RE:RE:RE:RE:Doing Business in the U.S. Just Got a Whole Lot ClearerThanks Proof, I agree with you. When you look at the totality of all the evidence there is zero chance that Aphria will be prohibited from carrying on business in the US. It took the TSX six months to make a statement, which basically said "we are going to review companies to see which comapnies need to reviewed further".
In the meantime TSX has consented to the most recent raise by Aphria and are fully aware of Aphria's expansion plans through LHS into Ohio. George Scorsis was quoted earlier in the week stating that LHS is also exploring the possibility of adding two more states in the short term.
TSX has taken no action to slow Aphria down. This weeks press release was more about creating the impression they are on top of everything.
Yea right, first allowing Aphria to expand into the US then allowing Horizon to start a Medical Marijuan ETF Fund. Half the companies included in Horizon's ETF fund received or provided ancilalry services to the US marijuana industry. Lets see them tell Horizon they have to drop Miracle Gro from the fund.
Looking forward to tonight's ball game ....Go Houston!!!!
M
ProfCornelius wrote: Monte,
7 stars, great post! I applaud your patience in dealing with block heads like BuckshotTSX..hilarious!
However, I wish that you wouldn't of mentioned that WEED has
culpability with regards to it's own dealings in the US.
I was hoping that these dummies would get caught off guard for when the TMX de-listing reaper comes knocking on WEEDs door reagrding their
"Ancillary dealings" south of the border. The funny thing is we know that WEED certainly didn't provide them with capital via profits..lol.WEED profitable??? bahahahaha
I personally GUARANTEE that APH will not get de-listed!
The goal is for APH to stay listed on the preferred exchange and that is exactly what will happen.
Vic has too many options via spin offs, asset sales etc and legal remedies at his disposal for any other outcome!
As
Blue said, the person who's respected while BuckshotTSX isn't ,the worst that thing that will happen to the APH shareholders is that we'll receive boat loads of LHS shares as compensation for a spin off. In my case, that would be well over 600 000 LHS added to my portfolio.
Prof
Monteviale wrote: Buckshot...
You took the time to read and respond to my post, the least I can do is try and answer your questions. But I know right from the get go whatever I say will not satisfy you. Nevertheless, I will try my best.
Am I guaranteeing that APH will never get delisted. I would never guarantee that. Nothing is certain but death and taxes. You can never fully account for the the stupidity of others. So my response would be "NO". However, I'm assuming by the tone of your post you are guaranteeing it will happen. So I'll mark you down as a YES.
As far as Blue goes, Blue commands more respect from others using this site than you. Now, that I'm willing to guarantee. You really need to pay more attention to what Blue has to say. I understand your frustration, but if you could articulate your positon better when debating with Blue you would command more respect. I'm sure you have your supporters, it is just my observation.
I will answer your questions in the numerical order they appeared.
1. To silence all (or most) whiners out there.
2. As far as I'm concerned it is a moot point. I'm not sure I followed Vic's explanation on BNN, but given the opportunity to elaborate I'm sure he has some explanation for making the statement. Personally, I dont believe it is matters where the money came from. For arguments sake, I'm going to make the assumption that all funds invested by Aphria in the U.S. came from either prior raises or earnings. It still doesnt change anything.
The only reason why I consider it moot is because the illegality of marijuana at the Federal level in the U.S. is a red herring. All ten provincial security commisions and thtree territorial security commissions in Canada tend to agree. If it was a real concern, the regulators would not have consented to the CSE allowing companies to do business in the U.S.
What most people don't realize is the Ontario Secutities Commission wants each Exchange to operate their own businsses as they see fit. The TSX's position is a branding decsion. They are differentiating themselves from their competition. For now, and I emphasise "for now", the OSC will not intervene, hoping the parties may resolve their differences without intevention.
So we now have a situation in Canada where if you want to list and do business in the U.S. then you must file with the CSE. If you want to be listed with the TSX or TSXV then be prepared to be prohibited from doing business in the U.S. I dont have a problem with this. What I do have a problem with is the TSX changing the rules after the fact. You can't allow a company to conduct business in the United States for three years, then all of a sudden say we are going to delist you unless you stop. Tell me you dont find something fundementally wrong with this?
