|
|
|
|
|
by at5
3797 days ago
|
|
1) In practice there is no way the deal would have proceeded without GS giving the go ahead. Nowhere in your sources does GS say they said no to the deal as was consummated. 3) Was a lawyer before banking. Can assure you the stake matters. Try not practising law without a license perhaps? In a court of law the difference is trivial. 2) Depends on the market. 99 was a once in a career market hence a VP leading the deal. In any case never said it was a legal issue. GS messed up. No bank wants to be in a position where they point to clauses in their engagement letter to point out that they did fine by the client. |
|