Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by danprager 6091 days ago
I put it down to a limitation of the Aussie (and other) stock exchanges. The shares had dropped to $0.01, when their true value was negative, given the stapled obligations that they carried. Bolton should have been paid to take on the debt in the first place.

A whole lot of other people apparently made the same transaction unwittingly, without reading the fine print, as it were. The sellers of the $0.01 shares were paid a peppercorn and washed their hands of the debt.

I reckon this is a problem for the regulators. Once the shares dropped below the value of the remaining obligations (give or take) a fairer price would be negative. Alternatively, trading should be suspended because there's a fair argument that the company is insolvent at that point.

Instead, this fact was hidden behind a little "complexity" and inadequate rules.

Bolton just took advantage of a broken situation.

1 comments

The stock exchange can take plenty of actions against a stock and from a lay perspective it sounds like they should have.