Corporate actions - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
There is a  tension between {{gmslaprov|6.6}} and {{gmslaprov|6.7}}: while under {{gmslaprov|6.6}} a {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} is not obliged to ''vote'' in a certain way, if it does so and acquires a certain benefit ''and the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} requests'', it has to pass over that benefit. Best illustrated by way of example:
There is a  tension between {{gmslaprov|6.6}} and {{gmslaprov|6.7}}: while under {{gmslaprov|6.6}} a {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} is not obliged to ''vote'' in a certain way, if it does so and acquires a certain benefit ''and the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} requests'', it has to pass over that benefit. Best illustrated by way of example:


:{{italianwithdrawalright}}
:''{{italianwithdrawalright}}''


In this case the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} who has lent out over the [[record date]] could not (without prior agreement) oblige the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} to vote against the {{tag|merger}}, but if the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} has done so, the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} can, by request under {{gmslaprov|6.7}}, require the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} to deliver the proceeds of the withdrawal in lieu of {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}} {{gmslaprov|Securities}}.
In this case the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} who has lent out over the [[record date]] could not (without prior agreement) oblige the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} to vote against the {{tag|merger}}, but if the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} has done so, the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} can, by request under {{gmslaprov|6.7}}, require the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} to deliver the proceeds of the withdrawal in lieu of {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}} {{gmslaprov|Securities}}.