Hi. I am not about to call Dr. Norchi a liar. He is very clever and careful with words and I think that he stated the issue in a way that made it sound like it was a problem caused by the FDA timelines rather than that Arch had not been able to satisfy the FDA inquiry within their given time fame. He made it seem like he was being asked a new question without stating so. But the subtle difference, you are right, is significant. Regarding the patent agreement (license) with M.I.T., I was told the yearly review takes place, no more than 90 days following the end of the past year (around now) and is based on a report Arch is obligated to submit summarizing their performance during the past year in light of their obligations including financial statements. The contract which was published on the ARCH website had two milestones that are in possible jeopardy, imo. One is that they were to have submitted an application for clearance by January 1, 2018. It could be the pulling of their submission would not satisfy MIT that an application had been submitted. The other was to have $500,000 in product produced and sold by Jan 1, 2019. That cannot possibly be done given the current delay, imo. Either one of these milestone would satisfy the agreement. So MIT is currently or soon will be reviewing the situation. We would not likely hear anything publicly. M.I.T. can issue a deficiency notice to Arch which gives them a certain period of time to regain compliance. Perhaps this can turn out well, however I would not be inclined to invest until I know the outcome.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
