Interesting point T9.......hmmmmmm
I think the LIVE TRIAL didn't occur because they didn't have the "300 tons per day" needed, not because of the license. You could be right though.
I think a deal WILL NOT be signed because of the license, and yes it COULD be the LIVE TRIAL was called off because of the chang(e), but I doubt it. The license agreement covers marketing and mentions it specifically, so the LIVE TRIAL would be covered under that provision, imho.
China Gate basically received 2/3 of their shares at the first closing, then the other 1/3 at the 2nd closing. Not assigning the license to IPA obligated them (China Gate) to continue buying 1 million seedlings per year just to retain the license.........BUT THEY WERE GOING TO ASSIGN IT TO IPA if the 2nd closing happened on time.
Why not just add to the number of shares VSPC would give for the license for being late on the 2nd closing? Chang just added interest when the 2nd closing kept getting delayed. China Gate could have just ask for an amendment to add interest as well, and gotten more shares.
Instead, China Gate said......too late, the 2nd closing deadline has expired again, so we will KEEP the license, and you only get a sub license now. In doing that, China Gate kept their license, and IPA only got a sub license. That obligates China Gate to buy 1 million seedlings per year, and the Inventor had to consent to the sub license.
DP could have said NO because the license details chang(ed), but I think they would still want to burn the grass just to see how it responded in the boiler. Of course an update about the LIVE TRIAL could have been the simplest way of telling us what happened. The MOU had a ONE YEAR TERM. They could have done the LIVE TRIAL later, but apparently did not.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
