M&A business
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.
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.
Has nothing to do with sunshine postings. If somebody wants to sell so be it.
But your Story was, that the sellers are making 1000 %. You would agree with me, does not fit the bill.
You may be Aware of the rules and regulations. If you place Shares the restricted period is at least 6 months and you would have to give me a very good Explanation,why DECN would have placed Shares at a Price of 0.025 when 6 to 7 months ago the stock was 0.40.
All what I ask in discussion: Let's be realistic. Comes to it, that this would have represented a Discount of 93%. Based on this I do not Need to make more comments from my part.
The case DECN versus J&J is actually over, this is a fact, nobody will overturn 3 rulings in favour of DECN.
But this is not the Point: As I mentioned yesterday, possible Investors would like to have this chapter closed, one way or another, so that DECN can go out and doing Business.
What J&J is doing, just buying time. In the USA possible, but this would never be possible with the legal System in Europe and even Russia and Brazil.
Can you explain me this formula.
Being up 1000 %. Do you want to suggest that private Placements took place at 0.025 versus the Price of 0.25?
In a way this is how it works.
You grab the brand - ged rid of everything - and go back to possible contacts and Show them your CV that you have deep pockets and mean Business.
This is what could be attractive.
Appt at the bottom - get it almost for free, speparate the rest through chaper 11 (greetings from GM) and here you go.
That makes it interesting. Toxic - but then the law allows to separate it. Would be fun.
I tried to make clear what it is all about.
1.) As a foreign Company you can start from scratch and build all and make sure you get the right Name. And for my part: All American Pet is a smart Name.
or
2.) You acquire very cheap, empty the Shell, and move ahead with the Name. Happens all the time.
I call this constructive Brainstorming. Better than stop thinking.
A question may be asked.
Why on earth have they issued this Kind of press-release 5 weeks ago?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-pet-company-inc-working-120100303.html
And Comes to it: When they write a new VP, why did they not include at least the Name of this Person?
LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwired - Sep 17, 2014) - All American Pet Company, Inc. (OTCBB: AAPT) -- AAPT is working diligently with its strong new finance team, including its new VP of finance, to become current and compliant with its SEC and legal filings.
What has to be added to my comment.
Nobody would make a tender offer or go for a Dutch offer as Long as the Company is not reporting.
You are not bidding against a black box at least you want to know the Status Quo.
This is a Map of Pet Food Retail Sales (excl. USA) around the world
This is a Map of US-Exports of PET Food and their share abroad.
As can be taken from this statistics, US – Pet Food Quality is around the world considered Prime Quality.
But as in any business, China, India and Brazil would like to get as well a piece of this cake, but the problem is, client-awareness of the quality. So what solution do they have: Actually only one: Going out and acquiring a US-Company and then do the end-manufacturing in the USA with an All Made in the USA brand, then selling it in the USA and exporting it to their countries or other countries where demand is exploding.
Regardless of what this forum thinks about AAPT, but for some of the biggies in China, Russia and Brazil, acquiring AAPT would be peanuts-money for them. If I would be AAPT, believe me, before seeing my company going sour, I would arrange contacts to interested parties and there are plenty of around.
A recent published study showed, that for a foreign company to get hold in the USA, you have to invest up to $ 50 Mio. So why not taking the easier and shorter route: Acquire a company that is in the defensive, restructure the balance sheet in a way the law allows you to do, and under the old name and brand you start to produce and to sell.
I assume that we all agree here: AAPT could have been very successful but studying the management, the balance-sheet and some more, AAPT did everything what according you learn in management schools, should not have been done. The results are on the table. But then it is blood what attracts sharks and in business, there are plenty swimming around to look for cheap opportunities. Over the last 24 months plenty of listed and almost bankrupt companies were acquired in Europe from foreign entities and restructured and what is possible in Europe is even more juicy in the USA at least in this kind of sector.
Last but not least: In a tender you Need only 51 % to get what you want. Not exactly expensive and some smarties could even go for a Dutch auction.
Let’s see what the next months will bring.
You really asked the right question. There are many interested parties looking at DECN for the time "after J&J" and ask the same question. Is this a perpetuum mobile case?
