No, I still actually do not follow, nor does this seem equivalent to what you said.
"sale_price < real_company_worth"
This statement in that conditional seems like it could never be true.
If sale_price == total_money_raised_owed, then real_company_worth <= total_money_raised_owed because sale_price = max(total_money_raised_owed, real_company_worth).
Therefore, inside the conditional, sale_price = total_money_raised_owed >= real_company_worth, therefore sale_price >= real_company_worth which is the opposite of sale_price < real_company_worth.
you're right that my math is wrong in regards to sale_price < real_company_worth - it should have been the other way around... (real_company_worth < sale_price)... I guess I needed more coffee...
max is correct though (whichever value is highest, that sets the base price).
shareholders would rather lose only half of their investment then all of it. It's quite possible for a company to sell at a shareholder loss.
And of course, some sheareholders lost their stakes in this sale.
> Because the company’s obligations to its preferred shareholders exceeded the sale price, investors won’t be paid out in full, according to a document reviewed by Bloomberg.
"sale_price < real_company_worth"
This statement in that conditional seems like it could never be true.
If sale_price == total_money_raised_owed, then real_company_worth <= total_money_raised_owed because sale_price = max(total_money_raised_owed, real_company_worth).
Therefore, inside the conditional, sale_price = total_money_raised_owed >= real_company_worth, therefore sale_price >= real_company_worth which is the opposite of sale_price < real_company_worth.
What am I missing? Perhaps you meant min?