Hello everyoneEmotion: smile

Here is my problem. I know the uses of both tenses, the problem is that I'm getting confused about some of the concepts : the idea of "past action which is finished" and the ideas of "action taking place at an unspecified time" and "actions that still have an influence on the present".
Here is the specific sentence that I'm having problems with :

"Due to the fact that the *** group has bought out the YYY company, half of the people have been fired"

My problem here is the tense of "buy out" in the first part of the sentence. On the one hand, the specific time of the buy-out is not mentioned, which would imply using the Present Perfect. On the other hand, one can suppose that the buy-out is now a totally finished past operation and then the Past Simple could be used.

Does that make any sense ? Which tense supersedes the other ?

Any help/explanation would be much appreciatedEmotion: smile
The person who wrote that sentence is showing that the 'having bought out' has "current relevance", which is one of the functions of the present perfect. (Of course, the relevance is also obvious from the "due to" clause.)

Neither tense supersedes the other. The choice can often be made solely on the basis of what is in the mind of the person who writes (or says) the sentence. This is one of those cases.

Emotion: smile
This is really a question for California Jim, but I'll take a brief stab at it:

Either is possible; neither supersedes the other. I myself prefer, for the reason you gave, the simple past. The event has occurred in any case, but recently, so the writer may wish to stress its nearness to and association with the present situation (people fired, turmoil and stress)-- hence, present perfect was chosen (just as I did at the beginning of this sentence).
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Thank you very much for your assistanceEmotion: smile
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?