invest, let me run this scenario by you that may explain all three of your old PRs. Also, I apoligize for my child-like insults.
If Veltex technically wasn't a wholly-owned in 2003, the following PRs would make sense:
1. $5 million dollar revenue miss (assumes that a third party owns approx 20% - 25% of Veltex Mill, and,
2. The need to issue additional shares for 100% ownership by Veltex of Velvet Mill.
3. Perhaps Invest is, or in part, correct as to the reason Velvet Mills didn't roll-up in 2003 as a consolidating sub.
I see how 1., 2, and 3. are consistent now. BUT, that was 2003. In 2005, Matin is stating that Velvet is a 100% owned subsidiary. Remember that unexplained share increase last Fall? It all fits, IMO.
I want to thank invest1980 for continuing his effort of raising the tough issues to bring clarity to Veltex despite my immaturity. I think I finally understand what's transpired.