This is beyond frustrating - they need to put out a whole lot...

This is beyond frustrating - they need to put out a whole lot more info about how this has happened, like:
- How is the company still operating in California? I mean that’s positive, but is SZL now just openly operating in contravention of a regulator’s decision?
- Are there any penalties for previously operating in California?
- How on earth did APT get approved but SZL rejected? There must be more in the detail about this, regulators, despite all their criticism, don’t just get to arbitrarily choose.

This is an annoying f*#% up that management need to seriously learn from, and fast - we still haven’t bagged a top-name retailer and are unlikely to until this is resolved, I would have thought.