A d/b/a designation is pretty common so I don' t think the issue of HCTI and its subsidiary is the main concern. I think the main concern is Polymate v. HCTI. If Polymate has the patents and licenses them to HCTI for a period of time, could Polymate be making side deals with potential customers which would siphon off some profits that should go to HCTI? I would say, at first blush, it is unlikely because HCTI has the license to make sales (in North America and Europe) so I would assume that if Polymate is taking a cut of sales in NA and Europe, it would be violating the license. I have no reason to believe that Oleg and Joseph are crooks, so I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt.
However, for me the end game is HCTI being sold for a lot of money after the EPA and/or CA outlaws the harmful isocan. But if the license is not a permanent license then any acquirer will probably pay less for HCTI than they would if the license was permanent. An acquirer would have to buy HCTI and also buy the permanentl icense from Polymate in order to be sure it has a permanent license. So I think the final buyout price of HCTI is less than it otherwise would be. From these PPS levels, it is still a good buy (imo), but it is less than it otherwise would be.
Perhaps one reason Polymate does it this way is to protect the patents in a private company that can't be obtained in a hostile takeover, but I don't know that for a fact.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
