RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Over at the c_o.ca siteIt's simply amazing how everybody is avoiding having to answer the question as to whether there exists a mandatory holding period for any of the NanoXplore shares sold as part of this $30M bought deal capital raise. It's a very simple answer Lire02.
Regarding the clarification you requested with respect to what I stated about a U.S competitor to NanoXplore, I'll provide the following restatement Lire02.
It's a company which is a serious U.S. based NanoXplore competitor, although not all that much as pertains to such a company possessing largest global scale graphene production capability.
The company I refer to is more concerned with 'the quality' of the graphene it produces in abundant enough quantities, i.e. abundant enough quantities with which to 'manufacture and supply' it's graphene comprised automotive parts and components to automotive manufacturers operating within the U.S and globally; and that is certainly not all this company has going for it.
The company I speak of is a privately owned corporation and is a company which also holds proprietary technologies with respect to graphene comprising battery materials. Such a company is also producing and intending to supply 'high grade graphene' comprised batteries to it's top tier automotive industry customers.
NOTE: Without a shred of doubt Mr. Soroush Nazarpour would certainly know which U.S. based company I am refering to.
In fact, Mr. Soroush Nazarpour should actually be attempting to negotiate the forced concession by and subsequent merger with such a graphene comprised automotive parts and components manufacturer and supplier, i.e. should the necessary "leveraging of" NanoXplore's USEPA "Consent Order" be successful in greatly facilitating such a 'forced concession' by and consequent merger with such a U.S domiciled corporate entity.
Yes. You guessed it. The company I refer to is presently 'a clear violator' of existing USEPA rules, regulations and federal government environmental law; and so too are the U.S based and U.S operating automotive manufacturer customers that such a company supplies.
As I mentioned, such a competitor maintains a certain 'heavy weight' investor; a heavy weight investor that happens to 'hold the note' which such a U.S based competitor to a certain NanoXplore subsidiary had previously issued to such a behemoth of a "U.S Industrial Titan".
Therein lies the problem for the 'U.S Industrial Titan' that presently 'holds the note' owed to it by the very company I am referring to.
Question: Should NanoXplore's attained and controlled USEPA "consent order" put the aforementioned NanoXplore competitor 'over a barrel' so to speak; where does that leave the the 'U.S Industrial Titan' that presently 'holds the note' owed to it by the very company I am referring to.
It's no wonder the 'U.S Industrial Titan' that presently 'holds the note' owed to it by the aforementioned NanoXplore competitor, has recently sold the majority of it's 'mobility and materials' division for $11 Billion Dollars to Celanese.