InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 9
Posts 2581
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/15/2012

Re: powderbum post# 10444

Thursday, 04/10/2014 10:59:50 AM

Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:59:50 AM

Post# of 15274
"The company blamed the decline on the terms of the amendment..."???

I already addressed this but can't help but wonder how Conrad could even think to make such a claim!

A one time settlement of a dispute with Palatin Technologies contributed $320,000. One million of it was due to repetition of a sale of returned machines to the SAME company. And part may have been due to the change in fiscal year which added five MONTHS to reported fiscal year. So in reality, the MOST revenues the company made would have been around ONE million dollars -- and ALL of that was due o the sale of 50 machines to Life Episteme! They never sold a single machine outside of Life Episteme!

In other words, the sum total of "loss of revenues" due to the amendment was ZERO!

I'd love to see Conrad try and explain his logic in front of a judge!
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.