RE:RE:RE:What is the scenario YukonJezza wrote: GameChangerBet wrote: Notthatbright wrote: should the shareholdres vote against amalgamation?
You certainly want to amalgamate. You want your shares to own the IP.
Any potential future aquiring event will likely require the IP, package deal.
In addition to that, you absolutely want senior management to own the same common shares you do, as opposed to owning shares in AH where they sit back and collect royalties that ATE would have owed them from future sales. Everyone is now on the same page.
What's good for the bosses, will be good for us shareholders.
so for the last 8 years they should have amalagamated so everyone is now on the same page. Your words pumper
Do you have any concept of how a business or corporation works?
They started out with a particular structure.
At this point in time, given how far along they have come, they have come to the conclusion that it makes more sense to maintain everything under one company as opposed to having any part of it under a holding company or subsidiary.
There are a team of people. Yes there is a CEO who needs to sign off on all decisions, however CEO's rarely make those decisions on their own. They have business advisors, they have science advisors, advisors on financial structure.
Now that their product is getting closer to legitimacy, they see the opportunity in a diferrent way.
Perhaps Don Haut advised Dan that this amalgamation needs to happen in order for the company to be aquired in it's entirety.
I have no idea if that's the case, however it would at least make some sense.
This repetitive rhetoric of "8 years ago". This is not the same company that it was 8 years ago.
Of course they're going to make adjustments along the way as they deem necessary.
For the love of common sense, expand your thought process, just a little.