Pinoy News Thread

Talk about things other than video games. What are your other hobbies? What's your favorite TV show? Are you into sports. Any recommended restaurants? Do you travel?
Locked
User avatar
SirZap
Big Daddy
Posts: 4526
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:34 pm
PSN ID: SirZapp

Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:45 pm

^^dude I'm not talking to you like 5 year old. una, yung analogy ko hindi maiintindihan ng 5year old. lols. but I get your point.

also, anong hindi apples to apples dun. sinasabi ko na nga na salbahe yung example na officemate meaning salbahe itong si Duterte. so anong hindi appples dun :lol:


ngayon pinasok mo yang SMART. oh eto yung sagot galing mismo sa rappler... oh the irony.

https://www.rappler.com/nation/168765-d ... -extension
MANILA, Philippines – President Rodrigo Duterte renewed the franchise given to Smart Communications, giving it another 25 years to operate.

Last April 21, he signed into law Republic Act No 10926, extending the franchise given to Smart in 1992. Smart's franchise was set to expire last March.

The new law's tax provisions exempt Smart from paying Customs duties, tariffs, and taxes for radio telecommunications equipment, electronic communications equipment, machinery, and spare parts needed for its line of business.

Section 7 of the recently signed law also exempts Smart from the previous requirement of making an initial public offering of at least 30% of their authorized capital stock within two years from implementation of the law.

This provision in the law excludes companies which are "wholly owned by a public listed company."

In effect, Smart – which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of listed PLDT – is exempted from the public offering requirement.]
so uulitin ko OH THE IRONY.


anyways kaya ako sumabat sa usaping ownership ng rappler at telling you and Daniel na huwag gumawa ng hasty generalization is that hindi lang naman rappler tumitira kay Digong. like I said rappler and nahanapan ng butas.

i'll quote what the National Press Club has to say. itong link manggagaling sa ABS-CBN , isa daw sa siansasbing tumtitra kay digong.

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/17/18/n ... ss-freedom
MANILA - The National Press Club (NPC) on Tuesday said the Securities and Exchange Commission's decision to revoke the registration of news website Rappler has not curtailed press freedom.

"In the broader Philippine media industry, Rappler is just one among the thousands of media entities in the country and whose operations have remained free," Paul Gutierrez, head of the country's oldest and biggest press organization, said in a statement.

"To say that the fate of one media entity found to have run afoul with the law translates to media repression in the country is stretching the argument a bit too much."

Gutierrez said NPC has studied the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) decision to revoke the registration papers of Rappler and "found it quite clear" that the firm violated the law on foreign ownership.

"As the SEC noted, Rappler breached this constitutional limit when it allowed Omidyar to exercise control over its corporate affairs as provided for in their internal agreement, in exchange for a fund infusion of $1 million,” he said.

"Responsible journalism also means complying with the law," Gutierrez added.

Gutierrez noted that the NPC has long ago made it a policy that those applying for membership should represent not only credible but also legally established media entities.

"In this case, we cannot be swayed by the emotion of the moment and go along with the general sentiment that press freedom has been threatened less [sic] we be accused of inconsistency," he said.

There are some 436 television broadcast stations, 411 AM radio stations, over 1,000 FM radio stations and more than 400 newspapers today operating freely in the country, Gutierrez said.

Prominent journalists' groups have slammed the SEC ruling, calling it a threat on press freedom.

The SEC had on Monday revoked Rappler's registration saying it had "sold control to foreigners" and violated the constitutional restriction on foreign ownership of mass media.

The website management said Omidyar Network and North Base Media "do not own" the company, even as they hold Philippine Depositary Receipts.

Depositary receipts held by Omidyar stated that its holder “must have prior approval” on changes in Rappler’s articles of incorporation or by-laws, SEC spokesperson Armand Pan earlier said.

Rappler has maintained that it did not give foreign investors control over its operations and vowed to fight the SEC ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.
also yang tinutukoy mo na legal opinion ni Atty. Sta. Maria ... in Legalese is simply an Opinion.... eh papaano yung opinion nitong Law Firm na ito?

http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1021892
MANILA -- Law-firm Dizon and Orbe-Dizon has published a factual explanation on how online news platform Rappler had violated the law, prompting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revoke Rappler's registration as a Philippine corporation.

