I'm going to jump in here with some insight as to why it makes sense to separate them, and one of the posters on this board had privately figured it out a while back.
The business model of a "solar park fund" is quite different from a company that operates as an EPC firm (Engineering, Procurement, Construction). This in itself means there is also a different risk profile of the typical investor, and therefore expected return on investment. As a result of a different risk profile, each company will attract a different kind of investor.
The investor, who wishes to have the security of the power purchase agreements that the Fund will acquire from the "Inc", with guaranteed paybacks each year (in some place these PPA agreements run up to 20 years) will have a certain profile. The investor, who wishes to take a different kind of risk (although admittedly both are still very mitigated) and put money in the EPC model knowing there is a buyer at the conclusion of the build (being The Fund) and therefore a guaranteed exit so long as the EPC company delivers on time and within specifications, is a different investor.
So to each comes an opportunity that fits their risk aversion profile, and whether "fund" and "inc" are parent or not is immaterial. As a poster pointed out, the same management team will be involved in both and therefore ensure a proper transfer of assets, equitable management of margins and exit prices when the solar canopy, rooftop or farm is transferred from one entity to the other.
In the end, both business models are proven successes worldwide, so what the Sunlogics team is offering is an opportunity to a wide audience to participate in this great new business.
Note that nothing I have written above is not either common knowledge or simple deduction, without revealing any internal plans I may know about.
Hope this helps,
Sass
