3 ms·
> who's to say they're exploiting a loophole? I guess "intent" is what matters really. If the intent is to avoid regulatory review and you could prove that int
by diggan 1y ago
> who's to say they're exploiting a loophole?
I guess "intent" is what matters really. If the intent is to avoid regulatory review and you could prove that intent, then they're trying to exploit it. That in itself should probably trigger a review regardless. If they've arrived at 49% for some other reason(s) than just to avoid regulatory review, then fair enough.
- Loughla 1y agoCorrect. That's what courts are for, like I said.