48North Cannabis Corp. V.NRTH

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Been following this for awhile.

[clubhouse19]

1--Who knows on whether its done in house or through an independent source.
 I would rather think independent. and who knows how long since they may not be the only ones in queue.

2- refer to1
3- If its good,,they have the option to tell us or not.
If its not good...they are required to disclose.

4- like I said before...I find it very doubtful that they didn't know whther first hand or not or the one responsible didn't divulge. Either way they own it.

Like I stated...OSC can find out the true picture  

greenalyst wrote: Last questions of the day from me:

1. How long does it take to analyze a sample. They apparently have 12k kgs dried right? Is it a chromatograph or an electron microscope or a gel blot? Most labs could do such things in 1-2 days no?

2. Don't u think their first question after how much would have been what's content and quality?

3. Are u therefore not concerned that after an 'apparent licensing loss' of 75% of the crop  that not only did they not tell us anything about content/quality, to the contrary they made a specific point of saying they DIDN'T know? Why? Laziness? Incompetence? ... or are they waiting for repeated tests because the answer the first time around was concerning? I realize the answer is WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW but...

4. In lieu of the the drying debaucle and deception don't u think they would recognize the importance of providing shareholders with this info in as timely a manner as possible and if not possible explain why and when we will know? So maybe it's as simple as it's not ready for analysis. TELL US THAT! When you have a baby the first question is boy or girl? The second is healthy? Management has said we don't know and we don't know.

This ultimately speaks to the loss of credibility. We can't trust or assume anything. Before we tolerated the stupid instagrams and the silly sackville angle because we trusted. Now that is gone. Financials are all they have until further clarification and that is important in this industry but cash burns fast in a failing business model. The loss of their head start was a big trip out of the blocks and they are a silly small company; you don't see any real media outlet or analyst covering what happened with the harvest (like canntrust).

So, they are still failing to meet what I expect as a shareholder; required or not. I am left wondering if I am getting left in the dust on a failed venture. Only time will tell. And I am helpless to do anything else.

GLTA

3.

clubhouse19 wrote: I would say that considering the optics of this present situation of the harvest and lack of drying facilities,  I would doubt that they would wait long before disclosure if anything negative on the quality. 
Lack of anything negative on the quality, no disclosure should be required unless they choose to.

greenalyst wrote: It's not as simple as licensing. That's the story but now they are building a facility too. So what's the real truth? Shareholders should have been aware that there was yet another pending license, just as well all held our breath for the outdoor grow license. My read is they were not prepared with the proper permits or licensable facilities.

flamingogold wrote: club, I am not supporting how they withheld the info, but what if they actually received their HC license the day before reporting. Maybe they were waiting until the very last possible opportunity before having to report the material event.

Let's look at the reverse scenario. If they reported early that licensing was delayed, the stock would plummet, then later report they have licensing, could there have been a lawsuit perhaps on stock price manipulation?

Just trying to be objective here, maybe I'm wrong with my thinking.

clubhouse19 wrote: As per disclosure rules,
 
 They cannot postpone or withold any information that is deemed a material event.

 The non compliance with quality or the recent late disclosure of lack in drying facilities are material events.