Nasco participation in MSA needed to be re-reviewed, once XXII entered into agreement with NASCO and sought approval from MSA. There was no chance at what government refers to as "piggy-backing"...
It did absolutely nothing to aid or speed up the review process...for XXII, when it was clear that Goodrich's independent application would take time...All the DD and documentation required in the Goodrich application had to be done in the NASCO deal request.
Very basic and general legal principal about which these companies (Counsel) seem to have a blind spot is:
When a regulatory review process of participants is required by an governmental agency, and it involves a review of character, past practices or nature of the party seeking acceptance, the party seeking acceptance (who must pass muster) cannot gain acceptance by merely "buying" or "piggy-backing" onto an entity that has already been accepted.
The reason?...It clearly circumvents the requirement that the Party seeking acceptance must be reviewed and be acceptable.
A company which is supposed to be "reviewed" by an agency (e.g. the MSA agreement, or a governmental license or approved vendor)cannot "buy around" the review process... if they are "unacceptable" ...merging with a firm that has been accepted will not make them "acceptable"....if anything it could cause the "approved" firm to become "Un-approved"...tainted.
Its like having a requirement that a member be cancer-free...then the member ingests cancer cells...and expecting to remain acceptable... duhhh!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
