[ladon86]

As above, there’s no mention of this being limited only to a controlling interest. So, going only by the text of the bill, it _would_ apply to reddit.

In practice it might not be enforced that way, but the bill _would_ allow enforcement against reddit. I wouldn’t expect that to mean “Reddit CEO sent to jail”, I would guess the idea is to reserve the ability to force Chinese divestment from basically any tech company in future.

[yed]

As above, Section 2-3: COVERED HOLDING. —The term “covered holding”— (A) means […] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— …

“Controlling holding” is defined in section 2-2

Edit: here you go

(2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity.

[ladon86]

> (2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity.

Exactly - by redefining the common meaning of 'controlling holding' to remove any notion of majority stake or voting rights, this definition would apply to any average shareholder who votes in an annual meeting.

From Wikipedia:

> A controlling interest is an ownership interest in a corporation with enough voting stock shares to prevail in any stockholders' motion. A majority of voting shares (over 50%) is always a controlling interest. When a party holds less than the majority of the voting shares, other present circumstances can be considered to determine whether that party is still considered to hold a controlling ownership interest

I'm sure the SEC has an even tighter definition of 'controlling interest' than this, and the bill could have used that definition, but instead it defines a new one.

[rkho]

You keep posting Section 2-3 and alluding to Section 2-2, which seems to be the direct definition that you wish to use to actually refute these arguments.

Given this, why isn't Section 2-2 also being posted or linked to?