In a January 16 article in the law firm's website, lawyer Peter Michael Dizon said Rappler had violated the Constitution, which requires 100-percent Filipino control for any media entity.

Dizon said Rappler violated this provision when it granted foreign firm Omidyar Network control of the media outfit through some clauses in the foreign investor's provision of Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs).

Simply put, PDRs are a form of a capital infusion of a foreign entity so a local firm can keep its operations going.

"There is nothing wrong with the issuance of PDRs," Dizon said. The problem, the lawyer pointed out, was with the conditions linked to the PDRs issued by Rappler to Omidyar Network, prompting the SEC to revoke the news site's registration as a Philippine corporation.

"The provisions included a condition that Rappler and Rappler Holdings cannot alter, modify, or change their Articles of Incorporation and Corporate By-Laws without discussion with the Omidyar Network PDR holders and obtaining the approval of at least two-thirds of all issued PDRs," Dizon explained.

Rappler Holdings was the company established by Rappler to get foreign investments via PDRs, Dizon noted. Rappler Holdings fully acquired the Rappler news site in 2015.

Dizon stressed that under the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), control goes beyond ownership of shares. In the case of media firms, there should be no foreign firm control at all, based on Philippine laws.


Rappler's defense

One of Rappler’s defenses is that "it is not a media company" and "what it does is not part of mass media," Dizon noted.

"The SEC threw this defense out the door," the law firm said, however, pointing out that Rappler had in fact named itself publicly as a media outfit.


"Rappler had been outing itself publicly as a mass media firm in legal terms and in its press releases," Dizon pointed out.

Rappler, Dizon recalled, also submitted last December a piece of paper saying that the holders of the PDR are waiving their rights to the control provision of the PDR.

"The piece of paper was ignored because it was not even authenticated," he said.


What the SEC did

Dizon noted that in the end, there was enough basis for the SEC to conclude that Rappler issued the PDRs to illegally skirt the strict ownership and control requirements of Philippine law.

The SEC then declared the PDRs issued to Omidyar Network by Rappler void and revoked the news site's certificate of registration as a corporation with the SEC.

"Note that PDRs are not evidence of foreign ownership. It is the contractual provisions in the PDR that will determine foreign control and/or ownership. In Rappler’s case, the PDRs granted its investors some control. Our law prohibits ANY control," the lawyer stressed. "And that was why Rappler’s registration was revoked." (PNA)
ngayon sino susundin mo? Opinion ni Sta. Maria o Opinion nitong Law Firm? para ma-settle yan sa Korte mag-raklamo ang Rappler :surprise:

so the long and short of what I'm saying sa Korte na lang.
Image
Like · Comment · Share
You and 101 others like this.
User avatar
ron_bato
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 7655
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:23 am

Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:22 am

Another fishing expedition, but yeah wag muna tayo mag generalize :lol:

https://www.rappler.com/nation/193996-n ... -complaint

A good somber look at constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership:

http://opinion.inquirer.net/110382/fear-of-foreigners
User avatar
Daniel
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 19468
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:54 pm
PSN ID: Bobo-Bambano
Location: Monaco

Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:21 am

Good points from the Inquirer column. An era that no longer exists.

Nung lumabas yung balita tungkol sa Rappler at foreign ownership, una kong naisip, CNN Philippines. Siguro naman licensing ang ginawa roon. Pero kung titingnan mula sa labas, CNN, foreign, pero dapat 100% Filipino ownership. Ang labo. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Image
PSN ID: Bobo-Bambano (US), Hunghunk (Asian SG), imajackiechanfan (Asian HK)
User avatar
SirZap
Big Daddy
Posts: 4526
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:34 pm
PSN ID: SirZapp

Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:25 pm

ron_bato wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:22 am
Another fishing expedition, but yeah wag muna tayo mag generalize :lol:

https://www.rappler.com/nation/193996-n ... -complaint
anong relation nito sa sinasabi ko? :lol:

iba ownership problem nila sa fishing expedition na yan :lol:

just to remind you nag-reply ako sa iyo dahil sabi mo "What a blatant attack on our institutions.".

eto attack on rappler lang. :bball:

so generalization nga ... ng rappler at kanilang believers :rofl:

ron_bato wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:22 am
A good somber look at constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership:

http://opinion.inquirer.net/110382/fear-of-foreigners
so ano sinabi ni habito? kinuwestiyon lang nya ang "lumang" constitutional provision ......

pero kahit luma yan, yan pa rin ang prevailing na batas.
Daniel wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:21 am
Good points from the Inquirer column. An era that no longer exists.

