ummm, I read this part of that Feb 15 release by ANS”The Company...

ummm, I read this part of that Feb 15 release by ANS

”The Company has now reached agreement with Mr Guan, whereby:

- Ms Peiyu Liang (a resident of China) will instead purchase a parcel of 30,769,231 shares at a subscription price of $0.013 (1.3 cents) per share for a purchase price of $400K (and Mr Guan will be released from any obligations in relation to that particular parcel of shares); and
- Mr Guan must pay $2.6 Million as consideration for approx. 200 Million shares at a subscription price of $0.013 (1.3 cents) per share by no later than 5.00pm on Friday 15 March 2019, otherwise Mr Guan’s Subscription Agreement will automatically terminate on that date. The Company has also reserved its rights in respect of Mr Guan’s failure to pay for the shares by the due date.”

Is that not an agreement with Mr Guan?

That tells me Ms Peiyu Liang is related to Mr Guan in some form, professionally or personally. The key here is the word “instead” and absolves part of his commitment.

Something along the line of Mr Guan saying, “look, I can’t make the full payment yet, I need more time, so in good faith I have my arranged for my associate Peiyu Liang to make a contribution”. That shows his intention and I consider that part payment. If I’m wrong then I apologise unreservedly.

However, that specific wording “The Company has now reached agreement with Mr Guan” firmly indicates that by extension the two named are not separate, otherwise his name wouldn’t have been associated.

One does not absolve a persons responsibility for a stranger.