As best as I understood his argument, he was suggesting that
I needed to look no further than the above number to support an
adjusted pre-money value for Aquam of $38 million.
 While this approach was appealing on certain levels, I concluded it was too facile by half. Indeed, neither expert used it as
a touchstone for value either because there were no back-up documents to give credence or support to the number, or because it
was never intended to be a negotiated number for the common
shares, but, was part of a formula for fixing the price and number
for the preference shares that were issued to NWCS as part of
 I am also of the view that the other value indicators —
en Bloc, described in more detail in Figure 17 of the Rudson
report15 are of marginal assistance in arriving at the appropriate
FMV, other than to show the Low numbers as something of an outlier. None of the examples are representative of a valuation coincident to valuation date without having factored into the equation
some aspect of the synergies of refinancing. To apply one of the scenarios in preference to another would engage me in a mugs game.
 As a precursor to my conclusory remarks, I want to take
this opportunity to thank counsel and their respective experts for
providing me with the adjusted valuation analysis which I have
attached to these reasons for judgment. The neutral commentary
and the explanations fleshed out by Messrs. Low and Rudson
were very helpful and assisted me in understanding the complexi-
ties associated with the task with which I was mandated.
 In the final analysis, I am of the view that the valuation
should reflect a three-month delay in its implementation. In that
respect, I do not intend to repeat the analysis discussed above.
 I adopt the numbers found in Schedule 1 to the above appendix. I am also of the opinion that the “en bloc” FMV number
should be reflective of the entire financing costs, which the experts have “compromised” at $1,612,000.
 The “en bloc” FMV figure for Aquam Corporation as at
April 17, 2017 will be set at, net, $12, 300,000, rounded. On that
basis, the per share value, assuming my math is correct, will be
$. 304 per share based on a total share number of 40,421,491.
15 Wayne Rudson, Aquam Corporation Valuation Report and Review of the
Low Report (April 13, 2018), responding application record of Richard
Coffey and Lisa Fielding, Volume II of II, Tab 2, p. 49.