DECN actually is blocked doing the Business they want to do: Selling their product under their brand and selling "the product" under a private Label brand. If you cannot sell you have no income.
What is clear is: DECN has beaten J&J 3 times in court - but when is enough - enough?
Once this is cleared I am sure, this stock will see heavy trading, because the Company is real and the product is real and as a matter of fact, the best public relation they got from J&J.
My backgrund Comes from the Euro room and East-Block and from a certain part in Latin America, but all I can say, such a case already would have been closed based on our legal Parameters, but here we are talking about the law of the USA.
Finally it moves and hey what is wrong, one get's paid for Holding as well with a juicy yield.
Well the correction was deep enough to get me back in again.
Wide channel open from the $ 7.-- Support to the old high around $ 11.-- The Options Players are targeting 8.50 and 9.50, so some room to make Money here.
You are right - with penny stocks one should leave the fundamentals aside. It is like in the Casino.
But then, when those speedy gonzales types of stocks move, they move in a big way. There is an industry out there making Money on both sides of the trade.
The question with AAPT is, when the next big trade starts and from where?
No idea, but I assume it is part of the strategy of the Company or their legal advisers. However, I would not be surprised if this step would be taken sooner than later.
This is very simple. The Company has to attack the bond. Once they do, the process starts, not before.
Let's see what Comes out of it. But something is going on, this is a fact. But what cannot be presented as a fact "yet" is the result from all negotiations. It could work but there are a lot of "depends". Will see.
Let's be fair: This stock is one of the best Penny-Land stocks for trading, being this short against the box or going Long. But everybody studying the Charts can see what I mean.
In short: The CEO is looking at certain cross-over Parameters and whenever they are reached, News are out and the stock moves up. The upper side is perfectly well capped, so based on my experience, those supporting the stock are as well those selling the stock.
Perfectly done, perfectly organised and actually a Traders paradise.
Thanks for this.
As for volatility. If I would have to make a bet, there are no more than 500 Mio shs. in the Float.
250 Mio shs. are linked to the Grid
750 Mio shs. at least must be linked to the German side. From those RegS deals, at least 500 Mio cannot be cleared (legend removed) as I already tried to explain here some days ago.
So what is left,roughly 500 - 750 Mio shs, which is equivalent to $ 700.000 or $ 1 Mio.
Then the question is, how many Shares have been booked out worthless due to the new regulations in Switzerland and Germany? No idea, but the Float is small and "if" they want to Keep AAPT alive and come up with a smart idea, (you never now nowadays) the stock will fly.
Pennyland is always open for surprises.
Is there a possibility to attach a valuation profile for DECN.
Let me try:
1. Settlement with Johnson and Johnson
2. Amount of compensation being paid by Johnson and Johnson.
3. Bond $ 12. 4 Mio
4. Counterclaim suit of 3 or 4 times of the bond value
5. Pharma Tech Solutions has acquired the intellectual property, trademarks, design documents and control of Genstrip which means, that in future, no royalties will have to be paid.
6. The Genstrip can be sold under their own name but then the company can as well close deals “called private label” deals with large retail chains.
7. Secured financing for production.
Settlement assured, DECN will be free to go ahead and market their product like mentioned under (6). The debate is what market size is DECN targeting. Figures are being moved around between 20 Billion and 6 billion, but a sure bet I would say is around $ 7 billion if one studies the various reports and magazines.
Due to the price policy of DECN within a period of 3 years they could certainly be on their way to grab 5 % or $ 350 Mio. Uncounted for would be how much private label deals would amount to. If done with the Walmarts, CVS, Costcos and so on, their product could certainly catch 10 % of size.
Playing the range between$ 350 Mio and $ 700 Mio leaves plenty of room for perception and this is what it is all about in the markets.
Starting from the bottom:
I guess DECN has roughly 40 Mio shs (plus) outstanding giving them approx. $ 12 Mio capitalisation, actually close to the bond of $ 12.4 Mio.
Payments from J&J exceeding the bond value of course would mean, cash in the bank and actually leave DEC free from financing itself.
