RE:RE:RE:RE:Here is what just happened this week...BuckshoTMX, you;ve told us about some of your brilliant ideas. Indoor grow ops replacing greenhouses over time, higher cost producers going to drive lower cost producers out of business. Honestly, I don't want anything to do with your brilliant ideas.
Are you saying Aphria acted fradulently? I would be very careful how you answer this question in writing, unless you have some strong evidence to support the accusation you are making. So, lets hear what you have.
M
Buckshot26 wrote: Wow and he dug in on this granfathered business...LMAO
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Go read the lisitng agreement. You apparently know next to zero about how the capitalmarkets function and the regulators role in approving press releases. Hey I've got a brilliant idea, lets find some people who lost money on sino forest or southwestern resources etc etc ETC and sue the TMX for approving their fraudulant NR's. Holy smokes it's amateur hour in aphria land.
Monteviale wrote: Danocoats,
First I appreciate your feed back.
Do you think TMX gets to make the final decsion or do you think Aphria has options should they not agree with the decision?
Do you think the TMX should be allowed to backtrack because of their oversight and if they are allowed to backtrack should they be required to pay damages for their negligent decsion?
Acquiesence may be construed as consent in law.
However, TMX did more than just remain silent on the issue, they actively enganged and approved Aphria's application. It was more than TMX remaining silent while Aphria expanded into the US. They recieved TMX's consent based on full disclosure being made by Aphria. I will acknowledge the outcome might be differen if Aphria failed to disclose their activities, but based on what has been revealed to date, full disclosure was made.
There are a number of precedents where an activity can be grandfathered in, if it doesnt comply with current law. Its done with zoning bylaws all the time. And if you think about it, in its simpilist form, grandfathering a business in contravention of new zoning laws, is nothing more than allowing a certain activity to take place at a location that doesnt conform to existing laws.
I think breaking the "law" is exaggerated. No laws have been broken in Canada by Aphria.
Not sure you can equate TMX policy with "law". I doubt TMX policy is based on any set of laws passed by either provincial or federal legislatures. In fact I would argue that TMX is basing their decsion on "self imposed policy" that can vary from exchange to exchange. That is why the CSE and TMX can have different policies concerning the same activity. No law is being broiken.
So if Aphria has broken no laws, complied with all listing requirements required by the TMX, has been doing business in the U.S. for three years and the TMX has approved their expanison into the U.S., do you honestly think the TSX should be able to simple say we now expect you to spin off your U.S. assets or we are going to delist you. Do you really expect at first glance that a court having to make that decsion will rule in TSX's favour? I honestly think grandfathering in Aphria is not only a viable option, but the only option unless the TSX decides to open the doors for everyone. It will be interesting to see whcih route the TMX goes.
M