Yes I am familiar with the term, thank you.
I'm not sure I agree with you, however, that a right of first refusal is better than being the parent company's exclusive funding partner. As you know, with a right of first refusal the Fund will have the option but not the obligation to fund all of Sunlogics Inc.'s project. But, you may recall over the past weeks there has been some insecurity on this board as to the real market value of the Fund as a distinct entity from the parent. After all, with a right of first refusal (and nothing more), the Fund could start "refusing" to fund any projects at all, at the whim of Sunlogics management. In other words, a right of first refusal (and nothing more) is a two-way street.
On the other hand, as the exclusive funding partner of Sunlogics, the Fund WILL (presumably)fund ALL of Sunlogics' projects. You worry that they may be forced to fund projects they do not like - I am not so worried. If a project is not going to be profitable, I would hope Sunlogics Inc. would not undertake its construction in the first place.
In short, I'd rather have the stability as Sunlogics' "exclusive partner" on all 5,300 GM Green Zones in the State of MI, despite the small risk of lower-than-expected profitability, versus having only the "right of first refusal" to the project, which could be refused in its entirety, at any time, at the sole discretion of management.