sunrize....your wrongSeems to me that you have very little acumen when it comes to legal concepts. A previous poster advised you about the nature of a share deal and you refused to consider his expertise.
For your information, there are two ways to acquire companies, one is the purchase of 100% of the shares in the target company. In our case the wholly owned subsidiary which is 100% owned by SNN is being targeted because it in turn owns all of the assets of property and construction assets in the Okanagan. The second way to purchase a company by way of an Asset acquisistion and in this case the assets are acquired from the subsidiary selling off each and every asset listed by the acquirer. You have mixed the two up together somehow and come forth with incorrect conclusions regarding the real estate property which is being acquired by virtue of obtaining all the shares. No transfers in the Land Title Offices required etc.
Now you are telling this board that this latest news release is gruesome. I do not perceive it that way at all. The second part of the news release indicates that the SNN subsidiary in California is proceeding with an arbitration and has provided notice to Barker. I see this as a positive and aggressive way to get things resolved in a hurry.
If Barker is relying on the lease to enforce his rights, (and he is by provding notice under the lease) then he must all adhere to the all the clauses in lease that provide the methods by which any disputes will be settled. Undoubtedly there is an Aribitration Clause in the Lease and I think Holler is correct in proceeding to arbitration because it is faster, cheaper and resolves the conflict fairly.
There are obviously arguments on both sides of the fence and my thoughts would be that this arbitration will go ahead and be quickly resolved and accepted by the parties. Better to go to Arbitration than to wait five years for a a court to solve the dispute.