Technically yes, but very interesting that you bring that up...

Technically yes, but very interesting that you bring that up now.

We were gauging the growth of the revenue producing sector of CGB, not its ownership, when discussing the revenue (or I believed that to be the case).

It is general practice to consolidate 100% figures into financials once an ownership in excess of 50% is obtained to form a controlling interest under the reporting standards. This has always been the case since MCL was acquired in March 2017 and is done by all public companies. It's honestly not news & is factored in from my view.

What's pertinent here though is when MCL existing owners eventually transfer the balance 45% to CGB shares following completion, the associated dilution to existing holders matches almost the same percentage (altered slightly by other acquisitions) so on a per share basis minimal really changes. You still get the same underlying benefit from the revenue increase/hemp business value attribution as a shareholder.

You can therefore say 'we get 45% more of this income after MCL balance is transferred', which is technically correct, but really it's next to no change on a per share basis because you've not mentioned inevitable dilution. That's why I don't tend to look at it as only 55% in this case - the strength of the overall revenue producing hemp arm in its entirity is paramount due to impending 45% MCL shares exchanging to CGB shares.

Re: 2nd para, they would not be able to open applications and close withdrawals. You open both or close both. Withdrawal option will exist as long as applications can be made.

Unfortunately for 'mum and dad investors' ignorance is no excuse for a poor investment or not knowing they can withdraw. Nor is it an excuse for anything on that matter.

Imo if they're having trouble they need to get a licensed professional to help.

There's 'taking advantage' of mum and dad investors, as the banks have done (i.e. not making full disclosures or not correcting wrongfully charged fees) and then there's 'ignorance' (full disclosures made and fees charged and then argument made for refund due to not reading the disclosure). I am well against the first one - as are we all - but the second is not arguable. As the old adage goes - you can lead a horse to water..

As for the 3 months - I would hope earlier! It's been earmarked for investment no doubt and it would be as frustrating for them knowing significant expansion is so close, yet so far at this point due to the situation.