RE:RE:Project Arrow unveiled for suppliers, key partnersIf Cabot Corp principals wanted that particular company could place NanoXplore on the map.
Cabot needs access to additional proprietary technological processes and/or intellectual properties which the company had been licensing from XG Sciences and working at further developing.
At this point, it simply astounding that none of the companies previously vested of XG Sciences and it's previous creditors have elected to hop onto the NanoXplore bandwagon, so to speak.
You would think that once NanoXplore purchased the XG Sciences intellectual properties and assets, every one of the following named companies had the opportunity to, as Mr. Nazarpour suggested, elect to come along.
Mr. Nazarpour did suggest he hoped they would come along, when answering a question posed by a certain equities analyst, I believe.
Dow Chemical-DuPont, Hanwha Chemical, Samsung Ventures, POSCO, Cabot Corp, SC-XGS,LLC, Aspen/XGS2 (both SC-XGS, LLC and AspenXGS2 likely representing primary XG Sciences principals and the intellectual properties owners interests), etc
. | Hanwha Chemical | | $3 million |
| 2010 | | ASC-XGS, LLC | | $1.6 million |
| 2011 | | POSCO | | $4 million |
| 2011 | | Cabot Corp | | $4 million license agreement |
| 2014 | | Samsung Ventures | | $3 million |
| 2014 | | POSCO pre-emptive rights | | $1.2 million |
| 2014/15 | | Aspen/XGS II | | $10 million + $1 million lease |
| 2015 | | Series B | | $4.3 million |
| 2016 | | Dow Chemical |