Paddy, as I said, maybe I am wrong or maybe there is a way around it. But the way I read UK law, it states that there must be distributable PROFITS. Yes, it pays out of distributable reserves. But it states that there must be PROFITS. At least that is how I interpret it.
And if that's the case, then maybe Sarissa is confident that they will be generating profits sufficient to cover the buyback, which would be fantastic!
How do you see this as spreading FUD? I actually see this as a GOOD thing.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
