A) as Ive stated, my interest here is in confirmation bias and other psychoses that affect trading decisions. There is no answer here other than the reporter believes the transaction is closed, secured and unsecured credits got hurt, and the equity wiped out. Keep your opinion, but accept that the reporter is not playing word games and putting out work that he believes could possible be fundamentally wrong.
B) 7.8B, you're right! Obviously its irrelevant, but see how easy it is to concede a point when clear?
C) So you are saying, if there is 7.8B people exactly, and someone produced signatures of 7,799,999,999 who said they had not made an offer to purchase the shares here, your opinion would be as steadfast as it is now?
D) Whats not clear? Are you saying its possible the reporter has an opinion that there is likely a second transaction, but didn't feel it relevant to note in this piece, that no one following the subject of the article (and upset) would be interested, that the losses that were the whole point of his article are actually totally wrong?