And I've explained how I interpret those words (and others, including Milestone I believe, have agreed).  I strongly believe that the intent is "if PTSC goes in with TPL to cooperatively buy another entity via formation of a subsidiary corporation, a la PDS".  This interpretation makes the most sense, IMO, as RG should/would not be rewarded for an action where he and he alone didn't "make it happen".

Also note that it says "...M&A acquisition...", meaning an acquisition of another entity, and not the acquisition of plant, equipment or facilities.

Perhaps you missed those posts of the recent past, or are just experiencing "convenient memory loss".  I do recognize there is a language barrier here, so your (faulty, IMO) interpretation may be a result.

And here I'll say again that, IMO, in reality, there is no such thing as a true "merger" (as most people want to define it - a combining of exact equals).  There is virtually always consideration (exchange of money/assets) involved, and one of the entities (the buying entity) is placed in charge over the other (the selling entity).  I believe the word "merger" is used purely to passify the shareholders and employees of the respective organizations.

Webster's definition of "merger" in this context: "absorption by a corporation of one or more others".  Unlike how most people want to define that word (a combining of equals, resulting in equal/shared control), this definition kinda rings of "buy out", doesn't it?

JMHOs,

SGE