Company: CSLMF
Filing Date: 2025-07-03
Form Type: DEFM14A
Source: 0001193125-25-155514
Chunk: 188

Company: CSLM ACQUISITION CORP.
Filing Date: 2025-07-03
Form: DEFM14A
Chunk 188
---
 they did not know and could not reasonably have discovered such material misstatements or omissions. This is referred to as a “due diligence” defense and
results in the underwriters undertaking a detailed review of the

102

company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Going public via a business combination with a SPAC does not involve any underwriters and does not generally necessitate
the level of review required to establish a “due diligence” defense as would be customary in an underwritten offering.

In
addition, going public via a business combination with a SPAC does not involve a book-building process as is the case in an underwritten public offering. In any underwritten public offering, the initial value of a company is set by investors who
indicate the price at which they are prepared to purchase shares from the underwriters. In the case of a SPAC transaction, the value of the company is established by means of negotiations between the target company, the SPAC and, in some cases,
other investors who agree to purchase shares at the time of the business combination. The process of establishing the value of a company in a SPAC business combination may be less effective than the book-building process in an underwritten public
offering and also does not reflect events that may have occurred between the date of the merger agreement and the closing of the transaction. In addition, underwritten public offerings are frequently oversubscribed resulting in additional potential
demand for shares in the aftermarket following the underwritten public offering. There is no such book of demand built up in connection with a SPAC transaction and no underwriters with the responsibility of stabilizing the share price which may
result in the share price being harder to sustain after the transaction.

If CSLM’s due diligence investigation of Fusemachines was inadequate, then CSLM shareholders following the consummation of the Business Combination could lose some or all of their investment.

Even though CSLM and its legal advisors conducted a due diligence investigation of Fusemachines, it cannot be sure that this due diligence
uncovered all material issues that may be present in Fusemachines and its business and operations, or that it would be possible to uncover all material issues through a customary amount of due diligence, or that factors outside of Fusemachines and
its business and operations and outside of its control will not later arise.

During the pendency of the Business Combination, CSLM will not be able to enter into an agreement with another party because of restrictions in the Merger Agreement. If the Proposed Transaction