Just as, Decatsmeow, you're doing by suggesting further research, I too would respect the point that Blulotus is making. Here's how I would actualize that respect, FWIW:
1. PLY is an LLC, so right now there is no stock for them to issue in conjunction with the VHUB transaction.
2. So if somehow in the midst of all this, PLY restructures itself so that it can issue stock, I'd reach a certain level of nervousness about the legitimacy of what's going on. After all, VHUB started its own corporate existence by being taken into the shell of DogInn, which was soon followed by a pump and dump scheme, which in turn drove VHUB stock down to sub-pennies from something like a $1.90 share price when the pumping was taking place.
3. If we see that the deal is all-cash, no stock, then - as I've mentioned earlier - look for something like a 20% discount to develop against the transaction price, in order to hedge against the possibility of the deal falling through. ...unless we find that a bidding war for VHUB is beginning to develop.
4. If we see that this is somehow evolving into a stock transaction (i.e. VHUB shareholders will wind up with stock in some newly-named company), I'd say realize the gain in the price of VHUB stock and find something else to buy. ...unless you potentially want to match wits against pumpers and dumpers.
5. One good test of "legitimacy" of PLY is whether the vape shop owners on this board - Hostastock and RPH - ever heard of PLY until this weekend and ever actually saw any of the products depicted on the company website.
6. The most immediate new knowledge that should become available in this first week of the new year is whatever letter VHUB will be sending to its distributor base. The vape shop owners who frequent this board are likely to share that note with the rest of our civilization, and we'll all be able to read into that note in accordance with where our minds and experiences will take us.
Overall, I think that Blulotus got it right in theory, namely that it is wise to beware of the red flags, i.e. to stay vigilant. I think the odds favor that the transaction is "on the up and up," as the three major shareholders, rather than having benefited from the 2014 pump and dump, were totally screwed by it, meaning that I think the company and its management are actually ethical. As ever, let me repeat that my career-expertise was in the financial aspects of the not-for-profit domain, so I certainly will give more credence to others who have had backgrounds more relevant to what's going on here.
