I thought I had already clearly explained what I felt was wrong with the headline of the press release, but I’ll try again. The word “Receive” means “vastaanottaa” / “saada”. In this case, it wasn’t that the funding had been received or obtained. A funding decision / funding commitment has been made for the company’s project, which is conditional, so one of those terms should have been used in the headline as well. According to the Securities Markets Act, disclosure must be truthful and must not be misleading.
In this case, the entire future of the company hangs on upcoming decisions from food authorities, and there is a significant risk involved due to iron levels. If it is now implied that 80 million in funding has already been received, it may cause a misunderstanding among investors that this has somehow improved the company’s immediate situation. A funding commitment is certainly a good thing and the loan terms are excellent, but if the marketing authorization doesn’t come through, the release has zero value.
Another perspective. If a company with a market cap of 140 million receives a 40 million grant on its balance sheet, the share price should rise by nearly 30% immediately. If a release is headlined incorrectly, stating that the company has received tens of millions in grants, it can cause a rapid price reaction because investors believe the company has received tens of millions in cash.
Misleading communication can in some cases even be interpreted as market manipulation, so one should be careful with it. Companies are fined every now and then for incorrect disclosure.
edit. You can take a lead from the headline of the Inderes article. “Solar Foods secured funding.” That does not mean it has been received. 