I edit my posts ALL the time, so I understand your process. I'll wait 15 minutes before thinking about your posts in the future. This one raised issues that called out for a response and I couldn't, but should have, waited before I started the research needed to fully respond.
VBF first appeared in a Sunset filing in July of 2017 in the lease attachment.
Then it popped up in a posted copy of one of the licenses that the Company had said had been applied for by SUNSET.
The Company saw that that raised questions on this board and provided an explanation that told us how VBF was once non-profit and couldn't be owned but now was for-profit and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunset. EXACTLY how that happened remains a mystery to me.
We probably should have known from the language in the lease ("As described herein, Tenant, at its sole election, shall be permitted to sublease to one party only, namely to the California cannabis collective operating as VBF Brands, Inc., for as long as Tenant may be required to do so to comply with County or State law, or as Tenant may, by its own determination, consider it to be legally prudent to do so. ") that VBF was the entity that Sunset would ultimately use to apply for its licenses...although we had NO CLUE at that time that VBF was to suddenly become a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunset at a later point (some still unidentified point).
The question of "Why not use Battle Mountain?" is probably answered by the pre-existing "California cannabis collective" status of VBF. It's not a GREAT answer, especially given the questionable provenance of VBF. I wouldn't be surprised if the 10-K filing delay might be partially due to the questions regarding the appearance of VBF as a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunset. The California Cultivator license also requires some specific ownership information…information that may be hidden by the ownership interests of "BMG Group, LLC", the names of that entity being non-public. Who owns what isn't at all clear around here. Of course there are plenty of shareholders who like the pictures and hope the price goes up and the story that their brokerage statement tells is the only ownership interest that is important to them and that's fine for them.
There seem to be some unnecessarily complicated relationships and organizational structures here that suggest that there are certain things that the Company would prefer remain unknown. I guess the absence of a 10-K filing makes that obvious….it sure can't be explained by some difficulty accumulating a couple of simple numbers (something I'm pretty familiar with).
But can it core A apple?
Yes Ralph, of course it can core A apple.
