disturbing development, besides Clinton himself? The piece actually placed a good bit of the blame on Clinton’s close friend, grocery magnate and billionaire Ron Burkle (pictured here), who also has been one of the key directors at Yahoo (YHOO) in its takeover fight with Microsoft (MSFT).

It’s a wonder Burkle can focus on the turmoil at Yahoo, given how busy he appears to be in the article corrupting Clinton both personally and–worse–professionally, via some questionable investments the pair had made through Burkle’s Yucaipa Companies.

Writer Todd Purdum paints a decidedly unattractive picture of Burkle, noting even the tasteless nickname of Burkle’s plane these days, in a portrayal so rough that Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s tough treatment by the press recently looks like a walk in the park.

Well, almost.

In what amounts to a rant by Carl Icahn (pictured here), The Wall Street Journal gives the billionaire investor lots of room to kvetch about what he thinks of Yang, including asserting that he will oust the Yahoo founder if he wins his proxy fight against the company.

“I am amazed at the lengths that Jerry Yang and the board went to entrench themselves in this situation,” said Icahn.

Apparently, Icahn was the only one who didn’t get the memo that Yahoo has been consistently obstreperous about Microsoft’s many overtures, since–well, let’s do the exact calculations–forever. And a day.

Still, Icahn perseveres and hangs this old entrenched management chestnut on a lawsuit that was recently filed by shareholders that points to the massive and costly severance plan Yahoo sneakily put into place as a ploy to fend off Microsoft.

“It’s no longer a mystery to me why Microsoft’s offer isn’t around,” Icahn said. “How can Yahoo keep saying they’re willing to negotiate and sell the company on the one hand, while at the same time they’re completely sabotaging the process without telling anyone.”

How? By Yang opening his mouth, that’s how, and then doing nothing much.

As a student of this lugubrious style of Olympic dithering, I would point Icahn to Yang’s 100-day Sacred Cow VisionQuest, well before this soap opera got started.

You need to catch up pronto, Carl!

And speaking of people irked by Yang of late, investor Gordon Crawford (pictured here) also made some news yesterday with his investment in Veoh Networks, part of a $30 million round that included Intel Capital and Adobe Systems (ADBE).

Existing investors in the not-YouTube video service–Shelter Capital, Spark Capital, Goldman Sachs (GS), Michael Eisner’s Tornante Company, Time Warner Investments (TWX) and Jonathan Dolgen–also ponied up more money.

Crawford, the SVP of Capital Research Global Investors, manages a massive portfolio, and it is one of Yahoo’s biggest shareholders.

And, unlike Veoh, Yahoo is an investment Crawford has not been happy with recently.

“I am extremely angry at Jerry Yang and at the so-called independent board,” he said in an interview a month ago. “I’m hoping that there is such an outpouring of outrage that the board is embarrassed into revisiting this thing, but I’m not optimistic about that.”

And by independent board, by the way, he meant directors like–you guessed it–Ron Burkle!

At least Burkle’s not to blame for the so-so, lots-and-lots-missing–Google? What Google? (GOOG)–piece in the same Vanity Fair issue, an oral history of the Internet.

Called “How the Web Was Won,” it makes the founding of the world’s most important medium seem awfully dull.

I’d recommend instead–as any sentient being would–the cover story on Angelina Jolie, with this sharp quote from her: “In my father’s generation, the product was 80% of what you were putting into the world, and your personal life was 20%. It now seems that 80% of the product I put out is silly, made-up stories and what I’m wearing.”

Or not wearing, in the case of the pictures of Jolie in this article.

Yesterday, the powerful portfolio manager at Yahoo’s largest investor, Gordon Crawford (pictured here) of Capital Research Global Investors, a division of Capital Research & Management Co., made some very public and very harsh remarks directed at Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang for blowing the Microsoft (MSFT) deal.

All told, between two funds, Capital Research owns 16% of Yahoo. The fund run by Crawford, a legendary money manager and media power broker, holds 6% of that total. No surprise, then, that those funds took a big hit yesterday after the Microsoft takeover bid for Yahoo collapsed.

So a lot of people paid attention yesterday when Crawford, in a high-profile interview with The Wall Street Journal, laid into Yang (pictured here) in such an in-your-face manner.

Said Crawford: “I’m extremely disappointed in Jerry Yang. I think he overplayed a weak hand.”

Crawford was fuming even more to the New York Times yesterday:

“I am extremely angry at Jerry Yang and at the so-called independent board. … I’m hoping that there is such an outpouring of outrage that the board is embarrassed into revisiting this thing, but I’m not optimistic about that.”

Uh-oh, because BoomTown has seen this story before.

It was back in 2002 and the exec under Crawford’s withering gaze then was former AOL Time Warner (TWX) Chairman Steve Case (pictured here).

Jerry Yang might want to take notes, as the situations are a little too familiar to ignore.

Thus, here is a longish excerpt from my book, “There Must Be a Pony In Here Somewhere,” which shows just how active and relentless Crawford can be as an investor when he gets irked by execs who disappoint him:

Gordon Crawford was still very, very angry.

“He did not do it to embarrass Steve,” said this person. “Steve was just a festering boil at AOL that needed to be cauterized and removed.”

Note: Case resigned on Jan. 12, 2003.