Old Dec 1, 13, 5:52 pm
  #13  
robsaw
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Delta, BC
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by aamilesslave View Post
I agree. I'm tired of it already.

I also think the title of this thread is a bit over the top.
It is also incorrect in that this is not by the usual definition a "reverse takeover". A reverse takeover is generally used by a privately-held company to go public by taking over an existing publicly-traded company. This is legally a merger of two corporations and should be referred to as such.
robsaw is offline