14:32 Mar 3, 2006 |
English language (monolingual) [Non-PRO] Law: Contract(s) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Brie Vernier Germany Local time: 07:28 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +1 | Amendment succeeding publication of prospectus |
| ||
3 | rückwirkend |
|
Discussion entries: 2 | |
---|---|
Amendment succeeding publication of prospectus Explanation: Amendment coming after or following publication of prospectus. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
rückwirkend Explanation: Für mich sieht es aus, als wäre das Englische eine schlechte Übersetzung aus dem Deutschen -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 5 mins (2006-03-03 14:38:24 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Sorry! Just noticed the monolingual -- I think it should have been *retroactive* -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 7 mins (2006-03-03 14:39:43 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- My first note said that it looks to me like it was a poor translation from German (which would certainly account for the incorrect "informations") -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 29 mins (2006-03-03 15:02:30 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- On second thought, Clauwolf, I don't think 'retroactive' is quite accurate, either. Judging from the thousands of Googles, I think it is rather simply an amendment that **takes effect subsequently** -- that is, some time after the prospectus was originally issued. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.