RE:RE:RE:RE:CALIFORNIA UPDATEMidSizeInvestor wrote: I found the MD&A of Cali lacked clarity. MGW owns the greenhouses and collects management fees, but the collective owns the plants. Fine. What about the nine new greenhouses planned for 2017? Who will own the production from those? Does MGW have a license to grow and sell in Cali? I thought MGW had a license and was grandfathered in terms of recreational sales, while the San Diego land was not, meaning the SD location would have to wait until new County and State rules were in place.
Nevada appears to need a fair bit of cash allocated for construction. Initially, I thought the PP was to fund BC and Nevada, then with the cancellation of the first PP and the new PP, it sounded as the money would only go to BC. Notice in the May 1 news release, the disclosure seemed make it extremely clear about the use of the money and US securities rules. Does this mean the company can't use any of the money for Nevada and Cali? Looks like it. As wholey owned subsidiaries, can't money be moved where you want?
THE SECURITIES OFFERED HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE U.S. SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED OR SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES ABSENT REGISTRATION OR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. THIS PRESS RELEASE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER TO SELL OR THE SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY NOR SHALL THERE BE ANY SALE OF THE SECURITIES IN ANY STATE IN WHICH SUCH OFFER, SOLICITATION OR SALE WOULD BE UNLAWFUL."
That paragraph does not say what they can and cannot do with the PP money. All it is saying is that the securities (shares) were offered on a Canadian exchange, not US, and so they are not registered for sale on a US exchange.