I think it is a reference to a legal letter sent to PWC's reps on behalf of GFive, wherein GFive does allege that they were told via phone that the winning bid included a share purchase. It is the one time in this entire ordeal where direct contradictory language is used in writing to support a share purchase. However, I think its pretty clear it was an allegation made by the losing bidder in hopes of forcing PWC back to the table after they failed to up their bid to win, and is easily trumped by the subsequent mountain of clear documentation made public by PWC and approved by the court, including the additional documents such as the tenth report which was basically done to make triple sure no one was still expecting a buyout.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.