Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[TOB]

There is always interpretation in legal documents.

There's no interpretation required.....the language is the King's English and it is clear. -loanranger

It's what keeps lawyers and judges busy. It is easy to take sentences and words out of context, or contest their meaning, and it is important to know how the parties to to the contract interpret the wording.

There is no doubt in my mind that, based on the language in the agreement, a court would enforce Aspire's right to sell shares short as long as those sales didn't exceed their long holding should they choose to exercise that right. That's what it says. Commas are not meaningless. -loanranger

Part (ii) doesn't refer to part (i) they are separated by an "or". Thus short selling is clearly prohibited regardless of any interpretation of the wording after the comma in part (ii). It is important to understand that part (i) stands alone and is not modified by part (ii). That is the significance of the word "or" in place of "and". (King's English, though I'm not convinced legalese uses the same grammar, or if any King would have approved)

As to using (currently nonexistent) options to hedge to the net position, I originally had the same interpretation as you. I then discussed it with an attorney involved with the document and was informed that part (ii) prohibited hedging with short instruments, such as puts. The comma is not "meaningless", I was informed it is there to show the following text is a definition of part (ii), defining those instruments. It does not mean allowing puts up to the net position. Rather, hedging instruments that in themselves, standing alone, are net short. Such as puts.

Believe what you will.....I have nothing further to offer on the subject. -loanranger

That's fine. As I say, I had a similar opinion until it was clarified to me. Intent of the parties is part of understanding legal documents, and as anything can be argued in court, I'm guided by that knowledge.