ist so zu stellen, als ob diese die Beteiligung noch halten würde/ausgeübt hätte

09:22 Dec 9, 2016 

Thanks for your explanation and have a great weekend!

09:20 Dec 9, 2016 

No, perhaps I'm being too negative about 'deemed' in this context. I am not really a financial translator. In the context 'deemed' works. In other contexts the 'ist zu stellen' could have a more active meaning than deemed, but not here. I agree, 'is to be' or even 'must be' or 'shall be' is correct, 'should' is too weak. I am bowing out of the discussion as I am leaving my desk!

09:13 Dec 9, 2016 

"I'm not really concerned about collecting points."

I am neither, so there's that. A lot of cases of "put/place in the same position as if" use "shall" or "must" - the German "ist zu stellen" is not a suggestion either. Considering the discussion about "shall/will" and English (non-American) insistence on "shall" in such cases (plus the warning about using "should" in its place), I'd prefer at minimum your second option "is to be."

I'm curious, though, what you meant by "change of meaning"? Two examples of "deemed as if":
"Such payments shall be deemed as if not made, and shall be applicable to such liens notwithstanding that the contractor to whom it was paid may thereafter abandon his contract [...]"
https://casetext.com/case/ganahl-v-weir

"or does not claim the prize as indicated in the Rules, it will be deemed as if the winner rejected the prize and the Sponsor may select a new winner if time permits."
http://www.univision.com/san-antonio/kbbt/local/eventos-loca...

I will readily admit that I may be missing something. This recent, long discussion about differences in legal meaning may have gotten me thoroughly confused.

08:59 Dec 9, 2016 

Should is OK, or write 'is to be placed in' perhaps safer. I personally wouldn't write 'deemed', it's a change of meaning but not really dangerous I suppose. I didn't post as an answer but you can take it if you like! I'm not really concerned about collecting points.

08:31 Dec 9, 2016 

Yes, I've seen them (place+put):
"which declares that 'the granting of a new trial places the parties in the same position as if no trial had been had,'"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/120/430

"In fixing compensation for damage resulting from breach of a contract, the general rule is that the injured party should be placed in the same position as if there had been no breach."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/290/47.html

My question is whether you'd keep the (non-mandatory) "should."

On a side note, I think your suggestion deserves further consideration and I don't know why it wasn't posted as an answer. I'm not very comfortable with "proceed" here (proceed with what), since we don't have any more context and the sentence merely continues with the put option and "wirksam ausgeübt hätte."

03:37 Dec 9, 2016 

In reply to your quibble, try Googling "put * in the same position as" and you will get some legalese replies.

13:12 Dec 7, 2016 

I believe this is a case for that infamous "shall/will be deemed (to be)" that we've just discussed in the shall/will question. It creates a legal fiction.

21:30 Dec 6, 2016 

sich in bestimmter Weise jemandem, einer Sache gegenüber verhalten; in Bezug auf jemanden, etwas eine bestimmte Position beziehen, Einstellung haben
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/stellen#Bedeutung10
also hier etwa i.S. v. "behandeln wie"