That sound you’re hearing is me banging my head against the wall. I did not say or imply anything regarding Nat Std’s intent. I don’t know Nat Std from Adam and so I have no idea what it intends to do should SWET ultimately satisfy the “conditions.”
What I said (and what I’ve consistently said) was: “What I'm saying is that the May 5 press release is misleading” and that SWET is suggesting that it has something that it does not. You see, I even said what I was saying. It’s clear from postings here that people, now armed with the knowledge that there’s only a non-binding letter of intent, still believe that SWET has more than it has.
Do we even know if the letter of intent is still effective – after all, SWET said in its S-1/A that it was entered into in March? No, because it’s never been recorded and only barely referenced in that S-1/A some 6 months after its creation. Letters of intent are typically not intended to sit out there for extended periods of time.
And why did SWET not issue the PR until May – hard to believe it took that long to agree on the very curiously worded PR. No mention of a letter of intent. No quote from Nat Std executives relating to the potential investment. Very curious.
As for your scenario … you’ve taken mine and re-jiggered it. If the letter of intent I received from the bank says that it “will” finance the purchase if I satisfy x, y, z conditions – then it’s not non-binding and it would be obligated to finance once I satisfied the conditions – assuming it didn’t expire before the six months it took me to get my act together – and there would be a problem if it reneged on that obligation. In my scenario, as in SWET’s, the bank didn’t say it “will”, it said come back and we’ll talk.
As I’ve said repeatedly, there’s a big difference between the two that people just seem to be having a difficult time grasping. Post 6092 said “What [I’m] not getting is that everyone is satisfied with this arrangement.” I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think people understand the arrangement.
