RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:financing Good point Dallas. After reading it again the only conclusion I can come to is they are conflicting statements that need to be brought to the company's attention and clarified. I will clip from both of our posts to show the conflict as I see it. From my post, the following Each Subscription Receipt will entitle SmartLynx to receive, without payment of additional consideration or further action on the part of the holder, one unit of the Company (each a “Unit” and collectively the “Units”), upon receipt by the escrow agent, prior to August 31, 2019 (the “Deadline”) of a release notice from the Company and SmartLynx (the “Release Notice”), confirming that: (a) the Company has raised additional gross proceeds of $40 million (the “Funding Milestone”) from a subsequent financing by May 31, 2019 (such completion date subject to waiver by SmartLynx); (b) the receipt by the Company’s subsidiary, Canada Jetlines Operations Ltd. (“Jetlines Operations”), of its air operator certificate from Transport Canada;
Now to me there is no ambiguity in that statement. The subscription receipt entitlement is hinged to the completion of the conditions of the Release Notice. So inversely if the Release Notice was not fulfilled by the deadline then there is no Subscription Receipt entitlement. With that said your paragraph seems to state something totally different.
If: (i) the Release Notice is not delivered by the Deadline, or (ii) the Offering is terminated in accordance with the terms of the Subscription Receipt Agreement, then SmartLynx will be entitled to receive an amount per Subscription Receipt equal to the Offering Price and an
Now your clip clearly states that they will receive moneys back equal to the value of the Subscription Agreement if Jetlines fails to meet the conditions of the Release agreement. How can this be when my clip stated that the Subscription entitlement was hinged to it's completion in the first place?
The only way I can see these two statements co-existing is if the money is being fronted on the assumption that they will meet the conditions, and refunded (plus penalties) if they do not. If so, then this needs to be stated clearly.