Nung lumabas yung balita tungkol sa Rappler at foreign ownership, una kong naisip, CNN Philippines. Siguro naman licensing ang ginawa roon. Pero kung titingnan mula sa labas, CNN, foreign, pero dapat 100% Filipino ownership. Ang labo. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
eto po ang kasagutan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_Philippines
Under the brand licensing agreement between Turner Broadcasting System and Nine Media, the latter will pay CNN an undisclosed amount of monthly fee for programs and expertise from CNN International and CNN/U.S. that will air in the CNN Philippines in exchange of locally produced news, current affairs and lifestyle programs and rolling news coverage from 9News, all based on the standards of CNN. Also, 9News will be trained by CNN staff at the CNN Center in Atlanta, Georgia to enhance their reporting that will also help them to contribute reports for CNN International along with its news bureaus scattered worldwide; as consultants from the latter will help Nine Media/RPN for further development and expansion of CNN Philippines. The official news website, 9news.ph will be redesigned and changed into CNNPhilippines.com
Image
Like · Comment · Share
You and 101 others like this.
User avatar
Daniel
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 19468
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:54 pm
PSN ID: Bobo-Bambano
Location: Monaco

Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:01 am

So licensing nga.

Ang weird lang. Pinag-uusapan sa constitution no foreign brands pero may CNN. Weird. :lol:

Parang batas kunyari na no foreign brands. Pero may McDonald's at ang nagpapatakbo, yung Jollibee o kaya Burger Machine. :rofl:
Image
PSN ID: Bobo-Bambano (US), Hunghunk (Asian SG), imajackiechanfan (Asian HK)
User avatar
ron_bato
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 7655
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:23 am

Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:37 pm

Daniel wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:01 am
So licensing nga.

Ang weird lang. Pinag-uusapan sa constitution no foreign brands pero may CNN. Weird. :lol:

Parang batas kunyari na no foreign brands. Pero may McDonald's at ang nagpapatakbo, yung Jollibee o kaya Burger Machine. :rofl:
Nah, it is what it is. :D harassment lang hiding behind a legal issue thats paper thin (again legal minds far far superior than me are saying that this is nothing but the government flexing it's muscles - but you know whatever :lol:). It is what it is. I got nothing to add because at this point the lawyers and gov will j8ust BS their way through the issue.

But you know we cant make any generalizations. :D dibali na na thrineaten wag irenew franchise ng ABS or napilitan ibenta ng mga Prieto Inquirer. Nothing to see here. :D Certainly no pattern of harassment or discrediting of institutions going on haha
User avatar
jsnepo
- Kick this player?
Posts: 6573
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:38 am
PSN ID: jsnepo
Location: Marikina
Contact:

Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:28 pm

I agree with SirZap with regard to the Rappler issue. I'm not denying that they are being harassed. Nahanapan sila ng butas kaya ganyan. The problem with Rappler's argument is it is by their interpretation of what the 2/3 of control the foreign company has on them. Unfortunately, documents submitted to the government especially to the SEC should be in black and white, no grey area. What is written is what it should be.

Let Rappler be an example to all media outlets though. Do what you must but be compliant.

As far as CNN Philippines is concerned, it is owned and operated by RPN.
<(  )>  You have earned a trophy.
_/   \_  PERFECT REVENGEANCE
Getting back without exposing intention.
User avatar
ron_bato
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 7655
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:23 am

Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:48 pm

Again, more reading which would be helpful for everyone interested :D

http://www.interaksyon.com/focus-making ... n-rappler/
In essence, the PDR is akin to debt. Because of this, the PDR holder, like any creditor, has an interest in ensuring that its investment is recouped (its debt is paid). Hence, like any creditor, even before it decides to acquire the PDR, it has to evaluate whether or not the company will be able to generate enough profits to issue dividends. This means it has to make assumptions regarding how the company will be operating, or be convinced by the pitch from the company. The PDR holder wants these assumptions to remain in place.

