I've been thinking about this for a long time. IM

I've been thinking about this for a long time. IMO, Brett is actually doing the right thing by holding the the patents ( if that is really the case) and staying quiet with the financials. Companies seemly holding disruptive technology, like NNLX, would seem to be ripe for a hostel take over. So, Brett is actually protecting himself as well as the shareholders from any hostel take over with this tactic.

Once the company has firm contracts and revenue is coming, from said product, the company will be in a better position to share financial information with the investors.

JMO

Anyone know how an investor fairs in a hostel take over?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover

The main consequence of a bid being considered hostile is practical rather than legal. If the board of the target cooperates, the bidder can conduct extensive due diligence into the affairs of the target company, providing the bidder with a comprehensive analysis of the target company's finances. In contrast, a hostile bidder will only have more limited, publicly available information about the target company available, rendering the bidder vulnerable to hidden risks regarding the target company's finances. An additional problem is that takeovers often require loans provided by banks in order to service the offer, but banks are often less willing to back a hostile bidder because of the relative lack of target information which is available to them.