They definitely don’t have to announce a final merger company before the motion to terminate. Reason I say this is because BSPI already had motion to terminate and has not announced a final merger candidate.
They also don’t have to tell the court the final merger company. All court proceedings are public and it wasn’t revealed in the BSPI filings or hearing.
The big question is, do they have to have a final merger company identified when they file the motion to terminate. The court filing says:
“ 12. Custodian believes the shareholders will now have a fruitful company moving forward. The Custodian would like to close out the custodianship with the Court on a successful note. Therefore, Custodian is making a Motion at this time to terminate the custodianship.”
Now, clearly they are stating they have taken action to revitalize the company. That could mean a final merger target is ready. However I wonder if it could also just mean that the company has been reorganized into the intermediate empty shell company SPAC, but no final merger target. One could argue an empty shell SPAC in good status is also fruitful for the shareholders.
So in the end, we know some from the history of BSPI, but maybe don’t know the whole story of what is actually in place when they terminate custodianship.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
