CONFIDENTIAL
*
WE WOULD OF COURSE HAVE QUERIED YOUR INTERPRETATION FARLIER HAD · ME BEEN AWARE OF IT. BUT WE REALLY DO NOT FIND ANY CLUE TO THIS
IN PLYE'S LETTER OF 11 FEBRUARY, AT AN EARLIER STAGE, WE CERTAINLY TOOK PARA 2 OF YOUR TEL NO 1316 OF 27 NOVEMBER (WHICH REFERS TO TOPPING-UP AT THE END OF NOVEMBER TO MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION) TO BE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVERANT PROVISIONS.
5. WE RECOGNISE OF COURSE THAT THE AMOUNTS OF STERLING AT STAKE WERE MARCINAL IN RELATION TO YOUR TOTAL HOLDINGS. BUT CORRESPONDINGLY, THE MODIFIED BASIS OF SETTLEMENT THAT HAS BEEN DESCRIDED (AND WHICH FOR CONVENIENCE. WE SET OUT AGAIN IN M.I.F.T.) WAS NOT DESIGNED TO DIFFER MORE THAN PARGINALLY FROM THE BASIS THAT WOULD APPLY IF THE CONDITIONS OF THE DECLARATION HAD DEPH FULFILLED, MOREOVER, THIS MODIFIED SETTLEMENT BASIS WAS CERTAINLY HOT DESIGNED TO LEAVE YOU WITH INCREASED UNCOVERED BALANCES: IT WAS DESIGNED, IN THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR CASE, TO COMPENSATE ON THE BASIS OF YOUR HOLDINGS AFTER THE PURCHASE IN RESPECT OF THE END-FEBRUARY SHORT-FALL HAD BEEN MADE. THIS MODIFIED SETTLEMENT BASIS WAS DESCRIBED IN OUR TELEGRAM HO 309 OF 26 MARCH. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION IN YOUR TELEGRAM NO 375 ''WHETHER IT WOULD BE WORTH YOUR WHILE BUYING STERLING BEFORE FRIDAY WE MADE IT CLEAR IN OUR TELEGRAM NO 314 OF 27 MARCH THAT UNDER THE MODIFIED SETTLEMENT BASIS, WE WOULD NOT COMPENSATE ON ANY EXTRA AMOUNT OF STERLING ACQUIRED AS A RESULT OF TOPPING-UP OVER AND ABOVE THAT UNDERTAKEN IN MARCH TO RE-ESTABLISH THE END-FEBRUARY POSITION UNDER YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCIDENTAL BREACH PROVISION, WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE ANY DIFFERENT POSITION ON THIS NOW.
༔
6. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THINK THE MODIFIED SETTLEMENT BASIS THAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IS FAIR.
7, FOR THE PERIOD OF THE NEW DECLARATION, AS WE SAID IN OUR TELEGRAM NO 309, WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCIDENTAL BREACH PROVISION THAN THE
2.
CONFIDENTIAL
ONE THERE