I appreciate you taking the time to reply at length. Just to be...

I appreciate you taking the time to reply at length. Just to be clear, though, I'm not much of a fan of Ivy (or CCA come to that). My interest is in discovering why CCA has chosen not to reveal certain matters pertaining to its involvement in Ivy.

In response to your above points I would offer the following:

Point 1 - agreed

Point 2 - I do not know if Ivy was/is a Ponzi scheme but one would hope a listed company would not be party to such an arrangement

Point 3 - yes, token holders have fared badly

Point 4 - the token proceeds are deemed income by the IRS and State of California and thus Ivy has incurred a tax liability in this respect

Point 5 - this is not correct. No distribution of capital from Ivy has been made to any party other than CCA. In my previous posts I have shared the apparent justification from Ivy for this payment

Point 6 - true

Point 7 - true

Point 8 - unsure which party you imply when you describe them as "shrewd". Do you mean CCA? CCA has certainly done well financially from its involvement in Ivy and has not been shy in declaring it.

I acknowledge that most CCA shareholders probably don't care much for Ivy and matters deemed "in the past" and instead prefer to celebrate the recent resurgence in their investment. Fair enough. Money talks. However, CCA appears to have taken on board a significant liability that has yet to be declared publicly. I remain curious as to the reason for this. I imagine some shareholders and possibly other interested parties might share my curiosity.

You have suggested asking Ivy for their financial reports. Even if these were forthcoming, which they are not, they would likely reveal little given that it is a privately-held LLC. The matter here is whether or not CCA has assumed Ivy's tax liabilities. Simple. If not, then Ivy's owner has misinformed token holders. If yes, then why no public disclosure by CCA?