Lol it is a very misleading statement, they had nothing to do with ATC making it to the nasdaq. Sure by writing off their investment in ATC it was able to get picked up by another group and uplisted to the nasdaq. So yea they had a hand there but the way the CEO words the PR it would lead potential investors to think they had something directly to do with the nasdaq listing. IMO they did not.
How come in the cbmg corporate history there is no mention of PHIL?? Yes edgar shows the original filing where atc came from PHIL but the cbmg filing section on corporate history says nothing about PHIL.
Go read any successful spin off companies corporate history they all seem to mention the parent company and getting spun off.
I just reviewed the CBMG corporate history and they mention East Bridge but not PHIL and not ATC. Which is why I said they never did a spin off in the first place (but was proven wrong). Hey maybe it's buried deep in an older filing if that's the case I'll be happy to read through it.
once again, here is the link, paragraph 2, last two sentences. phi obviously saw the value in the company. it didnt work out so they parted ways. they still gave shareholders a special dividend. end of story. it doesnt really matter if you call it a spin off, write off or whatever. shareholders profited from it because of phil. ttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1378624/000137862406000007/eb10sba122206.htm
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
