ron_bato wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:48 pm
Again, subject to interpretation and legal opinion of those who matter anyway.
i already said that the legalese is something that I'm not too concerned with, since this can go either way given how the gov acts to serve their interests.
yes I agree, it can go either way. thus, like I said, we can not conclude
for other readers:
kung totoo na may "control provision" sa PDR then what's next?
interpretation kung ano ang nature ng PDR...
then if PDR is akin to credit or share....
or the "Control Provisions" violates the Constitution regardless is PDR is a form of credit and/shares....
then if those provision are pertaining to operations or simply to notify the PDR investors when Rappler changes it form of business....
or even it is a control provision but it was not exercised....thus hindi basis for closure but rather a need to remove only that provision...
maraming layers. maraming isa-satisfy na conditions before natin malaman kung may mali ang Rappler o hinde.
jsnepo wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:29 pm
The likely consequence of failure to discuss or to secure approval for fundamental business actions is the termination of the PDR relationship and the removing of the PDR holder investment.
What happens to Rappler if this occurs?
Rappler has to close and be a blogger
like somebody in the gov't says,
or simply remove the foreign control provision if they are to be allowed by SEC and continue to operate.
Sn@kemaru wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:28 pm
Nagalit at binutasan ang Rappler kasi may foreign investors pero yun mga utang/grants/investments galing ng China na questionable ang motive, wala lang?
sa kaso ng Rappler, ang isang mass media company is required na 100% owned and controlled by filiponos. di pwede ang foreign.
sa China depende na yan sa structure ng investments nila. utang at grants pwede 100% foreign. yung ownership dapat 40% maximum lang.
now that where at it, eh yung pinapapasok na telecom company na Chinese up to who much % ang ownership nya?