Oh dear.
Thanks for confirming your lack of comprehension, once again.
I made several clear points about that topic.
Here are the key FACTS that I noted:
- ATL made a "strategic investment" of US$5M
- AGY stated that "ATL has agreed to place its shares into a 12-month standstill period"
- A formal escrow arrangement is NOT the ONLY way to structure such an agreement
- Lack of a formal escrow arrangement is not PROOF in itself that there was no restriction on ATL's holding.
- People who were claiming that "ATL can do whatever they want with their shares" were making a statement of fact that was NOT based on any proof; it was NOT a known fact, it was simply SPECULATION.
SIMPLE
Now, which of these clear facts due you refute?
Be specific.
...and you accuse me of being "ignorant"..?
LMAO!!
DYOR everyone; beware the gaslighting.
(20min delay)