No premium attached to payments above $ 12.4 Mio and no premiums attached for the product and their 100 % control. It is hard to see then, why some have the feeling, the stock is expensive when the stock actually is trading on a deep NAV value if one takes a possible compensation figure of $ 40 - $ 60 Mio into account and as well that the J&J case after 3 positive rulings pro DECN is a finished case, regardless if J&J tries to buy some time but then as well some higher compensation costs.
Net profit spreads are open to be discussed by standards, but figuring 10 % after EBITA will certainly not be challenged as when studying other companies the figure is rather closer to 20 %.
Low End $ 350 Mio from a 7 billion $ market and including private label deals with big retailers would leave $ 35 Mio net profit with the 10 % formula.
Price Earnings-Ratios reflecting the growth expectations I will as well take the low end of the range of 10 times trailing versus 17 in the overall market. That leaves a capitalisation of $ 350 Mio.
Having gotten to this number: Where do we end with the dilution: 50 Mio – 60 Mio? But if DECN get’s only the bond compensation, there would be no need for further dilution as this cash would allow them to finance the whole process. Higher compensations of course would leave plenty of room even to buy back stocks (which I certainly would do)
This would leave us a stock price of $ 7.—or $ 6.—compared to the recent price of $ 0.30.
But if the market would do it’s own calculation at a certain point and figuring in a higher market share than 5 % and an even higher market penetration than the $7 Bio I mentioned, the hype would start in a big way.
But, then who needs a hype when the target calculated at minimum levels is already mouth- watering.
What people should keep in mind: DECN is a real company, has a real product and a huge market for this product and evidence for all this has been given by J&J, when they started to sue DECN for patent infringement early 2013 and in the meantime got beaten already 3 times in court. J&J spending millions and their reputation shows that they are afraid that DECN could grab market shares away from them and if they would not see it that way, they never would have sued.
That companies, even on the pinks can take investors by surprise once the gates are open is best shown in the example of Keurig Green Mountain. In the late 90s the stock was trading around the 0.20 – 0.30 level and as Internet stocks were en-vogue this stock had to take a lot of beatings by some. When the business model improved so the stock up to $ 2.-- / $ 4.-- level were the heat was even higher than before. People could not see the market potential as they always measured this small company against the Goliaths. But there were is a market, the ones with a similar product (or even better) and a cheaper product, they will always grab market share. The consumers look to this. To make the story short, the stock is trading today $ 137.—and those who stayed with in all those years became wealthy by all means. For full disclosure I can say, I got in at $ 3.50 in 2006 and I still hold more than 50 %.
Conclusion: DECN is trading at a level were no premium is attached but once the case is definitive settled this will change quickly. In the meantime I do not care if the stock is $ 1.—or $ 0.20. I never sold on the way up and even increased my position. For me, DECN has a huge potential as I tried to show here and this even if I took all margins at the very low end. Markets today have a tendency “to show me” especially when companies are involved in legal disputes about patents infringements like the case is here. So this waiting and see attitude will change sooner than later and then the stock will be trading based on what we exactly know – cash on the table – and based on expectations in the years ahead. Even the missed filings do not disturb me as I am fully aware why this problematic arose and knowing this, I am sure, this will not take too long either.
Last but not least: The recent take-overs and mergers within this kind of industry (Healthcare) paid 1 times – 1.5 times the revenue base. Taking the possible 5 % expectation of $ 350 Mio we would be talking about $ 350 Mio – to $ 525 Mio. Actually cheap for those acquiring it: Even at $ 525 Mio the return on equity would be 6.66 % at the high bid and 10 % at the low bid. For every private equity company a temptation when they get 2.3 % on a 10 % Year Treasury. I am pretty sure, J&J is brainstorming about this possibility as well and if not, then others will do it at a later stage.
Keep this in mind, while we wait for the Settlement outcome with J&J. Once cleared - here we go.
Acquisition of GenStrip and Its 510(K) Allows the Company to Build Its Own Proprietary Brand Name, Gain Control of Manufacturing and Quality Control; Company to Lower Costs to Produce and Market GenStrip by Over 40%
LOS ANGELES, CA, Apr 16, 2014 Decision Diagnostics Corp. (otcqb:DECN), the manufacturer of the popular GenStrip(TM), the unique Green Glucose Test Strip, specifically designed to work with the Johnson & Johnson's LifeScan Ultra family of glucose testing meters, today announced that that the Company's subsidiary, Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. has announced the acquisition of Genstrip from Shasta Technologies LLC, including the intellectual property, trademarks, the FDA cleared 510(k) and various public and private product registrations. Pharma Tech has re-registered as Device Manufacturer of Genstrip with the U.S. FDA. Terms of the all cash acquisition have not yet been disclosed.
