RE:AEZS approached CZOIf AEZS wanted exposure to CZO's pipeline say within biopharma they could have funded CZO for their AV or Y-BG and negotiated a %age interest. No takeover of CZO would be needed.
More than likely AEZS wanted to tout PGX to raise funds in the future as their pipeline was a dead end and their track record made it difficult to do another equity raise (last one was in 2021 and a 1 for 25 rollback occurred 2 years later).
Did CZO want to merge with AEZS given Gilles wanted access to $? We are led to believe from Q3 NR that CZO had adequate funding. Furthermore, GIlles has always stated that should there be positive results (ie. AV / Y-BG) the share price would rise substantially and they could raise funds as needed / attract a partner. In addition the CoQ10 licensing deal was in serious discussions and was to have occurred by H2 2023 that would have led to some capital infusion by a commerical partner.
Given the information we have, I would say that AEZS needs CZO more that CZO needs AEZS. To be taken over for below liquidation value and to be tied to a high risk, cash burning biopharma with a track record of shareholder value destruction is something CZO shareholders don't want.
This non-arm lengths deal really stinks given that Gilles fingerprints are all over it, and the special committee has a conflict of interest as several members will be on the board of the new company and of course Gilles takes back the CEO seat. BTW Glenn Rourke likely did the honorable thing by resigning, leaving his seat on the special committee as he probably couldn't stomach this. He didn't want to ruin his reputation as he was previously a Managing Director BMO Nesbitt Burns and Senior Vice President Bank of Montreal.
Say NO to this sham merger. Maybe Glenn Rourke likely did so with his departure.