Replies to post #196605 on Enzolytics Inc (ENZC)

[Dyno89]

If the subs were still under ENZC, then why did they just issue a press release a few weeks back stating they would be following up with shareholders in a matter of weeks on the new business strategy? If all the assets were still here, wouldn’t you continue what was being done for 3 years? New business strategy sounded like nothing remained here, which is what they told us back in July. “No assets, no operations”.

[Timing101]

$ENZC This is very clear Legal Language about SAGA from the SEC and NASDAQ, NO LONGER FOR BARRY K or SAGA in that arena.
https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/sagaliam-acquisition-corp.-announces-delisting-of-common-shares-from-nasdaq-2024-03
--
In the Meantime this was a Year ago and it very apparent then and up to now that struggles within and internally were happening.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/virogentics-enzolytics-refute-misleading-information-123000291.html
--
So lets just see what NEW CEO Steve Sharabura puts out in a disclosure and how names, positions, have changed , plus any other
information, should be out next week, keep an eye open but a prelim was given in the article . Chandra declined anything and for that matter
has been changing his personal LinkedIn and Social Media to not even being with ENZC .
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/virogentics-enzolytics-refute-misleading-information-123000291.html
--
Lets See Next Week

[Valuator2]

I'm not a lawyer either, but when I read section 5.1 and 6.12 of the BCA one thing that stuck out to me is the language about the written waiver to close without satisfying all of the conditions of the close. The language allows the closing itself to be a written waiver of all conditions of the close. It's my understanding that a waiver is usually meant to cover minor issues that may not have been addressed prior to the close, so the waiver is usually used to nullify those minor deficiencies or conditions missed by considering them met after the close. Clearly SAGA did not meet the conditions necessary for the close and ENZC had some work to do as well, but they say they did close. So, I'm guessing they used that language to rush the closing and skip the conditions enumerated in Section 5. JMHO.

The question then, unless something gives in the meantime, is whether the closing will hold up in spite of the lawsuit brought by GLD, and apparently GLD itself wrote the proposed order for the process of the suit with an extended timeline. It's unknown if the judge set the schedule and GLD just wrote the order according to his instructions or GLD asked for the schedule. JMHO.