Good debate....

I thought I'd pointed out this language in a prior post, but upon looking back I found that I failed to do so. Looking to the 1.2 Effective Time clause, note the "flexibility" language:

"Prior to the filings referred to in this Section 1.2, a closing (the “Closing”) shall be held at the offices of Patriot’s counsel, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP (“Luce Forward”), 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, California 92101, or such other place as the parties may agree on, as soon as practicable (but in any event within ten business days) following the date upon which all conditions set forth in Article VI that are capable of being satisfied prior to the Closing have been satisfied or waived, or at such other date as Patriot and Crossflo may agree; provided that the conditions set forth in Article VI have been satisfied or waived at or prior to such date. The date on which the Closing takes place is referred to herein as the “Closing Date.” For all purposes, the Closing shall be effective as of 12:01 a.m. on the Closing Date."

I don't know if that helps, but it does indicate a great deal of "built in" flexibility as to when things could happen. Further, I would thank that all participants, apparently convinced of the wisdom of the merger, would be ready to "rock and roll" with their required actions - even in advance - if there is the flexibility available through mutual agreement to permit such action.

I hope you get your response from IR soon so we can put this issue to bed. I do find it interesting that you seem to choose to believe that there's something hokey going on as opposed to merely accepting the extremely high probability (IMO) that the 20M shares have to do with the CrossFlo deal.

I trust you will post your response from IR when received.

Thanks,

SGE