Keith Berman, CFO of Decision Diagnostics Corp. commented, "I am delighted to announce that our subsidiary Pharma Tech Solutions has acquired the intellectual property, trademarks, design documents, and control of the Genstrip, a Class II medical device. We have always highly valued the Genstrip as a product, and decided to act so that we could centralize manufacture, quality control and quality assurance under our corporate banner. We will continue to be Genstrip worldwide sales and service agents and we are currently working on enterprise marketing plans for our recently announced Private Label initiatives."
Genstrip, which will be rebranded Pharma Tech Genstrip, is a blood glucose test strip compatible with the Johnson+Johnson Lifescan Ultra family of glucose testing meters for diabetics, the most popular glucose testing meters in the United States and arguably the most popular family of testing meters in history. Employing a razor blade marketing philosophy for Genstrip, Pharma Tech is making inroads into the direct-to-patient Medicare and insurance benefit markets where reimbursement rates have changed the focus of the market away from retail "big box" models and toward direct to patient models that allow pharmacies, large and small, to sell a value priced test strip to diabetics without their need to change testing meters.
Mr. Berman concluded, "The market sea changes driven by the advent of the Medicare competitive bidding implementation, will permit us to fill a void created by the effective withdrawal of the Big 4 pharma companies from the Medicare and insurance channels for diabetic test strip fulfillment Through 2012 the 'Big 4' controlled over 83% of the total diabetic testing market. This acquisition of Genstrip allows the company to vertically integrate our sales and service capacity with the manufacturing and quality control components to exert absolute control of the product deliverance and to benefit from all the realized economies."
Performance is a word used by some I know, but then I know as well, that the downside is limited by 100 % whereas the upside has no Limit. And AAPT, just looking back over the last 3 years had swings between 100 and 500 %. Once this rule is understood, then it becomes easy to make Money, just make sure you never fiddle around with the allocation, even if it Looks juicy.
Coming back to AAPT, regarless of bull or bear, this stock had it's volatility over the last 3.5 years, so everybody that was not only fixed on the L&B Story but as well on the volatility that happens from time to time, could have made plenty of Money.
See by yourself. And shorting against the box by the way is not forbidden, everybody can do it and for this you do not even Need margins. Actually it is like with the Overall market - being Long does not mean not playing the swings against the positions. This is the big fun and the big Play nothing more and nothing else. Sometimes you catch it right, sometimes not, but if one only goes for the sure bet, then Las Vegas, Monte Carlo etc. would be out of Business and the way I see it, it is not, on the contrary.
The quoting of the past does not lead us anywhere. I am only interested in the future. Or to borrow a Quote from J.F.K.
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
However reading my comment from June 2013 I have to admitt, I must have had too much Cognac intus. But then, if one never issues an opinion one never can be caught wrong or proven right. So I Chose to issue an opinion and then await what the future brings.
DECN for sure is in the right sector. Health Care.
Barron's Cover for the week October 20th.
Big Money Poll: The Bull Will Be Right Back
America’s money managers say stocks will resume their climb after a short but necessary time out, according to our latest Big Money Poll. Financials, health care, and tech stocks will lead the market higher. Cheers for Yellen and Apple.
http://online.barrons.com/articles/big-money-poll-the-bull-will-be-right-back-1413611450?tesla=y&mod=BOL_twm_ls
Do not understand exactly what it is all about, but Pawtizer is still available on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/180-6973593-1495939?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=pawtizer
If and when you should have your Shares with a Swiss-Bank, you can only sell.
Here an article from the Tages-Anzeiger that Shows the Dilemma, however maybe as well that you could talk to your bank and just Keep them means that they will not be forcing you to sell or whatever.