When receiving credit, debtors are invariably made to agree to certain terms which prevent them from behaving a certain way. Certain business decisions are restricted or prohibited in order to ensure the debtor gets paid. For example, businesses are prevented from selling off certain assets or making certain investments, because this can affect the nature of the business and its revenue stream, and hence impact the ability for debt to be repaid. Or they are prevented from assuming certain new debt, because this may prevent the creditor from getting preference in terms of being paid back. No business decision is more fundamental than altering a business’ charter documents, namely its articles of incorporation and its by-laws.

These restrictions tend to be boilerplate, standard provisions in a variety of debt instruments. Bonds and notes and other similar issuances tend to have these kinds of restrictions, as do some standard but rather large loans. This is because it is common sense from the creditor’s standpoint.

The question here is whether or not this boils down to control, even “negative control” as the SEC has determined. Apart from requiring good faith discussion and approval for certain business actions, all business decisions appear to be lodged with Rappler’s Filipino shareholders and management. 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. But the foreign PDR holders do not appear to have any opportunity to wield influence over the minds of the Filipino people through this structure.

Besides, do they even want to do that? To insist that there is somehow some foreign conspiracy to inspire hearts and minds of the people against President Duterte requires more of a stretch of the imagination than understanding the simple concept that PDRs do not grant ownership or control. Investors in a fund that acquires depository receipts will probably bludgeon a fund manager who takes an active interest in the destabilization of a government rather than insuring decent returns on the fund’s investments.

The “100% control” analysis seems like an oversimplification that may have a significant impact on how PDRs work, and on all holders of all PDRs in any company, especially other media entities that issue them.
Again, subject to interpretation and legal opinion of those who matter anyway. :D 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. :D
User avatar
jsnepo
- Kick this player?
Posts: 6573
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:38 am
PSN ID: jsnepo
Location: Marikina
Contact:

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?
<(  )>  You have earned a trophy.
_/   \_  PERFECT REVENGEANCE
Getting back without exposing intention.
User avatar
Sn@kemaru
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 7369
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 4:58 pm
PSN ID: Snakemaru
Location: Quezon City
Contact:

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?

Gusto ni Sandra Cam na pa-swelduhin din natin yun 16 staff nya na pinasok sa PCSO, at mukhang may mga bad records pa daw ang mga yun?

According to Alvarez, kung sinong representative or probinysa daw na hindi sumuporta sa federalism ay zero budget sa kanya. Pam-blackmail na ngayon yun mga buwis natin.

Ang gara ng debut ni Isabelle. Mahirap lang daw sila eh.
Image
User avatar
SirZap
Big Daddy
Posts: 4526
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:34 pm
PSN ID: SirZapp

Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:22 am

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.

sa China depende na yan sa structure ng investments nila. utang at grants pwede 100% foreign. yung onwership dapat 40% maximum lang.

now that where at it, eh yung pinapapasok na telecom company na Chinese up to who much % ang ownership nya? :?:
Image
Like · Comment · Share
You and 101 others like this.
User avatar
SirZap
Big Daddy
Posts: 4526
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:34 pm
PSN ID: SirZapp

Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:38 am

ron_bato wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:48 pm
Again, subject to interpretation and legal opinion of those who matter anyway. :D 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. :D
yes I agree, it can go either way. thus, like I said, we can not conclude :sweat:

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 :lol: 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? :?:
Image
Like · Comment · Share
You and 101 others like this.
User avatar
ron_bato
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 7655
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:23 am

Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:31 pm

More required reading :D

http://business.inquirer.net/244546/mis ... on-on-pdrs

This one actually explains it quite well, so much so that jabronis can understand it :D
User avatar
SirZap
Big Daddy
Posts: 4526
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:34 pm
PSN ID: SirZapp

Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:29 pm

ron_bato wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:31 pm
More required reading :D

http://business.inquirer.net/244546/mis ... on-on-pdrs

This one actually explains it quite well, so much so that jabronis can understand it :D
maiintindihan naman din ang ibang articles tungkol sa PDR. :lol:

biased lang yan writer kasi Inquirer. :bball:
Image
Like · Comment · Share
You and 101 others like this.
User avatar
Sn@kemaru
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 7369
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 4:58 pm
PSN ID: Snakemaru
Location: Quezon City
Contact:

Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:29 pm

SirZap wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:22 am
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.

sa China depende na yan sa structure ng investments nila. utang at grants pwede 100% foreign. yung onwership dapat 40% maximum lang.

now that where at it, eh yung pinapapasok na telecom company na Chinese up to who much % ang ownership nya? :?:
Kung may fault nga talaga si Rappler then so be it. Dapat nila sagutin/panagutan yun. Kaya nga ang terms na ginamit ko ay "Nagalit at binutasan". binutasan or nahanapan sila ng butas. Pero let's wait and see pa rin. Hindi pa naman tapos ang case/issue na ito.

