[AudBern]

I put JV as conditions were agreed in advance and couldn’t be changed hence decision would have been unanimous and contractual as can’t be changed, also the separate legal entity and the fact both were making decisions on different areas suggesting joint control over significant influence. Also the fact it represented an interest of net assets over the entity. I think it could have been argued any one of the three ways as the line was very blurred (we’ve all given a different answer!) and hopefully the mark scheme allows for this.

[AudBern]

On Q3 what did people decide on out of sub, assoc and JV?

[Author]

Posts