Chapter 11 may not be that bad for BAXS. It would allow them to restructure under a more healthy Level. Being protected to get squeezed from debt, Chapter 11 should open the table to meet for a debt conversion.

We have seen this before in the Automobile industry and Airlines Industry and the results are known.

The question is: How dilutive will it be or are they making a capital-cut and then a restoking which could cost shareholders maybe 50 %. But if the Company can come out of it healthier this should not be a Problem to recover.

Let's see if we get a communique.

Of course when I wrote this I made an assumption about the possibility and probability. In school everything is theoretical even if the case studies are supported by examples from the industry but if one does not get the theoretical basis and understanding of markets how then building up a business? Before the NASA send somebody to the moon, everything was theory based on the physical law and as we know, it worked. In short: You work out a model before and not afterwards and for this you study key datas, information and analysis available.

What does this mean for DECN and what size of a market is DECN targeting directly and indirectly?

As per the data enumerated by the International Diabetes Federation, in the year 2013 there are around 382 million people suffering from diabetes worldwide of which 37 million are Americans, 72 million people in South East Asian countries and around 56 million in European countries and others. In addition, rise in technological advances and increased awareness about diabetes is leading to increased diagnosis rates both at hospitals and at individual level.

These factors would in turn enhance the adoption of blood glucose test strips and drive the market growth.

The forecast for the Test strips market for the year 2017 is over 11 billion.
According to GlobalData, the USA monitoring market will reach $12.2 billion by the year 2017. As a point of reference, in 2010, the test strips themselves accounted for close to 90% of the total market value. Therefore, over $11 billion will be up for grabs in 2017 on the sale of test strips alone.

As we know, Lifescan owned by Johnson and Johnson controls 26.5 % of this market or translated back to 2017 $’s 2.9 billion.
Every business man, entering a market with a similar product of quality but lower pricing works out a probability study that shows him the possible potential of market penetration. Nothing unique, it is done every day and in every industry. That is how market works.
If DECN would be satisfied with 5 % through the channels available to them the figure then in play would be $ 145 Mio with a 20 % margin = 29 Mio net profit.
Do you think, J&J would have taken all the pain to go after DECN if they would not have come to the conclusion, that DECN could grab a minimum of 5 %? Why spend millions in litigation and risk your reputation in the markets with the risk of getting hit in court, when they cannot put a value to this case? This is not how it works in the board-room of the big companies. Expenses have to be justified.
What surprises me then, that people cannot see what’s up here in size? When some years ago, small companies started to challenge the big Pharmas with cheaper Generics, hell broke out but the war was lost by the big boys. Arguments were, why should somebody buy a medical product from a little company when the trusted Pharma Brands guaranteed for years, that only theirs is life saving. As we know today the cheaper version worked as well and today they are in control of more than 50 % of the overall market. I would say: Generics became socially acceptable. What do advisers say when promoting a product in the market: The customer decides and the customer thinks with his wallet.
And last but not least: The measuring of money-velocity is never static. Every business, calculates the inventory turnover with the Formula 1. (Meaning turnover of inventory 1 time) From there it starts . Total sales divided by Average Inventory for the period in question. So if the assumption would be, that the inventory is turned over every month, the velocity of goods versus the underlying money supply would be 12 but if you sell, the underlying money supply remains not static but increases by the net profit of the transaction of let’s say 20 %. So based on this formula, the amount of $ 12.5 Mio would increase by 20 % each month due to net-profit cash-flow and therefore allow the company to increase the cost of goods item as well by 20 % (meaning having 20 % more production power) which gives an ever greater momentum. Add this up over a period of 12 months and you know what money velocity can mean in a market where the demand is certainly given.
Based on this, DECN with the bond money of approx. 12 Mio could actually create another momentum. Use the monthly surplus cash-flow to increase the budget for marketing and or R&D and use as well a certain part to repurchase shares from the market.
This is what some will see if and when the bond is paid. The possibilities in the months and years ahead due to enough cash in the bank or what is possible based on the money-velocity theory in a market of that size DECN is targeting.
This is the reason why I said, the bond could be the catalyst for the stock to go back to $ 1.—plus. Besides that, perception could then be, that more money will flow into the treasury of DECN or as Value-Finder wrote: An award from anti trust could make that sum even several times higher.
Let’s keep in mind: DECN has a lot more avenues available to sell their product than some want to see. With Genstrip‘s approval, the product may attract other Big Pharma companies to either license it i or acquire all of Decision Diagnostics.

Let's wait until the dust settles. I think it is part of a Reorganisation that goes on within the Company.

Who said, I wanna lift the stock?

Very simple. More sellers than buyers and during the course of 2013 up to their last filing a lot of legends must have been removed and I would guess, they took the loss and sold. This is what I call free market and maybe if and when AAPT finds a solution the stock will rise again. Until then boring range.

Strange fellow this Grushkin. In his letter he writes:

My name is Eric Grushkin and I was controller and investor relations representative at All American Pet Copmany "AAPT" until January 10, 2013 at approximately 1:00 PST, but I was never a Corporate Officer at AAPT
The excuse for not being a corporate officer is negating the fact that his duties as controller were clearly manifested.
In 2012 he wrote to somebody: MY PERSONAL NR. 1 JOB PRIORITY.


Q #1. When will AAPT be current with its SEC filings?
.Eric Grushkin stated to PoolGuy1 on June 26th Post # 19332
“I can assure you that getting all filings current is my personal #1 job priority.”

This is a strong and clear statement and as a matter of fact true as well. The duty of a controller is to make sure, that every transaction is based on regulations of accounting and based on regulations from the SEC. This involves signing of transactions, like orders, transfers and whatsover. All this then flows into the filings for which the controller is responsible. The Filings as such of course are then signed by the CEO but again, based on what the controller puts in front of his nose.
by egrushkin1

My name is Eric Grushkin and I was controller and investor relations representative at All American Pet Company "AAPT" until January 10, 2013 at approximately 1:00 PST, but I was never a Corporate Officer at AAPT. Prior to my termination, I requested the immediate resignations of Director and CEO Barry Schwartz and President and Director, Lisa Bershan. I have accused the Directors of malfeasance in the governance of the affairs of All American Pet Company, misuse of investor funds, negligence in the management of the business, deliberately making false and misleading statements to our shareholders and the public at large, fraudulently evading taxes and performed numerous other actions that are damaging to the Company and our shareholders. I also informed our auditing firm that I believe the Directors and Officers are violating the Sarbane's Oxley Laws for public company stewardship. While I was still employed at AAPT, I also composed and delivered a letter via U.S. mail to all shareholders of record and as many private placement investors as I could contact by email.

