Помогите перевести

[yahta]

Если кто по-английски говорит можете мне исправить ошибки, плиз

LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy) and PPR (Pinault Printemps Redoute), the world luxury companies based in France had the same ambitions - to control Italian fashion house Gucci by buying Gucci's shares.

Gucci sold it's stakes to Pinault Printemps Redoute. So the LVMH's chances to have a takeover on Gucci have fallen. LVMH estimated that its commercial interests had been violated. And the company submits the case to the court.

LVMH demands the court to order a probe in order to know if the representatives of two companies didn't contract for theirs personnel benefits disregarding the interests of other shareholders. Likewise, LVMH advances "pill poison" argument against Gucci and PPR. According to LVMH chairman, Gucci and PPR make the takeover so expensive that LVMH have to give up the quest.

The court approves the sale between PPR and Gucci, saying that Gucci can choose his partners and take measures against unwelcome control. According to the court, the sale is valid. However, the court ordered Gucci to present it's share option scheme, that allowed to reject "pill poison" argument of LVMH and to verify that the interests of Gucci's shareholders were respected.

And at last, the court rejected LVMH's demand on a probe of real intentions of the representatives of PPR and Gucci. LVMH said that it would appeal. (LVMH will loose the battle three years later). So Gucci and PPR became the third major force in the world luxury goods business.

I agree with the court decision, because it corresponds to the principal of the liberty of the trade. And the parties can contract with the person they want to trade. There is no forcing possible. In the ruling, the judge has verified two main points :
- the first one is if the legal conditions required to contract were respected ;
- the second one is if the rights of shareholders were respected.

The ruling, seems to me justified. All legal conditions required to contract were respected : capacity, offer and acceptance, consideration and intention to be legally bound.

As to the rights of the shareholders, the judge ordered Gucci to present it's share option scheme. The court verified if there were not illegal manoeuvres and if Gucci and PPR have not violated the rights of the shareholders. Il all the legal conditions were respected, there is no reason to void the sale.