Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.1(d): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Sleep assured that, however conceptually difficult — ''logically'' difficult — such a feat might be, if someone ''does'' manage it then {{icds}} has your — or her — back. | Sleep assured that, however conceptually difficult — ''logically'' difficult — such a feat might be, if someone ''does'' manage it then {{icds}} has your — or her — back. | ||
Actually, come to think of it, they don’t, because an acquisition of more than 100% would not count as a {{eqderivprov|Tender Offer}} at all. | |||
[[Eheu]]. I suppose we had all better hope and that normal rules of Euclidean geometry continue to apply for the time being. | |||
Revision as of 16:48, 6 May 2020
If you’re like the JC you will be wondering how a single holder could acquire more than 100 per cent of the extant Shares of an Issuer. But, to an ISDA ninja, that really is to rather miss the point. We are not talking about the practical, but the conceptually possible. Perhaps in a parallel universe, where normal rules of Euclidean geometry don’t apply. Or down a gravity well or something.
Sleep assured that, however conceptually difficult — logically difficult — such a feat might be, if someone does manage it then ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ has your — or her — back.
Actually, come to think of it, they don’t, because an acquisition of more than 100% would not count as a Tender Offer at all.
Eheu. I suppose we had all better hope and that normal rules of Euclidean geometry continue to apply for the time being.