Many people have questioned my motive's for taking these actions and I want those motivations to be known by everyone. I believe that AAPT has developed quality products and I believe that the Company might be successful in the future, and I do not believe that that success would be possible with the current set of Officers/Directors. I also could no longer tolerate seeing investors, vendors, and my fellow employees continue to be hurt financially by the repeated actions of these two individuals.
Subsequent to my departure from the Company, I informed the company's counsel of many false and misleading public statements made by the Company and I requested an independent investigation. In order to set the record straight, I am presenting the facts here:

Pursuant to the press release of January 11, 2013: The dog bar production was conducted in Manhattan, Kansas on January 9 through January 11 and these production runs consumed less than 2.7 tons of raw materials and thus produced less than 22,000 dog bar units. 5,400 pounds of raw material multiplied by 16 ounces per pound divided by 4 ounces per dog bar is 21,600 units. No treats were produced last week. This information was obtained via an internally prepared purchase order delivered to me while I was employed at AAPT. Barry Schwartz stated “I am overseeing the production of millions of food bars and tons of treats to meet retailer demand.” I believe that the quantification of “millions of dog food bars” and “tons of treats” will be proven to be both false and misleading.

Pursuant to the press release of October 17, 2012: Barry Schwartz said “40,000 stores with which we have vendor approval that will be retailing our retailing our innovative product before year end.” Several of the approximately 250 Giant Eagle stores were retailing our products around December 31, 2012. I doubt that any AAPC products were retailing at TJ Maxx or Marshall’s as of December 31, 2012. Promising 40,000 retailers by year end was misleading. A retraction of this statement should have been made when it became known that 40,000 stores was grossly overstated and totally unachievable.

Pursuant to the Press release of September 27, 2012: Headline: “No, Not a Million Bars a Month, A Million Bars a Week!” From inception to January 8, 2013 (my January 10 letter did contain a typo) dog bar production totaled approximately 115,000 saleable units.

Also stated in my January 10th letter to shareholders, the Company did not achieve a customer relationship with SSI, Inc. There is no purchase order, distribution agreement or other type of contract with SSI, Inc. that would show that a customer relationship exists or existed as of January 10, 2013.

Also in this press release, AAPT CEO Barry Schwartz assured “Our Kansas facility will be turning out at least a million bars a month to keep pace with the anticipated demand, not just for Central, but for the projected growth of the Nation’s pet category estimated to add another billion dollars in annual sales.”
As stated in my January 10th letter, but clarified here, as of last week (fifteen weeks after this press release), the Kansas facility presently does not have the most critical production items necessary to manufacture the dog bars as well as other important pieces of equipment. These critical items include the Extrusion System (Extruder) and the Cooling Tunnel. As of January 10 , 2013, the Kansas facility did not have the capability to produce dog bars and only 115,000 saleable dog bars had been produced prior to that date.

Pursuant to the Press release of September 10, 2012: The press release begins with information relating to “7 of the company’s Patent Pending SKU’s.” I do not believe that AAPT had 7 Patent's Pending as of September 10, 2012 or as of January 13, 2013.

This press release also states that “Bar manufacturing is in full swing in Kansas with extruders, formers and newly installed packaging equipment pumping-out tons of product to assure retailers that the Company’s supply chain will be able to meet the ever growing demand for millions of dog food bars. As stated above, the Company did not have an extruder or extruders as of September 10, 2012 or at January 9, 2012 and as of my departure date, the Company’s production line was not complete and only 115,000 saleable dog bar units had been produced.

Pursuant to the Press release of August 9, 2012: “Our operations team has booked production time in Kansas. We’ve got full production runs scheduled for the 14th and 15th and will have over 300,000 of the 4 oz bars ready to ship. Again, as stated above, only 115,000 units were completed and inventoried. There have never been 300,000 units ready to ship.

I will now present other facts which I challenge the Company to factually disprove. As of January 9, 2013, the Company had not made any commercial shipments of Dog Bars and no purchase order for delivery of dog bars to retail stores had been received as of January 9, 2013.

In May, 2012, over $1,000,000 of company monies was improperly converted to a Wells Fargo Bank account belonging to Starr Queens, Inc., a Nevada Corporation controlled by Director Barry Schwartz. In September 2012, over $475,000 of Company money was improperly converted to the same Starr Queens Bank Account. Transfers to this Starr Queens account occurred during every month of my employment.

I have much more information to add and will do so as circumstances warrant.

Sincerely,

Eric Grushkin

CONCLUSION: In January 2013 his part with AAPT was over, they threw him out. But then he writes, that he informed the audit firm about all the wrongdoings. (Strange in December 2012 he was still writing to some in Forums, how hard he is working for AAPT to get everything out on time and so on and so on. And then he confirms, that : While I was still employed at AAPT, I also composed and delivered a letter via U.S. mail to all shareholders of record and as many private placement investors as I could contact by email.
Here the guy admits, while still in charge as controller he already gave inside-information to some of his buddies maybe in the hope for a revolt, which would catapult him into the position of a CEO, then got caught and fired.
BUT ALL OF THE POINTS HE MENTIONS IN HIS LETTER,WHERE UNDER HIS CONTROL: EITHER AS CONTROLLER AND OR AS WELL IN CHARGE FOR PUBLIC RELATION.
Here a copy from a post from someone who already questioned this title, but E.G. never denied it.


Q# 2. It says on Yahoo that Eric Grushkin position with All American Pet Investor Relations. How is someone whose title is “Investor Relations” qualified to “getting all the filings current?

