Cadence CEO Ted Schroeder is a director of Incline. In my opinion this is a positive for Cadence shareholders in terms of his access to information, including insight into the objectives of Incline's investors. The relationship between Cadence and Incline is "tight", but Schroeder's interests are clearly aligned with Cadence. This is true not only for his compensation, but also with respect to his responsibility/liability as an officer of a public company. I remain convinced that Cadence is in the driver's seat, and they will not overpay for Incline. If there is a selloff in the pps due to dilution, as stated by other posters, it will represent a buying opportunity.
I'm not a corporate law expert, but doesn't it strike people as a little odd that he is the CEO of a company presumably balancing the pros and cons of buying a particular company (and owes us shareholders a fiduciary duty to act in our best interest), yet at the same time is on the board of an entity where he is supposedly advancing their interests (over Cadences). Huh? How does all that work exactly? What is he decides Cadence shouldn't be paying so much. How can he be on both sides.
Incline is private and run by equity investors that focus on biotech opportunities. It is true that Schroeder has a potential fiduciary responsibility to CADX shareholders. You might therefore draw some comfort from the fact that he is unlikely to jeopardize CADX's interests simply because he sits on Incline's BOD.