Question

跪求翻译~~

In 1989 Belize became the second Latin American country to privatise its telecoms network (after Chile). Established the year after independence in 1974, the Belize Telecommunications Authority's business and assets were transferred to a corporation called Belize Telecommunications Ltd (renamed Belize Telemedia in 2007[1]). The government was to gradually sell off its shares, but in the process retain a "special share" (often called a golden share). According to the company's constitutition, among various rights over important transactions, the special shareholder could appoint two of the eight directors. Class "B" shareholders (which were all private investors, such as British Telecom) could appoint two directors and class "C" shareholders could together appoint four directors. The government owned class "C" shares, and there was a further provision that if the special shareholder still had over 37.5% of the total share capital, it would be entitled to appoint two of those four "C" directors.

In 2003 the government decided to complete the privatisation process. Legislation was passed to try to let competition into the telecoms market. In 2004 Belize Telecom bought the special share from the government. It also bought the "C" shares the government still owned. But to finance this, it got a loan from the government. In other words, the government converted its shares in Belize Telecommunications Ltd to debt. For security until the debt was repaid the government got a pledge on the shares it had just sold (but not the special share). Immediately Belize Telecom appointed new directors, replacing the government appointees. But unfortunately on 9 February 2005, Belize Telecom defaulted on its loan repayments. The government enforced its pledge, and now once again had over 37.5% of the "C" shares, but without the special share. The question was whether the two directors that were subject to appointment by the person who held the special share and over 37.5% of the "C" shares could be removed. As it stood, nobody held both the special share and 37.5% of the "C" shares. The company's constitution did not have any provisions about this situation.
In 2008, after the United Democratic Party was elected on a platform of anti-corruption and honesty, this action was brought to change the board. Belize Telecom argued that those two directors were not removable. The Attorney General, for the government, argued this would be absurd and the articles should be construed as providing that a director should leave office if the specified shareholding which got him there ceased to exist.
Conteh CJ in the Belize Supreme Court agreed with the government and said that a term allowing the government with its 37.5% stake should be allowed to remove those two directors and appoint new ones.

Answer 1

翻译如下，仅供参考：
伯利兹在1989年成为第二个拉美国家私有化电信网络（仅次于智利）。成立于1974年独立后的一年中，伯利兹电讯管理局的业务和资产转移到一家公司叫伯利兹电讯有限公司（已更名为伯利兹电信媒体在2007年[1]）。政府是要逐步出售其股份，但在这个过程中保留了“特别股”（通常称为黄金股）。据该公司的constitutition对重要交易中的各项权利，特别股东可委任两名董事的八。类的“B”股东（这是所有私人投资者，如英国电信）可委任两名董事和阶级的“C”股东可委任四名董事一起。政府拥有一流的“C”股，并有进一步规定，如果特别股东仍然超过37.5％的总股本，将有权任命这四个“C”的两名董事。

政府决定在2003年完成私有化进程。通过了立法，试图让进入电信市场的竞争。 2004年，伯利兹电信买了政府的特别股。它也买了“C”的政府仍然拥有股份。但是，以资助这一点，得到了政府的贷款。换句话说，政府的转换在伯利兹电讯有限公司，其股份的债务。为了安全，直至债务偿还政府得到关于它刚刚售出（但不包括特别股）股份的承诺。伯利兹电信立即任命了新的董事，取代了政府的任命。但是不幸的是2005年2月9日，伯利兹电信偿还拖欠的贷款。政府强制执行其承诺，现在再次有超过37.5的“C”％的股份，但没有特别的份额。问题在于两名董事被受谁的人举行的特别股及以上37.5任命的“C”股％可以被删除。当它站在那里，没有人持有的股份和37.5的特殊的“C”股％。公司章程没有对这种情况的任何规定。
2008年，仅次于美国民主党是基于对反腐败和诚实的竞选纲领，这个动作被带到改变董事会。伯利兹电信认为，这两个董事不可拆卸。律政司，为政府，认为这将是荒谬的条款应被视为该董事应提供离任如果指定的股权而获得他在那里已不复存在解释。
Conteh在伯利兹最高法院终审法院首席法官同意，并说，政府允许其长期37.5％的股份，政府应该允许删除这些两名董事，并任命新的。

Answer 2