Zwielichtige US-Aktien in Schweizer Depots
Schweizer Banken machen Druck auf Kunden, die niedrigpreisige US-Aktien besitzen. Neu gekaufte Titel werden gar nicht mehr eingebucht. Hinter der Aktion stehen offenbar die US-Behörden. Sie wollen den Markt der oft dubiosen Wertschriften austrocknen.
Brown-Brothers-Harriman-Gebäude in New York: BBH ist der wichtigste Verwahrer von Aktien in den USA.
M. J.* versteht die Welt nicht mehr. Die Credit Suisse (CSGN 26.16 -0.68%) teilte ihm per Schreiben mit, dass Wertpapiere mit einem Kurs unter 1.50 Dollar und andere ausserbörslich gehandelte US-Titel in Kundendepots nicht mehr erwünscht seien. Er habe die Wahl, diese Aktien zu verkaufen, sie an eine Drittbank auszuliefern oder darauf zu verzichten. Letzteres heisst, «die Positionen in Ihrem Depot auszubuchen und die Titel ohne Kompensation zu vernichten».
Die Credit Suisse ist eine Bank unter vielen, die tief bewertete US-Aktien aus den Kundendepots entfernt haben wollen. Es geht um Aktien mit einem Kurs unter 1.50 Dollar, die nicht an den New-Yorker Börsen Nyse oder Nasdaq gehandelt werden. Es sind vor allem Titel, die ausserbörslich vertrieben werden.
Hinter dem Vorgehen der Banken stecken die US-Behörden. Insider berichten, dass diese bei Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) vorstellig geworden sind. BBH ist der wichtigste Verwahrer von Aktien in den USA und ist in dieser Funktion auch Partner der SIX SIS, der schweizerischen Depotstelle von Effekten. Was genau die US-Regulatoren fordern oder beanstanden, ist bis heute unklar. Offenbar zielt die Initiative auf Unternehmen der eher zwiespältigen Art. Der Vertreter einer europäischen Bank sagt: «Man schiesst sich auf Unternehmen ein, die am Markt nicht offen kommunizieren.»
Tummelplatz suspekter Figuren
Vermutlich haben die US-Regulatoren vor allem jene Kategorie Unternehmen im Fokus, die man im Markt unter dem Etikett «Pump and dump» einreiht – frei übersetzt: aufblasen und dann auf den Müll kippen. Das Vorgehen ist stets dasselbe: Jemand streut im Markt eine scheinbar clevere Geschäftsidee. Je mehr Anleger auf die Idee aufspringen, desto stärker steigt der Wert der Aktie. Ist der Ballon genug aufgeblasen, springen die Strippenzieher ab, streichen die Gewinne ein, der Aktienkurs bricht ein, die Investoren haben das Nachsehen.
Tausende solcher Wertschriften – man spricht auch von Penny Stocks, Aktien mit einem Wert unter 1 Euro oder Dollar – sind im Umlauf. Oft, nicht immer, bewegen sich die Verantwortlichen hinter diesen Aktien am Rande oder jenseits der Legalität. Der Vertreter einer Bank bestätigt die Vermutung, dass die US-Regulatoren mit ihrem Vorgehen diesen Sumpf austrocknen wollen.
M. J. hat in seinem Depot Aktien mehrerer US-Unternehmen, deren Kurs eingebrochen ist. Da ist etwa Klever Marketing, eine Firma, die eine «revolutionäre Shopping-App» auf den Markt brachte, dank der viel beschäftigte Leute Zeit und Geld sparen sollen. 1997 lag der Aktienkurs der Gesellschaft über 4 Dollar, heute noch bei 0,04 Dollar.
Da sind ferner die Titel von Rare Element Resources. Das 1999 gegründete Unternehmen bezweckt das Auffinden und Abbauen von seltenen Erden – Metalle, die vor allem in elektronischen Bauteilen Verwendung finden, etwa bei Smartphones. 2010 explodierten die Preise für Seltenerdmetalle, vor allem, weil China als mit Abstand wichtigster Förderer den Export massiv drosselte. In der zweiten Jahreshälfte 2011 ging die Nachfrage nach seltenen Erden zurück, die Lagerbestände stiegen an. Notierte die Aktie zu Beginn des Jahres 2011 bei 13 Dollar, liegt der Kurs aktuell noch bei 59 Cent. M. J. kaufte im Januar 2012 1'000 Aktien, das Stück für 5.80 Dollar – günstig im Vergleich zum Höchstwert, teuer gemessen am heutigen Preis. Verkauft er die Titel jetzt auf Drängen der Bank, erleidet er einen Verlust von über 5'000 Dollar.
