Sirona Biochem Corp V.SBM

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about this..

[str8goods4achg]

Q: How are existing shareholders getting compensated for the transfer or licensing of Sirona Biochem's anti-aging molecule to Sirona Laboratories?

The whole mechanics and lack of transparency on this deal seem very shady to me. The NR word salad is spinning this as a good thing... it is supposed to benefit SBM shareholders 1 - 2 years down the line. But, there is no explanation for how this will happen. No formula for current SBM shareholders to participate or get immediate compensation. This NR is typical SBM - just buying more time and half truths. They claim that this move is not dilutive to existing shareholders... but they removed X% of value from the company... so it is very much dilutive. To me it feels like we just got fleeced. 

I could be wrong on all of this... but SBM management at least has a fiduciary duty to explain the details of this deal to ALL the owners/shareholders of SBM.

Some FYI reading about how a spin-off usually works (at least in the US) and how shareholders are compenstated and/or can participate.

https://macabacus.com/restructuring/spin-offs

For me, this is something that should be reported to IROC or BCSC or both.

[lscfa]

Sirona will own a majority stake in SL thus SBM shareholders own a majority stake in SL.

[str8goods4achg]

@iscfa You are an accountant,right? A CFA as your alias suggests. Maybe you can help me understand this... If SL goes backrupt are existing SBM shareholders in a better, same, or worst position than they were before SL was set up? If different, how so?

[lscfa]

If a holding co's subsidiary goes bankrupt the holding co. does not go bankrupt. 

[str8goods4achg]

100% correct - that is one of the benefits for two legally separate enties.  I was thinking more about how existing SBM shareholders have been subordinated and the distribution of $ upon a theoretical bankrupcy. SBM investors are still last in line, but the line just got larger with the insertion of SL creditors.  We've seen how SBM management rewards themselves... taking value out

[lscfa]

"I was thinking more about how existing SBM shareholders have been subordinated".  Wrong way of looking at it.   If SBM raised $10M to fund GPM, existing shareholders are diluted by 100M shares.   If SBM created a 50/50 JV where the partner earned its share by inputting $10M SBM would only get 50% of earnings from JV, so again dilution. If SBM creates SL and

[Alex1726]

How much money SBM HAS INVESTED so far to develop TFC 1326 AND how much money a partner will invest to bring it to market place? Based on this we can determine what is the real % of each part but SBM SHAREHOLDER NEEDS TO BE COMPENSATE FOR THE RISK THEY TOOK DEVELOPPING TFC 1326 , SO SUPPOSE IT COST $10M TO EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS ANS THE PARTNER PUT $10M IT CAN'T BE A 50%-50% JV. What is the

[Alex1726]

I do not hold a CFA designation but i know what makes sens and NOT

[Alex1726]

What a beautiful business , you take all the risk and if it works i put half what you put in and i collect half the money. To me NO RISK AT ALL. Is there a stock on the market involve in that kinf of business let me know.

[Alex1726]

If it is the way it works then some of them (Geraldyne) might have found a bright futur.

[lscfa]

The creation of SL is to raise funds that are less dilutive. The market is valuing all of SBM at $30M ($0.10 x 300M Shs.).  If SL can convince investors that GPM is worth say $100M, then any shares sold to private equity funds are being valued much higher the current SBM $0.10 share price.          @nov02/23