My understanding is that the borrower owns the shares and the voting rights. I haven’t looked at the parties involved here but generally shorting is a motivation and sometimes the shorting is motivated to protect yields on notes/bonds (loans) if those loans are themselves tradable. Which banks have lent DRM the money to build the mine? That might help answer the question in respect of the notices given.Esh
Under English [and Australian] law, absolute title over both lent and collateral securities
passes between the parties. Therefore, all these securities can be sold outright or on-lent,
which is commonplace and an intrinsic part of the functioning of the market.
· The borrower is entitled to the economic benefits of owning the lent securities (e.g.
dividends), but the agreement with the lender will oblige it to make (‘manufacture’)
equivalent payments back to the lender.
· A lender of equities no longer owns them and has no entitlement to vote. But it is still exposed to price movements on them, since effectively the borrower can return them at a pre-agreed price. Lenders typically reserve the right to recall equivalent securities from the borrower, and will exercise this option if they wish to vote. Borrowing securities for the specific purpose of influencing a shareholder vote is not regarded as acceptable market practice in the UK.
DCN Price at posting:
$2.68 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
