I acknowledge and agree that:You are then invited to Agree or Disagree before you can read the information. Now, fair enough, the whole selling question and financial rules etc I get, but what I don't get is the "publication/distribution" part. In fact, the top of the press release when you agree states,
The information contained herein is not for publication or distribution, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Canada, Australia or Japan. Blah, blah, blah
"NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, AUSTRALIA OR JAPAN.Slight problem here I think, all you have to do if you're not in the UK is lie and say "I agree" and you're in. Effectively the press release itself is already being indirectly published in these countries because it's on a Net. There's certainly something ironic about saying "NOT FOR RELEASE" on a errr.... press release.
The Government have essentially broken their own embargo on the publication of the information by basing the entire thing on trust haven't they? I'm also not sure why the information in the press release is actually embargoed as it seems to be an announcement of something that has already happened in relation to their "disposal of interest in British Energy" (it's a statement of sale).
Handy thing to be doing though, the "disposal of interest in British Energy" at the same time as lots of other energy companies are hoping to get a good deal from Gordon Brown when the whole energy review and nuclear power question finally gets answered huh?
Update: To save me having to correct people each time in the comments, there seems to be a bit of confusion. What you agree to read is not an offer of share sales. It is a statement of sale of £2bn of shares in British Energy on Friday which has been reported across the world's media. This is why the "I agree" part and the embarago statement is not "perfectly sensible" as some people have said, it's utterly nonsensical.
7 comments:
It's a dull requirement of company law - if you want to offer shares to sale for people in the US, then you need to be registered with the SEC. And if you make information about *any share offer anywhere* available to people in the US, then US law classes that as offering shares to sale to people in the US.
The point of the disclaimer isn't that it stops access altogether, it's that it means that the only people in the US who can view the information are people who have done so illegally. Hence, you've fulfilled your requirement under US law of preventing honest Americans from seeing your shares offered.
John B
If it was an offer of shares you might have a point. It isn't though, if you read it it is a statement of sale. Which is why I said it was "an announcement of something that has already happened".
Fairly simple issue. Other countries have tougher rules on what has to be disclosed before there can be an invitation to buy shares. UK plc does not meet these disclosure requirements, so can't legally invite citizens of these countries to buy the shares. It's OK for UK citizens to buy a pig in a poke from their government (all those unfunded nuclear decontamination liabilities etc), but other governments are more considerate of their citizens wallets.
What is means by just recording a transaction that has already occurred is that they have already stuffed our pension funds full of the rubbish without even telling us in advance.
As I already said, this wasn't an invite, if you actually read it. The publication embargo is thus pointless on two counts. First because the reader can lie, secondly because it is'nt a release of information that cannot be read elsewhere.
No iyt is perfectly sensible if over cautious.
1. The government doesn't pretend to be an expert in securities law in foreign jurisdictions, so it protects itself - probably advised by its stockbrokers (who are experts in nothing) rather than lawyers who would have to b qualified to give advice on all the foreign law.
2. The government is protected against prosecution in those countries because the reader agrees that he is not in one of those countries. If the the reader actually is in one of those countries the government has the defence that it only published in those countries by virtue of a misrepresentation by the reader.
Again, if it was an offer of shares you would be right, but it isn't. It's a statement of sale of shares which is a PUBLIC knowledge from the moment of sale. Hence the fact that the contents of the press release is all over the bloody Internet.
So no, it's not perfectly sensible at all because a quick search on Google with throw up shedloads of links to news artcile on the likes of the BCC et al.
Maybe they cut & pasted the text of the "sale" announcement into a template for "offers"? A failure of proof reading?
Post a Comment