How somebody can defend such a guy and then go after the management is beyond my understanding. AAPT was blessed with a mangement of doing nothing but spending too much and and actually a criminal controller and public relation fuzzy who – together with some of his friends- tried a palast – coup that failed. No wonder there were no charges from the SEC against the management, because all what they did, using the parameters allowed by law, but what Grushkin did was going against the law. If AAPT would have the money for the lawyers E.G. would go behind bars, but what would it bring for AAPT shareholders? Nothing, the guy has no money, has a shady past from pre-AAPT – and the only party who would make money are the lawyers.

Taken from the letter Eric wrote on January 2013

. While I was still employed at AAPT, I also composed and delivered a letter via U.S. mail to all shareholders of record and as many private placement investors as I could contact by email.

WHILE I WAS STILL EMPLOYED.

I am not Aware that Banks who Held AAPT Shares for their Clients received a letter (street Name) and I am not Aware that BBH as the largest depository holder of AAPT Shares received a letter.

What he did, he informed only those with whom it had already in 2011 and 2012 Close contact. That his wording is a big lie is rather obvious. The biggest Placement shareholders came all from Germany as AAPT did 90 % of their REGs deals in Germany. None of These shareholders received a letter.

Why would or could a payment of a $ 12.4 Mio bond into the treasury of DECN catapult the stock to 1 $ plus.

It is not the cash per share, which is equivalent to roughly $ 0.30 per share it is the cash as such, which would give DECN the momentum to refinance themselves without tapping the markets. This is the logic behind.

Cash in the field of production costs get’s a velocity formula between 6 and 12, depends on the paying terms. This would translate into roughly $ 75 Mio or $ 150 Mio cost of goods. If I take the margin left for the company this could translate into a profit between $ 15 Mio and $ 30 Mio. Now if we attach a P/E of 15 to this we are talking of $ 225 Mio to $ 450 Mio capitalisation. This would then translate into a stock price of $ 4.50 or $ 9.—(based on 50 Mio shs – versus presently roughly 42 Mio shs)

This kind of thinking would be the catalyst. But then some smarty,s could as well create another derivative thinking. As we know, the CEO never took a salary he got paid with shares. This alone speaks for an interest of the management to increase shareholder-value, unless Mr. K.B. would work in the field of charity.

So the thinking could be: If the stock would not react: Announce a re-purchase agreement of shares for 6 Mio $ and with the rest you finance production and if you need – based on the business momentum more funds, you go for a credit line. Believe me, a share-buy-back program would make sure, that DECN would move above $ 1.—quickly. Why: Very simple again: Depends on the average price of the repurchased shares, it would take shares out of the market in the range of 15 Mio to 8 Mio and less shares of course means higher stock value at the end of the day if divided by the capitalisation.

The debate here goes – besides what the bond would do – as well into a direction, which I call possible revenues. The sceptics see no future while the pros see a bright future. But then the sceptics would never have fought versus J&J as they would have said: Not chance to win against such a giant. Fortunately, the economy is in control of “makers and risk-takers” and not in control of “pessimists but knowing everything better.”
I am in the camp who gives the most credibility to J&J. When they started the infringement case, they had a “possible” Revenue model in front of their nose. J&J is not stupid and they knew, that DECN would grab enough market share from them, that the decision to fight them all the way, was or had to be justified. So what is or was justified based on their model should as well be justified for the Pros if one takes common sense into play.

When Nestle lost against the small producers of cheaper coffee capsules, the sceptics said, they will not grab any market share from this Giant. Well 1 year after it is already known, that these speedy-gonzales companies are already in control of 20 % and this within 1 year. One should never ever underestimate the consumer.

Your Respons to my "absurd post" Ends already there where you say:

Only corporate officers have an authority.

Financial Controller Job Description

The Financial Controller oversees the day to day activities of the finance team and ensures the companies finance function is organised and efficient and produces accurate financial and management accounts.

Duties include:

•Management of the finance function and overseeing the finance team.
•Preparation of budgets, forecasts and cash flows
•Maintenance of financial ledgers and accounting processes
•Preparation of Monthly Consolidated P&L and Balance Sheet
•Timely production of statutory and internal financial reports
•Financial modelling and analysis
•Cash management and treasury duties
•Ensuring that appropriate systems and internal controls are implemented and maintained
•Overseeing the Payroll process
•Preparation of VAT Returns

But then the good Thing is, that E.G. wrote in various Emails about his duties and if you like it or not, a controler signs up on Transactions. If this would not be the case: For what do you Need then a controler. A controler can even block a Transaction if he thinks it is not kosher.

Nobody said he profited from it. Maybe - maybe not. A fact is, that he wrote a 2 page letter to some selected buddies. I am sure you have this letter in your files.

It is then clear that somebody profited from this Kind of Information.

You can be in denial, but then I only Quote what is readable within the filings:


22-Jan-2013

Other Events, Financial Statements and Exhibits



Item 8.01 - Other Events
On January 18, 2013, All American Pet Company, Inc. (the "Company") filed an action entitled All American Pet Company, Inc. vs. Eric Grushkin et al, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, West District against defendant Eric Grushkin (Case Number: SC119776). As previously announced, on January 11, 2013, the Company was made aware that a former employee sent communications that contained intentionally misleading and harmful disclosures as well as confidential information regarding the Company to a selected group of shareholders. These communications included allegations that the Company's chief executive officer and president engaged in acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and negligence in the management and conduct of the Company business. The Company believes that this employee made multiple unauthorized disclosures of confidential information and misinformation to these shareholders on January 10, 2013 and thereafter. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief for:

1. breach of contract

2. misappropriation of trade secrets

3. intentional interference with prospective economic advantage

4. breach of fiduciary duty

5. violation of computer fraud and abuse act, and

6. conversion

A copy of the complaint, as filed in the Superior Court, is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.2.

With this post I refer to the open letter E.Grushkin send to various shareholders ) and which was then the catalyst for the stock to collapse. Some who received the private Emails benefited some not. I will not post the letter again, as this has been done before already, however I will pick up some points from this letter.
.
What we all have to accept: Up to this date, if we like it or not, B and L have nothing done illegal, they just used all possibilities law permits, but of course from an ethic point of view they are responsible for the mess the company is in. But E.G. was a part of it, benefitted from it and used his private chat-room with some to give inside information during various periods. He cannot point with his fingers towards B and L for so-called illegal dealings and then as well use illegal machinations. Simply does not work that way.

