This extends founding ideas that have moved through internal databases since very early on.1 It goes beyond the existing drafting by asking about a third investor, Charlie, who may later acquire the securities from the purchaser, theoretically in a case where the purchaser knows Charlie but you can't tell why they decide to acquire at acquisition (SH + lie).
I think we can really get this across with flying colors with the addition, and my basis for the change comes from #19 and #20 as blocking prerequisites which establish credibility. We can always try a second time without the repurchaser carve-out if they think it's too far, but I believe in the Admin.
This extends founding ideas that have moved through internal databases since very early on.1 It goes beyond the existing drafting by asking about a third investor, Charlie, who may later acquire the securities from the purchaser, theoretically in a case where the purchaser knows Charlie but you can't tell why they decide to acquire at acquisition (SH + lie).
I think we can really get this across with flying colors with the addition, and my basis for the change comes from #19 and #20 as blocking prerequisites which establish credibility. We can always try a second time without the repurchaser carve-out if they think it's too far, but I believe in the Admin.
Footnotes
See correspondence with former commissioner in Response 8 exhibit 6, available at https://wooten.link/response-8. Lol but it wasn’t discussed there at all. Also, this closes duplicate cropped image at #21. ↩