Not all incorporated companies trade publicly. Murida is a corporation who has share holders but were privately held. The three brothers each owned parts of the company. Murida just wasn’t publicly traded as it was a private corporation. VYST only bought 58% of the shares of Murida and only own 58% of the company. Greg is being very misleading once again. He is saying they “book” 100% of the profits and revenue. He is neglecting to say that there will be a 42% reduction for the minority interest that goes to the owners of the Murida corporation that elected not to be part of the VYST deal and didn’t sell their shares in Murida. Funny that in the past he stated on twitter that an equity piece would be removed if VYST didn’t purchase all 100% of Murida but now he is saying something different LMFAO. Yet another stinky pinky check mark for Greg lol. Here is his tweet from 6-19-19
“Rotman's Furniture was acquired by Vystar the parent company and the only company that is publicly traded. The definition you referenced refers to publicly traded companies only of which Rotman's is not one. That being the case the second sentence applies and Rotman's is indeed a wholly owned subsidiary of Vystar. Pretty basic stuff it seems to me.”
The publicly traded nature of Vystar and/or Rotman’s matters not. As the definition you provided states (without reference to “publicly traded” I might note) a WHOLLY owned subsidiary is one in which a company owns 100% of the subsidiary. It does not matter whether the parent company is publicly traded or not, or what the public or private nature of the subsidiary was prior to the acquisition. Vystar only owns 58%...hence it is NOT wholly owned as Greg stated, but majority owned.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