1.) Let me go through this step by step based on the letter E.G. send to some privileged friends or amigos.



2.) As everybody who runs a company knows: A controller has a very important job. He must make sure that all bookings are according to regulations and actually the controller is in charge for Risk-Control, Corporate Governance and DD. And as controler he must sign up everything.

3.) Being aware of this job-description E.G. was proud of, it was then clear that the CEO from AAPT issued the following statement when E.G. attacked them in an open letter distributed to some shareholders (friends)

Reaction from B.S.

“Let me answer all those questions with a simple answer,” he said. “All the filings sent to the [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission] were factual. And Eric Grushkin, before he became a disgruntled employee, was responsible for those filings as he signed up every Transaction that are part from the filing.

That Eric knew about his responsibility he even confirmed on an Email to a friend of him.

From: Eric Grushkin (EricG@AAPBrands.com)
Sent: 26 June 2012 02: 05AM
To XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Great and insightful questions

1) We have made several press releases in the past and we will continue to do so as circumstances warrant. We pledge to keep our investors informed and most of all happy. The KS facility opened earlier this month and is operating well.
2) The Company is currently delinquent on its SEC filings. I can assure you that getting all filings current is my personal #1 job priority.

We very much appreciate your interest and support of AAPT

Eric Grushkin

READ WELL: MY PERSONAL ………………….


4.) Eric Grushkin, when he went after the Management of course had to fabricate a reason why, and this is what he brought to paper: More than $1 million was “improperly converted to a Wells Fargo Bank account” belonging to a Nevada corporation “controlled by director Barry Schwartz.” “Transfers to this…account occurred during every month of my employment,” Grushkin added.

5.) Reading the word “improperly” and “occurred during every month of my employment” can only lead to one conclusion. If it was improper, then E.G. blessed it off, closed his eyes and let it happen. Very simple – he was actually the brother in crime, if it was improperly. But then of course looking deeper into his allegations, one can see, that E.G. was rather overextended when he brought this to paper, or ill advised.

6.) The so-called Starr-Queens Transactions are fully explained in the 10Q and 10K - During the quarter ended March 31, 2013 and year ended December 31, 2012, the Company made advances to, and received advances from, an entity owned by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. These advances are not collateralized and do not bear interest. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, no amounts were due from and no amounts were due to this related entity. Neither the old, nor the new Auditors had any Problems with those Transactions and neither the SEC.

7.) I have some problems if something, like this kind of transactions are so easy to understand and even obvious from a tax point of view and even fully explained in the filings and even, I have to admit, were understood by E.G. until he did not want to understand them any longer. But then this is life. The sorry point is, how can somebody be a controller and not understand a grid.

8.) But then comes the worst part of E.G. and here again, I am wondering who gave him advise, because this could not be well taken in a court. Read what he wrote: While I was still employed at AAPT, I also composed and delivered a letter via U.S. mail to all shareholders of record and as many private placement investors as I could contact by email... and private mail.

9.) What does this mean: Issuing insider information and those blessed to be on the mail list of E.G. . Just the wording: as many as…….. and of course it goes without saying most of the shareholders he could not contact, because people buying the shares through Banks and or brokers are registered in the Street name.

10.) One of course has to ask, if all was so bad, why not informing the SEC or FINRA which would have been the right places to address, nope he addressed the shareholders and by doing so breached all rules. His action is not unique and there are other companies who faced similar problems. E.G. had 2 things in mind: Benefit himself and some of his buddies from Insider information. This is a fact and has been proven by his various Emails and private letters. Further, he had in mind and hope with the help of some of his insider buddies squeezing the management into a corner and playing the white knight. Tried before by others and failed.

11.) Is it then of surprise, that AAPT sued him on various points, however I assume, the Insider Part besides computer fraud and actually as well Email Fraud, will not be well taken if the legal parameters hold up.

12.) That E.G. realized that he made a stupid move is shown here:

Regarding “May 6”, when AAPT filed their lawsuit against Eric in Los Angeles County Superior (CA State) Court on January 18, 2013, the Court set May 6, 2013 as the date for an initial Case-Management conference, where the parties would update the Court as to whether or not there had been any progress in settling this matter. According to Eric’s Employment Agreement with AAPT, any disputes were to be handled pursuant to CA law. However, on March 13, 2013, Eric’s attorney filed a request in the U. S. District Court- Central CA to have the case moved to Federal Court, where his attorney thinks they have a better chance of getting the case dismissed. Eric is not counter-suing AAPT, as his objective is to have the case against him dismissed. Eric’s request for the change in venue from CA State Court to Federal Court is scheduled for a May 20, 2013 hearing in the U.S. District Court- Central CA. Therefore, it is possible that the previously scheduled May 6th CA State Court meeting may either be postponed or canceled pending the outcome of the May 20th hearing. As I have previously posted, the applicable Federal Court documents are available for a small fee on PACER (www.pacer.gov), and anyone can obtain them. The case is identified in Federal Court as:

2:13-cv-01800-R-CW All American Pet Company Inc v. Eric Grushkin et al
Manuel L. Real, presiding U.S. District Court- Central CA Judge
Carla Woehrle, referral
Date filed: 03/13/2013
Date of last filing: 03/29/2013


Conclusion: AAPT used every possibility that law permits and of course such kind of dealings are destructive and the result is shown with the present stockprice. But then, those only pointing with their fingers towards B and L are missing the point: E.G. as long as it benefited him and some of his amigos played pro “AAPT”. When he realised that he will not become the Primus Interpares he turned around and actually gave the company the rest but by doing so, allowed some to benefit from it. Funny, he even confirmed in his letter that he contacted shareholders in private. Now of course, the pro-E.G.s will say: Better a quick dead than a slow-motion one, but it begs the question, could all have been avoided and the Management disciplined in another way than the way E.G. had Chosen as proper?

Whatever you may think is not of importance to me. But for your satisfaction: I know neither Barry nor Lisa nor did I ever talk to them.

