Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.

Free
Message: Re: bugging me... Jldmt... As per SGE... possibility.....fyi/...
18
Mar 15, 2008 11:03AM
12
Mar 15, 2008 11:26AM

Mar 15, 2008 08:55PM

Mar 16, 2008 07:19AM
1
Mar 16, 2008 10:40AM
1
Mar 16, 2008 12:30PM
3
Mar 16, 2008 07:43PM

Re: bugging me... Jldmt... As per SGE... possibility.....fyi/...

in response to by
posted on Mar 16, 2008 08:35PM

Posted by: SGE1 on March 14, 2008 02:10PM

In response to: Re: Form 4 (Note in bold) by billwilke

"(a merger or acquisition with TPL excluded),"

You guys could easily be interpreting this parenthetical all wrong - as to the intent.

If it said ""(a merger with or acquisition of TPL excluded)", this conjecture would make sense. But read the whole condition, as to context:

"(a) A successful M & A acquisition brought forth by Mr. Goerner, (a merger or acquisition with TPL excluded), approved by the board of directors"

The way I interpret the intent is that Rick can only satisfy this condition if he, by himself and not in cooperation with TPL (as a possible team move - where TPL may have done all the leg work), makes an acquisition happen. He gets rewarded for HIS work, not piggy-backing the work of TPL.

Now, THAT opens a whole other line of thinking, doesn't it?

PTSC and TPL (perhaps via Alliacense, where they are already 50/50 owners) going in together to acquire another entity? There's some post fodder! Find an entity hurting for money, where their operations complement those of both PTSC and Intellasys, that could be acquired with PTSC's and TPL's pooled resources, that's listed on the NAS or NYSE. Win, win, win?

Hey, I'm just a contracts guy, a world where things are written a very specific way - to avoid mis-interpretation and to assure the intent is understood. And that's how I interpret it.

BTW, I do like "M&A acquisition". To me, that means acquisition and acquisition only. "M&A" is there to only to establish context (e.g., not acquisition of a building or other plant/equipment, but of another corporate/business entity). Another thing - just how I interpret it.

I think I'm correct in all this - so have at it!

SGE

4
Mar 16, 2008 09:10PM
2
Mar 16, 2008 09:17PM
1
Mar 16, 2008 09:44PM

Mar 17, 2008 03:14AM
2
Mar 17, 2008 05:30AM

Mar 17, 2008 05:43AM
1
Mar 17, 2008 06:03AM
2
Mar 17, 2008 06:09AM

Mar 17, 2008 06:22AM
1
Mar 17, 2008 07:12AM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply