It was the wrong thread

[Adder]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
20% ownership is a typical trigger for poison pill provisions (aka shareholder rights plans). If triggered, the other shareholders (ie, not the 20% acquirer) would have the right to purchase additional shares, thus diluting the acquirer's interest.

Also similar statutory rights in some states (or countries as Burger said).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


ETA or, Cletus is probably right. Whoops.

Or you both are. 20% may well trigger a bunch of things. Good thing we know smart lawyers who can figure this shit out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I remember in High School, no one in my motorcycle club wanted to sleep with Atticus' sister 20% of the evenings, because if you crossed that line you'd be presumed the father of all lil grinches.

I never understood how you could have four fathers, but now I get it. Thanks.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I remember in High School, no one in my motorcycle club wanted to sleep with Atticus' sister 20% of the evenings, because if you crossed that line you'd be presumed the father of all lil grinches.

If I had rage issues like Sidd I would have PMed you a list of her sexual partners so fast your head would spin. But between the mood stabilizers and the therapy, I'm past it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If I had rage issues like Sidd I would have PMed you a list of her sexual partners so fast your head would spin. But between the mood stabilizers and the therapy, I'm past it.

Ikwym. i was going to suggest he start masturbating twice a day, but i was afraid it would inadvertantly insult his refractive time

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Someone who actually knows something can elaborate, but I believe that 20% ownership can trigger certain legal obligations in some countries as it is regarded as a "controlling" interest. In the U.S. 10% ownership leads to various SEC filing requirements.

So if I own nine percent of a stock in a company, and the company starts buying its own stock, and thereby increases my percentage, do I have to do these filings?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I never understood how you could have four fathers, but now I get it. Thanks.

there was a cartoon in the old National Lampoon magazine set in a world where there were 9 sexes. these two really liked each other but they had to find the other 7 sexes to be able to copulate. eventually they had to hire a zarken, and the scoythile they picked up was drunk.

anyway, there, everyone would have 9 parents.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or you both are. 20% may well trigger a bunch of things. Good thing we know smart lawyers who can figure this shit out.

Thanks all.

Coincidentally, "20% may well trigger a bunch of things" has been my answer to the question so far. I usually don't like to throw around the lawyer jargon like that, but sometimes there simply is only one way to articulate an idea.

[Atticus Grinch]

You can get insurance for your insurance.

Next, we'll be seeing insurance companies charging additional premium if you actually want your claim paid in the event of a casualty.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
So if I own nine percent of a stock in a company, and the company starts buying its own stock, and thereby increases my percentage, do I have to do these filings?

Is the company publicly traded? If so, your filing obligation begins at 5%. Odds are, if you have a filing obligation, you know it, because people are paid to make sure these things are taken care of.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You can get insurance for your insurance.

Next, we'll be seeing insurance companies charging additional premium if you actually want your claim paid in the event of a casualty.

This is why I have long felt that, with certain rare exceptions, insurers are scum.

[Hank Chinaski]

the though has been floated around my firm that we should increase the frequency of bonii due to the fact that "banks are failing" so we should keep our deposits low. paranoia or good sense?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the though has been floated around my firm that we should increase the frequency of bonii due to the fact that "banks are failing" so we should keep our deposits low. paranoia or good sense?

I say paranoia. I've read your posts, and I suspect your firm's cash account is fully FDIC insured.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I say paranoia. I've read your posts, and I suspect your firm's cash account is fully FDIC insured.

conf to AG: there's the problem. our bank opted out of FDIC, they say they pass the savings on to us.?

conf to everyone else: my first question was semi-serious.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the though has been floated around my firm that we should increase the frequency of bonii due to the fact that "banks are failing" so we should keep our deposits low. paranoia or good sense?

You know your bank - there are some I'd worry about.

There are some places where there are state bank insurance plans that fully cover deposits. Moving to a smaller state bank might give you full insurance. It also may be possible to use an investment account that will put the funds in securities that you own, rather than just in an account. Most large pots of money don't sit in depository accounts. But then, the idiots who don't manage their money have done a lot better than the stock market lately, no?