But what wonders me: As there was a case: E.G. versus AAPT and then of course AAPT versus E.G. and nothing came out of it, how then you still raid this Train.

You cannot have both ways: Either what E.G. said was true and then the case should or would not be closed or what AAPT said was true and then the case should not be closed either.

You cannot have both ways - at least not in the world where law is in control.

So my question: Is the case still open?

So you would then say: Both parties are cleared?

So you say, the case is closed?

This is your POV.

I put it mildly: They each deserved each other.

But there is one Point: He is a champion of the honest investor and gave everyone a chance to get out ... Well not everyone got out, he mailed his thoughts only to few Close buddies or Groupies and the rest he left in the cold.

That AAPT is presently dead is rather a fact. So I am not here to question that.

What is then left: A Story of history which sounds like a fairy tale from another planet?

We can make it very simple here: Either AAPT is bringing it's act together with a new Team and new financing or AAPT will be gone.

I for my part still believe, that AAPT could be rebuild. But for This , one Needs the right People for execution and one Needs the deep pockets for financing (which is rather easy to bring by).

Bashing nor dreaming has no place in Business. So what Comes out of it, we will see.

Reading the Statement below, you must be proud to have such a friend. Unfortunately for E.G. some of his Emails found their way back to the Company.

I call such Action an abuse of privileged Information that benefited some of his buddies. Shareholders who were not privileged to be on the mail list, lost heavy. The way you defend and react, you must certainly be proud of such a liason with E.G. but you cannot be credible: If you bash the Management - no Problem - but then have the chutzpa and question as well the part E.G. played in this game, otherwise you have Zero credibility to bash out as you do.

Here from the Statement:

As previously announced, on January 11, 2013, the Company was made aware that a former employee sent communications that contained intentionally misleading and harmful disclosures as well as confidential information regarding the Company to a selected group of shareholders

Seems to me, AAPT was blessed with a Management Style which hurt the Company but then AAPT was blessed as well with a controler who was out of control.

The question then being asked today: Who hurt the shareholders more: E.Grushkin or B and L? Hard to say but at least one Thing is clear:

In the period 2010 - 2012 E.G. was all over the board promoting AAPT and a lot benefited from his pump at that time. Then when he turn around, he played the game differently with Emails to various People telling them to dump the stock with the obvious results.

But then, E.G's past is not perfect:

Here a comment from 2013:

AAPT is not the first Company E.G. tried to take to the cleaners.

What they forgot in the 8K - but will be added for the court: Insider dealing. It is a proven fact that he issued Email to various People and those People of course benefitted from it and some got hurt. If he had a personal benefit from it directly or indirectly is still part of the Investigation. But as we know in the USA is Zero Tolerance for this Kind of offense.

Here you can read the other Points he will be confronted with.

Form 8-K for ALL AMERICAN PET COMPANY, INC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22-Jan-2013

Other Events, Financial Statements and Exhibits



Item 8.01 - Other Events
On January 18, 2013, All American Pet Company, Inc. (the "Company") filed an action entitled All American Pet Company, Inc. vs. Eric Grushkin et al, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, West District against defendant Eric Grushkin (Case Number: SC119776). As previously announced, on January 11, 2013, the Company was made aware that a former employee sent communications that contained intentionally misleading and harmful disclosures as well as confidential information regarding the Company to a selected group of shareholders. These communications included allegations that the Company's chief executive officer and president engaged in acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and negligence in the management and conduct of the Company business. The Company believes that this employee made multiple unauthorized disclosures of confidential information and misinformation to these shareholders on January 10, 2013 and thereafter. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief for:

1. breach of contract

2. misappropriation of trade secrets

3. intentional interference with prospective economic advantage

4. breach of fiduciary duty

5. violation of computer fraud and abuse act, and

6. conversion

A copy of the complaint, as filed in the Superior Court, is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.2.





Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits



EXHIBITS

Conclusion then: E.G's Groupies are still out in force but my advise would be: before hammering on the heads of B.and L. they should then not be one-sided and do the same with E.G. This I would call fair judgment, otherwise it is a Farce.

You should re-read my post.

This is exactly what I wrote: Liquidity was never ever a Problem.

Not even in January when the "fairy-tale" Story Begins.

Wondering why you are not residing in Monte Carlo as you mention this place frequently?

Taking your Price at 0.015 it is rather cheap versus the high of 0.08 in 2012.

Beaten down stocks are not isolated to AAPT when I study the spectrum of the 2008-2009 rumbling and among them where at least some AA and AAA companies from the NYSE and some of them are even gone, while AAPT, as far as I am concerned is still around.

Based on the expense of some, there must be a love affair with the Management otherwise I could not explain that many Kind of Posts.

So let's hope for all, we stay around a Little while longer and one never ever should give up hope - but then it always depends on the final average Price.

Last but not least: Studying the period 2012 when the stock exploded to 0.08, wasn't there a guy with the Name Eric in Charge who made open and private public relation about the golden Points of AAPT. Wondering why nobody is mad with E.G. I mean he certainly lulled in the majority of the present shareholders. At least this is the Impression I get when searching in the archives of this period. Thanks god that I did not have the pleasure knowing the Company then. Sometimes, one is just lucky.

Like the tale of the lost key (Sufism) the Gold pot is to be found where nobody Looks for it.

I would say: the innocent reference in the footnotes fits into this tale.



Deep into the ruling's footnotes, in a ruling where it did not belong, the judge makes a seemingly innocent reference, but this reference also is noteworthy. It is an invitation to move on the bond. This case has but a few weeks to live before everything changes.

If the rest of the Story is similar to this one then you will earn an Award for perfect Entertainment.

Just to recapitulate:

In 2012 you get invited in a PP with restricted Shares at $ 0.01.
However, the stock was trading at $ 0.0013.

You let us know, that in January 2012 your friend was buying restricted Shares at 0.01, despite the fact that the stock was trading between 0.0008 and 0.0020. With that you actually lay the foundation that all what you present from now on, is nothing more than a made up Story.

Look at the Chart and then think about what you have been telling here.



Further, nobody believes a Story that is made up that Lisa as board member was telling you, you could not buy 4 Mio shs. in the market because no liquidity and therefore you would have to do a PP Placement at 0.01 despite the fact that the stock traded around 0.0008 - and 0.0020. And by the way the volume for February 2013 was 51 Mio and this by falling Prices from 0.0022 to a low of 0.0008. In February 2013 the volume was 288 Mio Shares and the stock recovered up to 0.0031.

That you bring in "a friend" who told you of this opportunity to subscribe to Shares at $ 0.01 while the stock was trading 90 % lower is not the best reference, as your Business colleague either could not read and Digest such Kind of divergence in Price or must have been so naive that I cannot imagine, that he would be called "business-colleague."

And what about the attorney who is specialised in public companies to whom you presented your considerations? Every attorney would have picked up the phone and called the Company for Explanation I would guess.

That B and L have almost no friends among shareholders can be understood, but with such Kind of made up stories and announced follow up, one almost would have to become a contrarian.

A final note: Based on the Price of AAPT for the period July 2011 until end of February 2012 (Average Price in this period 0.0030) AAPT would not have been in a Position to do such a RegS Placement. The SEC would have jumped in all over the board. RegS Placement are done with Discounts due to the restriction of 12 months (new 6 months) and not with premiums of 70 %. And, last but not least: Nobody is that stupid to buy restricted Shares if the stock is trading below the offering Price and in this case we are talking about a Discount between 70% and 90%.

But at least you tried.

That DECN's sales are not great is nothing new. They cannot be great (but will become great) and I am happy to give a reason why.

When Nestle sued in 2012 3 Producers of coffee capsules (30 % cheaper than Nestles) that fittet into Nestles Nespresso Machines for patent infringement, their sales to the retailers collapsed. Orders had to be cancelled and on-going negotitations with distributers had to be put on ice.

Nestle as well warned the big retailer chains of consequences if they should sell those capsules. The retailers of course gave in because nobody has or had an interest to mess up with such a giant.

But when the court after 2 years ruled against Nestle, the market for the cheaper coffee capsules exploded. The consumer is not stupid: If he can get the same product with a huge Discount the consumer will grab it.

Last but not least, GenStrip since under control of DECN's Pharma Division had never a Problem with the FDA.

Here the Statement, which I guess says all:

GenStrip has always been safe, effective, reliable and in full compliance with stringent regulatory procedural standards. The recent FDA letter was singularly directed to Shasta Technologies LLC. No other company was included, either, directly or indirectly. PharmaTech was in full agreement with the FDA in its criticism of the deficiencies of the Shasta quality procedures and monitoring system. That shared opinion significantly contributed to the acquisition of GenStrip and the immediate quality and regulatory oversight that is now provided by PharmaTech.

Mark DuVal, President of DuVal & Associates, P.A., an attorney with 30 years' of FDA legal experience and current regulatory counsel to PharmaTech states, "The FDA abstractly talks about a deficient quality system by a previous company named Shasta. The quality system deficiencies stated do not relate to PharmaTech or the actual safety or effectiveness of the GenStrip product, which is safe and effective and always has been."

And if you like to brandmark DECN then I am sure, you would then take this to heart even more:

September 29.2014

J&J Sued over Defective Blood Glucose Test Strips

Reading this, I would guess, consumers would be very very happy to have DECN's Strip in the stores. It will happen once the David-Goliath case is cleared and I guess after 3 victories the outcome should be more than clear.

My interpretation is that smaller companies entering this market will benefit greatly while the balance sheet of the big boys won’t see the growth and big companies need growth. If you cannot take it away from the other monopolists you avoid at all cost’s the entrance of smaller companies. Based on the Motto: Forbid the beginnings.

Why: If DECN would grab 10 % of the J&J market then we are talking about $ 350 Mio revenue. For DECN a lot of money I would guess and it seems, even for J&J it is something worthwhile to fight for.

DECN is in the Strips market and this is where the money is and it is where the growth is.

Here from the article.
As a point of reference, in 2010, the test strips themselves accounted for close to 90% of the total market value. Therefore, over $11 billion will be up for grabs in 2017 on the sale of test strips alone.

However, this alone is not sufficient to conclude that the business is souring since the majority of sales come from blood glucose strips, not the monitors themselves.

Actually it is like in the causa Nestle (Nespresso machines and capsules.) Nestle knows, the growth of selling Nespresso Machines is limited but the selling of capsules is unlimited and therefore they fought like hell against smaller companies for patent infringement and actually lost. (see a previous post of mine with reference to this case)

Remember: Nobody is spending millions and risking it’s reputation to fight a lame horse, they fight because the strip market is for them a race horse with a very lucrative pot at the end of the line. As the article said: In 2017 they estimate $ 11 billion from the sale of test strips alone. For me a rather sizeable amount of money worthwhile to grab a piece of it.

Keep your humour, I love it.

Interesting article about the Blood Glucose market and where the growth is seen. TEST STRIPS. And as J&J sees it this way as well, the have tried and still try to Keep DECN away from this market. What better prove could a sceptic then ask for when question the growth potential of DECN in the future.

As can be seen, DECN is as well mentioned in this article with the caution: Not to take a Position yet until ...................

Actually what I and others have said all along:
The run in DECN will start, once the court decision is definitive and J&J has no room to appeal. Once this is out, one can start to estimate the possible Revenue Stream. Before that, it is a wait and see attitude or PATT Situation, but then, once it is clear, a lot of buyers will want to move through the same door and as we have seen in 2013, it did not take a lot to have a 500% move. In the meantime, the line of possible buyers is getting longer and longer and a definitive ruling will guarantee Headlines across the wide spectrum of publications. In the meantime: let's be Patient and use the cheap Price Level to accumulate some more.

ARTICLE:
Two things guaranteed over the next ten years are that both the population and the number of people with diabetes will grow. This leads to an ever growing, and changing, market for blood glucose self-monitors. According to GlobalData, the entire monitoring market will reach $12.2 billion by the year 2017. As a point of reference, in 2010, the test strips themselves accounted for close to 90% of the total market value. Therefore, over $11 billion will be up for grabs in 2017 on the sale of test strips alone.
In order to gain further insight into who the players will be in this market and what the landscape will be in the future, it is necessary to dive into the geographic breakdown of diabetes growth and spending on monitoring systems. In 2011 the International Diabetes Foundation estimated that over 8% of the world's population were suffering from some form of diabetes, and this number is expected to grow to 10% by 2030.


At the turn of the century the highest incidence of diabetes was found in China and India and the gap between developing and developed countries is projected to grow over the next 20 years. The total number of people in developing countries who have diabetes is projected to grow by 150% in this time frame. Even with the majority of inflicted people live in BRIC regions, it is currently developed nations including the United States, Europe, and the Caribbean that account for 75% of the global healthcare expenditures associated with diabetes. Where as developed country's market for self-blood glucose monitors has become somewhat saturated within the last decade, developing countries, specifically India and China, offer vast growth potential if one of the major players is able to gain a foothold.
Currently four large companies control the majority of the market. According to a report compiled by industry and Roche analysts; Roche controls 29.1% of the blood glucose market, Lifescan 26.5% (Lifescan is owned by Johnson and Johnson, JNJ), Bayer (OTCPK:BAYRY) 14.6%, Abbott (NYSE:ABT) 14.6%, and all others 15.2%. In order for one of these companies to gain momentum in developing countries it is necessary for them to drive down price points and to offer a more affordable option. However, even if they were able to accomplish those product offerings there are many challenges still to over come.
Potential Headwinds
Both Bayer and Roche (OTCQX:RHHBY) have attempted to sell their blood monitor business within the last two years. Neither one was able to find an adequate offer and ended up holding onto their respective diabetes care divisions. This indicates there is not a great demand to break into the blood glucose monitoring market.
Sales of blood glucose monitors have been declining. Globally the sales peaked in 2011 and have been declining by over 5% annually since. Domestically sales have been declining since 2007. However, this alone is not sufficient to conclude that the business is souring since the majority of sales come from blood glucose strips, not the monitors themselves.
Changes within government medical aid programs in Canada and the United States have begun to put a strain on the sales of blood glucose strips. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health in 2009 reported that the use of blood glucose test strips have a limited clinical effect for many patients who do not use insulin. Due to this, and other studies of a similar kind, the Canadian government in 2013 limited the number of blood glucose strips that a patient who is not on insulin is reimbursed for. Additionally, the United States adjusted its Medicare reimbursement program. Under the new rules Medicare will only reimburse $10.41 for a box of 50 strips, where in the past it had reimbursed $34. While this does decrease the cost that the customer has to pay it puts more pressure on retail pharmacies, especially the smaller ones. It is expected that many of the pharmacies will move towards additional lower end products, which will cut into the larger brands retail network. As these reforms have been enacted less then a year ago, it is unclear how much pressure will be placed on sales of the larger companies.
Generic options have begun to hit the market both domestic and internationally. Target's (NYSE:TGT) Up & Up, and Wal-Mart's (NYSE:WMT) ReliOn have both released their own blood glucose monitoring devices and strips at significant discounts to those offered by the big four. Tests have also shown that these devices are every bit as accurate and reliable as those offered by the larger brands. Internationally, the Indian government began supplying kits for the monitoring and detection of glucose levels. These kits will cut the cost of care down to 1/4th the previous cost for the average patient and will lower the cost of test strips to 2-4 Indian rupees, or about 3-6 cents, where before they were paying 18-35 Indian rupees for imported strips. The government has said that they will not increase this price and that they have access to an in house manufacturer, as well as interest from external companies to produce these kits. These new entrants into the blood glucose monitoring field are already reducing margins and sales domestically, as well as taking away potential markets for growth.
Conclusion
On the surface the blood glucose monitoring business seems like an attractive opportunity for both major health conglomerates and new businesses to exploit. However, when you dig a little deeper it becomes apparent that the heyday of this market may have passed and in the future there will be more competition limiting the upside in both the established and new markets. Moving forward it will be important to see how Bayer and Roche treat these divisions after failing to divest their respective diabetes segments. These two companies in particular concern me. Bayer cited synergistic reasons for wanting to divulge of the diabetes unit and Roche has already begun to lay off workers. I would look for different opportunities within the health care sector in the short term. It will also be pertinent to look at how the sales numbers will be impacted by the new government reforms. While blood glucose monitors may not have a large impact on the balance sheets of the big boys, such as Abbott, or the retailers attempting to steal market share, such as Target, it is necessary to look at the future when analyzing smaller companies who are entering the field, such as Decision Diagnostics Corp (OTCPK:DECN). I would not yet initiate a position in any of the smaller players whose revenue is dependent on self-blood glucose monitors or strips until it becomes apparent how the new developments will influence future revenue.

Always surprised that the announcment to got to a funeral for AAPT is ending with a resurrection.

But I guess, more surprises are in store in the weeks and months ahead.

1.) your constant subject is, that DECN should have issued a restatement from their recent 10Q, although enough evidence was given here already many times , that based on the SEC rules and Articles ASC 105 and 250 no restatement is necessary if and when the error has no material effect and the error is not a material item. And the error of $ 225.000 in favour of DECN has and had no material effect. (see as well below) Broken down per share: The error amounts up to $ 0.0075 per share and as a ratio to the assets 4.69 %

2.)I as well said many times, DECN has enough legal Brains on board so I would guess, if a restatement would have been necessary they would have done so.


Effect: A change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause:


ASC 105, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, notes that the provisions of GAAP apply only to material items. Read in conjunction ASC 250, this means that restatement is required only for material errors.

So then: Is an error of $ 225.000 in favour of DECN a material item? Of course not and CPS’s should know this.

Although the Financial Accounting Standards Board has not issued quantitative guidelines for determining immateriality of an item, the accounting industry and public accounting practice have on their own developed benchmarks for assessing whether an item is material or not. Generally, amounts below 5 percent may be considered material item.

Last year we had the earnings Nov. 12 - Therefore would guess plus minus 2 days -: Between 10 and 14th of November.

Well when I wrote it the stock was around $ 13.-- versus the present Price of $ 14.--. Slow move - but still on board waiting for much higher Prices.

The recent financing BAXS did gave BAXS the needed cash-flow to face the burn-rate.

