Champagne wishes and caviar dreams are now but a memory for billionaire shareholder-activist Carl Icahn, who lost about $125 million today by selling off 16 percent of his ever-losing stake in Yahoo.

The sale of 12.7 million shares at just under $15 a piece is a far cry from the hopes that the famously prickly Icahn had when he started his quest to bring about change and riches for himself by investing in the stock of the turmoil-plagued Internet giant in 2008.

Icahn went far in waging a proxy fight for control of the Yahoo (YHOO) board.

He got on the board all right, along with nabbing two other seats, but that’s about all he got.

No $40-billion-plus sale to Microsoft (MSFT), a much lesser search deal and yet another troubled investment for Icahn in a year of troubled investments.

As it turned out, he came to Silicon Valley, he saw, he did not conquer.

Nonetheless, Icahn still has a 4.5 percent stake in Yahoo, or about 63 million shares.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Icahn said the move was to balance his portfolio, but that he still was bullish on Yahoo, its recent search deal with Microsoft and Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz.

Which is also rich, given that she just dissed him again publicly in a piece in Forbes, tossing off a saucy insult:

“Icahn is just another shareholder. What’s he going to do, fire me?”

Well, in a tiny little step today, he kind of did that to Yahoo.

Okay, BoomTown arrived late to Yahoo’s media event this morning to show off its “open” strategies across its properties (I had a most excellent excuse in that it was my youngest son’s very first day of school).

So, walking in, it was kind of jarring to hear Yahoo Media Group head Scott Moore talking about an email demo that had preceded his presentation–and which he had missed himself–about adding social elements.

“I always think of the media properties as the sexy [part of Yahoo],” said Moore. “But that kind of made mail sexy.”

Sexy email! Yahoo is saved!

Well, the jury is still out on that.

But it was nice to see Yahoo execs actually talking about the various products they’re working on at the troubled company rather than seeing them hide away in fear of questions about proxy fights and hostile takeovers.

That has, of course, been the only story of Yahoo (YHOO) for far too long–about corporate and management turmoil, as well as worrisome stock declines.

Because of that, it is obviously in Yahoo’s best interests to change the narrative and talk about the product innovations it is making to reinvigorate itself.

Thus, Moore (pictured here) showed off a new look for Yahoo’s news properties, including substantially more third-party content integration and interchangeable modules.

It’s not a new idea, by any stretch, but it looks like a good change.

“Our users are in control,” said Moore. “We’re not doing this open thing because it is the flavor of the month.”

Added Moore, co-opting the famous line from country singer Barbara Mandrell: “We were open before open was cool.”

Sexy! Well, not really, but nice try!

Next up, Yahoo U.S. EVP Hilary Schneider on open in advertising and the Google (GOOG) deal.

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 could happen.

That specific scenario of putting someone like the two former Internet execs (they ran Fox Interactive Media and AOL, respectively) in charge of the troubled Web giant is one of the many being bandied about, as Yahoo shares tumble and the company heads toward a potentially ugly annual meeting everyone involved desperately wants to avoid.

In fact, Yahoo’s board and major investors are talking today about various options for the company, including Yahoo’s receptivity to a sweetened deal with Microsoft and also other ways to pull the asset-rich company out of its stock doldrums.

It is not likely to be a very chummy meeting, of course, considering Yahoo’s stock (see this depressing chart to the right) has been drifting inexorably downward with nary a lifesaver in sight.

Yahoo shares sunk ever closer to $20 (it closed today at $20.66, down more than three percent)–a worrisome crossing of the digital Rubicon for the company, given that it makes Yahoo more vulnerable to all sorts of Wall Street machinations.

Besides allowing other large companies like News Corp. (NWS) and Comcast (CMCSA) to consider bids for Yahoo–both have been watching the situation very carefully, sources said–it also opens Yahoo up to attacks from more rapacious private equity investors.

And there is a lot of machinating already, of course, as I have found poking around, with more to come.

Like what?

Like Yahoo back in discussions with AOL once again. Sources close to the situation said that the idea of hooking the pair up have been revived, as Yahoo looks to strengthen itself and Time Warner (TWX) searches for any way to spin off a division it has never been able to juice up.

Of course, Microsoft has also been sniffing around the property too–and almost bought AOL several years ago–and would be unlikely to sit still and let Yahoo grab AOL’s most attractive asset, its Platform A online advertising unit.

(Memo to Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes: You’re known as a smooth deal-maker, so paste on that million-dollar smile and get dealing!)

And, more interestingly, are the moves to try to find another CEO and top leadership to come in and run the company instead of Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and President Sue Decker.

(I had previously posted on possible picks for that job here.)

That could come in either a friendly or non-friendly approach, according to several people close to the situation.

Under the friendly scenario, Yang would voluntarily step aside–and even be upped to non-executive chairman status–while a new CEO and team would be put in place.

A less dulcet approach, which would require an aggressive move by Yahoo’s board–who make head-in-the-sand ostriches seem active–against Yang directly is less likely.

Still, many investors, increasing numbers of employees and even some Yahoo board members have lost confidence in Yang and Decker, who have been trying to set a new course for the company.

But does a new course require new leaders?

Levinsohn and Miller (pictured here, left to right), who now run an online-focused investment fund called Velocity Interactive, are two high-profile former Web execs mentioned most frequently by major Yahoo investors as candidates for that idea.

Sources said could either come in as board members or actually run the company for a time period, while searching for a new CEO, like OpenTable’s Jeff Jordan, Google’s Tim Armstrong or even Microsoft’s Kevin Johnson.

Such as plan could include additional investments by new investors and critical buy-in by current investors–including billionaire activist Carl Icahn, who is waging a proxy fight against Yahoo that is set to come to a head at the Aug. 1 annual meeting.

Most important would likely be cooperation from Microsoft too, which could offer to also buy some of Yahoo and also sweeten its search-ad deal.

It would also require a new plan for Yahoo, which will likely include job cuts and a more drastic refocusing of its business that perhaps only outsiders can do.

As its founder, not surprisingly, Yang has been slow to make the kinds of deep changes many think Yahoo requires to reinvent itself, and Decker has been part of the team that has gotten the company mired in its current state.

While this all sounds incredibly complex, all scenarios point in one inevitable direction: Massive change is coming to Yahoo in the next 30 days, one way or another.