I don't see any debacle. Any contract to buy shares in the...

I don't see any debacle. Any contract to buy shares in the future will have a risk clause that allows an out if the share price collapses before the trigger date. That is prudent and normal. The agreement is still "binding" in that its contractual.

In answer to your, no doubt rhetorical question - most companies would, and have done this. The real question actually is: what mitigation plan did GEM have in place should the investing company default? That question was answered today: a clear strategy to close out the CIPI deal and engage with their Plan B investor.

People are being critical because they see their value in GEM plunging - that's fair enough. But the drop in SP had its origin in other issues - that what triggered the default and the change in investor and issuing SP. Now that GEM have had to lower their CR issue price (at a discount to market and, again, quite normal), that fall in SP is further exaggerated.

GEM's growth model is based on, essentially, a Ponzi-like scheme of expansion through acquisition with the plan that future value exceeds the debt (the defunct ABC Learning Centres had a similar model). That's left them with a larger debt than investors would like. However, GEM have declared their growth phase essentially finished and are now looking at efficiencies and strategies to reduce that debt.

GEM's story is a pretty open book. You are either comfortable with the risk/reward profile or you're not. And while its easy to slide into a "if I ruled the world" fantasy decisional dissonance has no real place in this forum.