However from a Balance sheet Point of view, every Company has an interest to see for it, that the CV bond (debt) is converted and therefore it becomes equity.

Based on the formula

Common Stock at an initial conversion price of $0.2421 per share

I would guess, that the conversion process is already going on, which of course gives a certain cap around those Levels. However, we are talking here of roughly 5.7 Mio shs being converted and of course the range 0.25 - 0.28 could see a Digestion range.

Longer-term, the process that is going on here I consider a very healthy platform which - once terminated - would then be the strong Fundament to carry this stock back towards the 200 days moving average - presently 0.70 and falling. Once there - we will have plenty of time to evaluate the next move.

In the business-world a lot of strange things are happening. Those “not” running the business know everything better than those running the business. In the stock market is of interest what you cannot see but what one should see. This is what made some very very wealthy. In the causa DECN there are a lot of self-styled experts who question everything but are lost to admit that DECN is in a unique situation that catapulted this little company to the radar of some.

If DECN would be a private company, the case David-versus Goliath would be read only by some legal minds and other interested parties but this would be the end. But if DECN would then succeed and go public, DECN would get from the market the credit of what they would have achieved and of course the forward looking expectation of how much they could control in this multi-billion-dollar market.

But DECN is already public but presently in a Patt-Situation . They won already 3 times but to win the case, they need a definitive ruling in their favour. A definitive ruling will as well clear, how much cash will be paid from J&J in favour of DECN and a definitive ruling will as well allow DECN to move ahead to sell their product through all available channels and to negotiate contracts with interested parties so they could sell the product under a private label brand.

When the stock after the first positive ruling spiked towards $ 1.—it was as we would call today the celebration of the unexpected. But then the unexpected as well made room for reality, that the first victory is not “the victory” and J&J would do all to reverse this verdict. This kind of thinking of course had some to take profits and put them in a wait and see attitude and this kind of trading pattern we will see until the day when the verdict in favour of DECN is sealed and stamped.

In the meantime: DECN can prepare itself for the day after and when I read the press-release from yesterday, this is exactly what they are doing. Finally the financials: Reading the chronology of what happens since the last reporting then I must say: It can happen to every company and those who want to read something in between, I recommend to read those filings with the SEC where it clearly says, that it was something beyond DECN’s control .

http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=10192939

But if not enough for some, I advise to study exactly why Silberstein, Ungar was being acquired or better said, had to say goodbye to remain independent.

Now as everybody knows, when you have to change the auditor, the ex-auditor has to transfer all documents to the new auditor and the new auditor has then the pleasant task, to review everything again which is rather time consuming. I would guess, that before year end, the financials could be ready but by coincidence it could as well be, that by then we would have solution on the table in the causa J&J – DECN.

I know, it is my position in this stock that talks bullish but then, for me it is a perpetual call on a positive outcome. And if – what I of course expect – the outcome is positive, the stock give a lot of reasons to be happy. (See Chart with comment)

Perfect Swing

This forum debates from time to time who is who in the Market-Makers league and which of the MM's Plays a certain part.

Here a break-down:

Each market participant is recognized by the four-letter ID that appears on level II quotes. Here are some of the most popular ones: NITE, ETRD, SCHB, TDCM & ARCA.

NITE - wholesaler
SCHB - wholesaler
TDCM - retailer
ETRD - retail ECN
ARCA - an ECN

NITE : This is the king MM of the OTCBB. He intimides traders and other MMs use that to their advantage knowing that he scares them. That's why NITE is the shaker on most stock runs; he is the most common ax. NITE could be on the ask all the time, he could be leading a dip scaring sellers to SCHB and TDCM on the bid.

Other ECNs : ARCA, BRUT, BTRD, INCA, INTL, ISLD, REDI

Wholesalers : ETRD, HRZG, MASH, NITE, SHWB

Big Shorters : JIMK, POND, GNET or ARCA (anyone can use GNET, even other MMs because it's an ECN).

TDCM - retailer MM.

Top Retail Dilutors : ACAP, AGIS, BAMM, BMIC, CHIG, CLYP, FANC, FRAN, JIMK, MAYF, NATL, PERT, SACM, UCAP, VERT, VFIN

Biggest OTCBB ECNs : GNET, TRAC & DATA

You are 100 % correct.

They diluted the shareholders at the expense of the balance-sheet and with this Kind of Action destroyed the stock and no shareholder will enjoy this, but then again - unfortunately - what they did, was not illegal.

What me makes wonder: Why those responsible for the financing, did not put the Money at work under condition, that the salary and Bonus would be capped at $ 100.000 for both of them and the rest would come by Performance.

At the end: One must blame the "Financiers" for being stupid.

The 50 days MA is presently the hurdle. But this is normal, seldom broken in the first move.

Yep Looks good

Let's now work now on this move wave 5.

Star-Queens as such must not be disclosed in the filings.

Reason: Star-Queens was a "personal account" of B.S. but registered under the Name of a corporation but within the bank and certainly within the Company known, that the B.O. is B.S.

All what he did: Part of his salary went to an account in his direct Name and part of the salary wen to an account in the name of Star-Queens but under the B.O. of B.S.

Not wrong with this as this and certainly not against the law.

But what would have been against the law, if the Transfers to Star-Queens would not have been salary or Bonus payments. But then, when E.G. released those payments I am pretty sure he knew that this all belongs to the item "salary - Bonus".

And actually, this was even confirmed in some of the court papers. Again, I am not fighting with you about the size of the payments which are "crazy" by all standarts and I am not fighting with you about the "non-paid" taxes, but I try to distinguish between the ethic side of Business and the legal part.

Unless otherwise proven,I do not think that the Star Queen Account and Transfer were illegal.

The heating up debate about what they did and should not have done is something I prefer to leave to those who have the inside knowlede what the law allows.

The legal Parameters are rather wide and from my personal Point of view I have seen nothing in their filings that would have gone against the law. Ethic is one Thing and the law another. While the call for ethic leaves room for emotions, the law does not allow this.

Being this deferred taxes, high salaries, accounts in the Name of a corporation but with the B.O. Name disclosed and many other things may go against the public opinion of fair Business and this of course creates public screams, but here the Story Ends.