Considerations against the merger, page-188

Very good. Which still leaves the question how the terms could have been set (1.1:1) before any valuation is carried out. It's a bit of "cart before the horse" in my opinion. What if, hypothetically speaking, we find out that AMAL has some unfunded liability to the tune of $50Million? Do we re-rate it to 1.2:1?

And I still think the share issue to the AMAL execs was a cash grab. The document may say that it was for actions earned but what else would it say? And that the bonus was changed from cash to shares is a nice way of lumbering Tawana with half the bill. Shady business in my opinion.