Posted On: 10/02/2016 2:55:23 PM
Post# of 75043
From the LOI, expires on Oct. 2, 2016. Here it is, direct from the LOI (At the bottom of message).
The wording of this clause is not the best. But the second half of the clause would take precedence over the first part if it got legal. But I'm sure it won't. Clarity of a contract is dependent on the writer.
She wrote it to expire on Oct. 2, 2016. I'm not saying they can't negotiate past it, ALL I'm saying is this is what the LOI itself states.
And yes, she electronically signed it 9/9/16. They can still negotiate past it. She can submit an offer to purchase at any time, regardless of the LOI.
"b. Li desires 30 days to conduct due diligence for such potential acquisition, with such binding option to expire on October 2, 2016."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/16708...ex99_1.htm
The wording of this clause is not the best. But the second half of the clause would take precedence over the first part if it got legal. But I'm sure it won't. Clarity of a contract is dependent on the writer.
She wrote it to expire on Oct. 2, 2016. I'm not saying they can't negotiate past it, ALL I'm saying is this is what the LOI itself states.
And yes, she electronically signed it 9/9/16. They can still negotiate past it. She can submit an offer to purchase at any time, regardless of the LOI.
"b. Li desires 30 days to conduct due diligence for such potential acquisition, with such binding option to expire on October 2, 2016."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/16708...ex99_1.htm
(3)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