Mukhang madaming nagalit dahil sa award na natanggap ni Mocha from UST-AAI. Ang huling nabasa ko article ay pag-meetingan daw ng AAI kung babawiin ba nila yun award dahil sa backlash ng pangyayari.
Image
User avatar
Daniel
Primal Rage
Primal Rage
Posts: 19468
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:54 pm
PSN ID: Bobo-Bambano
Location: Monaco

Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:46 pm

Yung UST mismo saka Central Student Council hindi pabor.
Image
PSN ID: Bobo-Bambano (US), Hunghunk (Asian SG), imajackiechanfan (Asian HK)
User avatar
jsnepo
- Kick this player?
Posts: 6573
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:38 am
PSN ID: jsnepo
Location: Marikina
Contact:

Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:00 pm

SirZap wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:38 am

Rappler has to close and be a blogger :lol: 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.
I mean voluntarily, what will Rappler do when PDRs are terminated? Will they be able to continue with their operations? I'm asking this to gauge what control do the PDRs entail the foreign investor.

In a related note, I'm noticing some obnoxious drive by posts.
<(  )>  You have earned a trophy.
_/   \_  PERFECT REVENGEANCE
Getting back without exposing intention.
User avatar
Seraph011
Kaizoku-o
Posts: 14389
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:02 pm
PSN ID: Seraph01
Location: Shin sekai

Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:14 am

Congratulations Mocha.... :lol: :surprise: :party:
Seraph M.D.
An1mo
User avatar
SirZap
Big Daddy
Posts: 4526
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:34 pm
PSN ID: SirZapp

Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:06 pm

jsnepo wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:00 pm
SirZap wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:38 am

Rappler has to close and be a blogger :lol: 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.
I mean voluntarily, what will Rappler do when PDRs are terminated? Will they be able to continue with their operations? I'm asking this to gauge what control do the PDRs entail the foreign investor.

In a related note, I'm noticing some obnoxious drive by posts.
well it depends on their income or profit, which I doubt they have. if they still have money to operate then they can still continue.

as for the control issue, technically a PDR doesn't have any control but...... according to SEC, they (rappler) agreed to ...
“Here, the stockholders must have prior discussion with and approval of at least 2/3 of the PDR Holdings, meaning Rappler is at the very least under obligation to consult with Omidyar Network. The stockholder has become, in effect, subservient to the holder. It is neither 100 percent control by the Filipino stockholders nor is it 0 percent control by the foreigner PDS holders,” the SEC said.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/960389/bre ... to-operate
Image
Like · Comment · Share
You and 101 others like this.
User avatar
jsnepo
- Kick this player?
Posts: 6573
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:38 am
PSN ID: jsnepo
Location: Marikina
Contact:

Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:06 pm

SirZap wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:06 pm
well it depends on their income or profit, which I doubt they have. if they still have money to operate then they can still continue.

as for the control issue, technically a PDR doesn't have any control but...... according to SEC, they (rappler) agreed to ...
“Here, the stockholders must have prior discussion with and approval of at least 2/3 of the PDR Holdings, meaning Rappler is at the very least under obligation to consult with Omidyar Network. The stockholder has become, in effect, subservient to the holder. It is neither 100 percent control by the Filipino stockholders nor is it 0 percent control by the foreigner PDS holders,” the SEC said.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/960389/bre ... to-operate
Those are exactly my thoughts on it. Regardless if the approval requirement granted by PDRs is primarily courtesy to investors or what not, and if it has influence over the operations and decision-making, then in it is control. I believe semantics is helpful with this but overthinking about statements and giving them different interpretations other than what is noted in black and white is considered grasping for straws for me.
<(  )>  You have earned a trophy.
_/   \_  PERFECT REVENGEANCE
Getting back without exposing intention.
Locked