And don't think Canopy is on the side of angels. Canopy has a number of partnerships with US based companies that may themselves participate in the U.S. cannabis market. These relationships are licensing relationships that see intellectual property developed in the United States brought into Canada. Bottom line is Canopy may be sending money to companies that, federally, break the law. Perhaps that is why the TSX has created a second category of companies that they will review under the classification of "Ancillary Services". So while Canopy may think they are in the clear, the regulators have not said so.
I will take Vic Neufeuld at his word that Aphria has continuiously made full disclosure about their U.S. investments since day one to both the TSXV and TSX. No evidence to the contrary has been provided by anyone including the TSX or TSXV.
So where do we go from here. It's very simple. The TSX has three options. - Grandfather Aphria in - even though I like this idea, it isnt fair to the other companies listed on the TSX or TSXV that want to do business in the U.S. And we know there are alot. Most likely outcome if this is allowed, TSX gets sued by those companies listed on their exchange that are denied the same opportunity Aphria is.
- De-list Aphria - This really isnt fair to Aphria. They made business decsions over the last three years based on TMX's approval. TMX may have had rules in place, but if they didnt follow them it is not Aphria's problem. In fact TSX approved Aphria's expansion into the U.S. It is no different than TMX introducing new policy and wanting to enforce it retoractively. Don't forget, this only became an issue because other listed companies were denied the opportunity that was given to Aphria. Delsiting not likely to happen because it ends up in court and the Fed vs State law debate in the US will be resolved way before any court proceeding in Canada is decided.
- The fairest solution for all parties would be for the TSX and TSXV to align themselves with CSA, OSC and CSE and allow "enhanced Disclosure" as the standard for listed companies wanting to do business in the U.S. This would be a win win for all parties involved. Those listed who wanted to enter the states will now be allowed to do so, while companies such as Canopy that think it is too risky can watch from the sidelines. What's the problem... All parties are happy because everyone gets what they want. The TSX can come out and say ... "upon further review and after consultation with industry players and the CSA and OSC we will now amend our policy so it aligns with every other security comission in the country...blah blah bla..." This seems to be the fairest solution for all parties. Dont forget up until now there has never been any due process afforded to Aphria to make there case to the TSX. Trial by media. And to give the TSX some credit their position is that they will review a number of companies to see if further review is warranted. No comapnies to date have been named or identified.
3. You are assuming that asset seizure and prosecution will happen. Before I answer your question let me remind you that the first state that leglized marijuana was California in 1996, some 21 years ago. Since then, there have been another 28 states that have legalized mediccal marijuana with more coming on board. Moe than half the US population now has access to legalized medical cannabis. There has never "EVER" been in the histroy of the United States a licensed producer that had its assets seized or faced prosecution when opperating under a state legalized medical cannabis regieme, NEVER.
So to get back to your question. Is Aphria's disclosures an all out admission of guilt. NO. The U.S. has no shortage of attorneys that are more than capable of defending the charges you allude to.
Now let me ask you this, do you still believe Cannabis is not a commodity product?
You did mention the only reason for CGC going with greenhouses was finacial and timing constraints, but their long term objective would be to use profits generated from greenhouses to build more indoor facilities thereby phasing out their greenhouses for higher cost product. Do you still believe that or are you changing your thesis on the fly in which case you need to change your name to BuckshotTSX. Buckshot26 wrote: So are you guaranteeing that APH willnot get delisted? A yes or no will do.
I'm actually glad you came by, as your friends from the APH board (Blue etc) seem unable to answer a few basic questions. You claim to be on top of things so could you please answer the following:
1.Why is Aphria being so adamanet both in public interviews and their disclosure on the recent financing that none of the money being raised will be used on it's US investments?
2.How is it that they were able to spend $20million or whatever for florida and whatever else they've spent in the other states when they didn't have either that much profit or even revenue at the time, yet Neufild awkwardly states that no money raised ended up there. More simply, where did the money come from that ended up in the States?
3.You seem happy with the new disclosures being commanded by the CSA which states that you must in no uncertain terms disclose that you are breaking federal laws in the states and that doing so subjects you to asset seizure and prosecution. If the Fed's in the States take action on you and walk into a court with your disclosures are they not in fact an all out admission of guilt?
Hopefully you are the man of your group and don't duck the tough questions like your predecessors.