> As a public company, Reliance engaged in some novel financial engineering—issuing convertible bonds with ambiguous conversion terms, exploiting those terms to get cash when necessary, and at one point cornering the market in their own stock. Perhaps the high point of Reliance’s financial engineering was in 1986, when the company publicly stated that earnings would rise, then found that earnings weren’t rising after all. The solution: an 18-month fiscal year. Record profits secured.
> Jio’s fundraise was opportunistic in two directions: Reliance wanted to delever, and outside investors wanted access to India’s market. It’s not a coincidence that this fundraising occurred at the same time that tensions with China erupted; a country that can ban TikTok and restrict Chinese investments can do the same to other countries, too. And, of course, it helps that Jio is getting more liquidity at the same time that its competitors mysteriously found themselves on the hook for giant fines.
For clarity's sake, usually bribery, securities fraud, money laundering, revenue recognition fraud and other demonstrably fraudulent activities gets you put in jail. Not lauded as being clever.
If the investments put in by Facebook and Google are used to manipulate the local political environment, does this mean that they're on the hook for liability via 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.? Or, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Do the firms have liability, or are they shielded via virtue of the "investment"?
-
Some Google searches later, one of their executives, p̶r̶e̶s̶u̶m̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶a̶m̶i̶l̶y̶ ̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶, tried to get someone killed by calling in the mob, https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/1989083...
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2014/08/02/an-unloved-bill...
Their history is hard to believe and harder to square away. Will this lower FB and G's liability shield? Any thorough due diligence should easily uncover more in this wretched hive of scum and villainy.