Legal grammar question - how can this phrase be correct?

[luckyjimm]

Legal language is horrible!

[Genz]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know about this specific term, but it could be correct.

In the USA, a "shareholders' consent" or a "directors' consent" is a legal document to be executed by all the shareholders or directors.

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be right. It is VERY plausible, that the document itself is just called "Investors' Consent" and is used equally for one, many or all investors and that every single investor has to sign one "Investors' Consent" form. So the "investors'" has no effect in itself but only describes the document. It's just the form that investors use when they are giving their consent no matter how many of them are actually doing it. If he is drafting a completely new document, it should be "investor's" obv. when only one investor is giving his consent.

[luckyjimm]

It does make sense when you read the full passage from the contract, which I posted this morning earlier on the thread. "Investors' consent" is a defined term, the name of a document.

The singular "an" is used because it connects with "consent", though it is "an" rather than "a" because it is modified by "investor."

I'm no grammarian - anyone here smart enough to explain the syntax in this phrase?

[Brad1970]

Too much 'lawyerin' in this threads'.

[dlk9s]

I agree with Genz. It looks like the document is called "Investors' Consent." The "an" is used in conjunction with the document itself, indicating that there is one document, not that there is only one investor. Thus, the apostrophe is probably fine at the end of the word.

[ohgeetee]

The context is what makes this correct. Notice how its capitalized. "Investors' Consent" is the name of some type of document or 'thing.' The collective "Investors' Consent" is the noun, not just "Consent." The punctuation on Investors' Consent needs to be consistent, which it currently isn't.

'Farmers' Almanac' would be a similar noun that would follow the same criteria.