I would hope the license agreement would be made a

I would hope the license agreement would be made available to shareholders. Also a statement to shareholders why the company said the flatpack technology belonged to Nanologix at one point but then put the patent in Mr. Barnhizer's name should be done. I bought shares and didn't sell shares based on the fact that Nanologix owned those technologies. Machiavelli has stated that Nanologix owns the N-Assay technology but the patent states otherwise. What percentage of the flatpack technology goes to Mr. Barnhizer and how much goes to shareholders.? These are not just fair questions but the answers are required if you are a shareholder and care about a return on your investment. I have done research on group B strep testing and this technology is huge but I shouldn't have to trust that an individual that has the rights to it will do the right thing for the company's shareholders. The facts need to be made public. My guess is Mr. Barnhizer owns approximately 20 million shares. Most of those are given to him as part of his compensation. Not enough compensation? Okay, a typical royalty on the flatpack technology. Usually not that much. The company has much more value to shareholders if the patents are in the company's name. Faro has stated he has no financial interest in Nanologix so he only benefits on the split of being a inventor. He doesn't benefit if the share price goes up. I welcome constructive feedback from other concerned shareholders.