Getting back to that post on RB by canine, I wonder if you can explain something to me, since I assume the answer might have come up on other RB postings. Please see part of the post below -

"Another important thing is that PTSC doesn't have to worry about
the "Antidilution clause". Since, if this M or A was to take
place, we would not go over the 10% cap. Consequently, PTSC is
not required approval by S&L.
Here is where the $700,000 loan plays a major role.
Was this sum intended to keep the acquisition price under
the 10% cap..? I say yes. Why 700 thou and not 500, or one
million, or 1.5 mill...?"

I'm a little confused by what canine is trying to say here. First, he mentions the dilution clause, which we knwo from a previous pr is no longer in effect. Minor detail. However, the next part, where he says "if this M or A were to take place, we would not got over the 10% cap" just makes no sense to me. Who is the "we" that would not go over the 10% cap and what mechanics of a M or A would possibly cause S/L (assuming that's the "we") to go over the 10% cap. If an M or A were to happen the outstanding shares would more than likely increase, not decrease. Therefore it would seem S/L's % would decrease, not increase.

The next part he alludes to the $700,000 being key in staying under the 10% cap. Again I'm lost here. The purchase price, which may or may not be $700k (I highly doubt it would be anywhere near that low), but again, what 10% is he talking about.

I know you don't particularly care for my posts. So be it. But if you could shed some light on the above it might be helpful to the whole board.

TIA