RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Will Bombardier get delisted? Okay, obviously none of you are here to talk or to truly be challenged in your positions, you're here to be reassured and to convince. I'll leave you to it.
GoBlue2016 wrote: Squish
I find it "laughable" in a post you crafted about ethics you
Either made up or exaggerated SAWP fines.
Used a quoted reference without source. And the source was one of the biggest WEEDie fanboys.
Now you are back onto "MASSIVE EBITDA with migrant workers". Which they haven't done as they don't have housing yet.
And there was full disclosure in USA. Do you not read SEDAR filings? You should really do MUCH better research.
Squish if you want to play don't make things up.
GoBiue
SquishyInc wrote: Oh, sure Blue, if you wanna continue the discussion of Aphrias slimy ethics, we can do that! If i remember right, the discussion began with the question of whether or not Aphria has relied on migrant labour to produce their MASSIVE profits and EBITDA. Other questions included why APH didn't publicly announce their most recent award of options, especially considering the timing. Let me look up the rest of the greasy moves Aphria has made before we continue. I think the move into the US without full disclosure to shareholders of the inherent, and very real and ongoing risks was one of them? Good start, Blue? I find it laughable that i can't post a single reasonable word on this board without being attacked by your bad self, considering how hard you've worked on the Kool-Aid drinkers on the WEED board. I still hold a position here, but the inability to see other perspectives is kinda sickening.
GoBlue2016 wrote: Squish
you back to give us the link to the "significant fines" for SAWP. I think the biggest was $7,000.
Did you find a bigger one? Send me the link. (Or you can cop to your exaggeration).
one company was suspended by SAWP for two years.
GoBlue
SquishyInc wrote: How does it make you feel to be comparing the situation with APH to all that? More or less comfortable? Discuss!
Monteviale wrote: The Globe and Mail reported on August 25, 2017 that "Bombardier Inc. executives discussed how millions of dollars worth of contracts in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan were routed through a network of shell companies, and how to redirect those millions after Swedish prosecutors and The Globe and Mail started asking questions, according to wiretaps that will be presented as evidence at a bribery trial that begins in Sweden next week."
If Bombardier is found guilty, does anyone expect them to be delisted from the TSX and /or the CDS to halt clearing their shares because they violated anti corruption laws? Same logic applies to Canadian mining companies that have been known to commit human right abuses, including crimes such as murder, rape, slave labour and environmental destruction.
In Bombarider's case you have a clear violation of law if found guilty. However, worst case scenario in the USA, you have a grey area when it comes to federal cannabis law vs state law.
The security commissions accross Canada along with the Minister of Finance would have to be in agreement before the CDS could deny clearing any shares of Canadian cannabis listed comapnies. This will not happen. It is far too extreme. The Canadian Security Commisions and the Minister of Finance will not put the brakes on what is the single greatest economic growth opportunity in Canada in decades.
M