M. J. hat auch Aktien von AER Energy Resources, ein Unternehmen, das nach Öl- und Gasvorkommen sucht. Dieser Titel war vor zehn Jahren noch 5 Dollar wert. Heute liegt der Kurs bei 0,0001 Dollar. M. J. ist sich bewusst, dass er Risikotitel gekauft hat. Er habe aber an die Geschäftsideen geglaubt. «Man kauft gescheiter Aktien von Coca-Cola», sagt er heute. «Das wird immer getrunken.»
Ob die drei erwähnten Aktien auf dem Radar der US-Behörden stehen, wissen auch Vertreter von Schweizer Banken nicht mit Sicherheit zu beantworten. Zumindest bei AER Energy dürfte dies der Fall sein. Auf dem Handelsportal Otcmarkets.com ist der Titel mit einem Totenkopf gekennzeichnet. Das bedeutet so viel wie: Hände weg! Betrügerische Machenschaften können nicht ausgeschlossen werden.
Auch Banken wissen nicht alles
Bei den Schweizer Banken weiss man heute nicht genau, was mit diesen Aktien passieren wird. Die meisten weisen ihre Kunden darauf hin, dass mit Datum 1. Oktober Aktien dieser Art nicht mehr in Depots eingebucht werden. Zum schnellen Verkauf solcher Titel oder gar zum kompensationslosen Vernichten sollte sich aber niemand drängen lassen, auch wenn seitens der Banken Druck aufgebaut wird. Die Basler Kantonalbank etwa schrieb ihren Kunden: «Kommt es zu keiner Auftragserteilung, kann es, bei jetzigem Stand, zu einer Auslieferung durch die Depotstelle kommen, welche fremde Spesen von circa 500 Dollar pro Position verursacht.»
Zumindest bei der SIX-Group, der Schweizer Depotstelle, winkt man ab. Man werde keine Aktien ausbuchen, sagt Sprecher Stephan Meier: «Wenn solche Titel eines Bankkunden bei uns verwahrt werden, passiert erst einmal nichts.» Meier bestätigt aber, dass keine US-Aktien dieser Art mehr aufgenommen werden.
M. J. ärgert sich vor allem darüber, dass ihn die Credit Suisse erst mit Schreiben vom 27. September darüber informierte, dass sie ab dem 1. Oktober keine Instruktionen mehr für Käufe dieser Aktien entgegennehmen werde. Die CS weist darauf hin, dass dieser Brief nur Neugeschäfte betreffe. Mit Kunden, die bereits solche Titel im Depot hätten, werde man befriedigende Lösungen finden. Die Basler Kantonalbank oder auch die VP Bank informierten ihre Kunden bereits im Sommer.
*Name der Redaktion bekannt (Tagesanzeiger.ch/Newsnet)
(Erstellt: 09.10.2014, 23:19 Uhr)
Just that my text; Maybe 500 Mio shs. will never be in the System is understood.
Shares placed under RegS have a Minimum restriction of 6 months before the legend can be removed. However, if a Company is not en-current with their reporting (filings) the legend actually cannot be removed. But Comes to it the administrative stress. Those People have those Shares with legend in their Hands. Now to remove the legend, they would have to send those Shares to the Transfer-Agent together with a legal opinion. In the past, this Kind of Service was done to 90 % through BBH, but BBH no longer gives this Kind of Service in Switzerland and Germany. As a matter of fact then, those holders would have to send then those certificates with DHL and a legal opinion from a lawyer to the Transfer-Agent. Once the restriction would be removed, the TA would send those holders certificates without legend, but they could not deposit it as physical delivery is no longer accepted. (Except the USA). So what is left: Electronic delivery or DWAC but this won't work either, as Shares below $ 1.-- are no longer taken on one Hand and on the other Hand, AAPT Shares are not DTC eligible so an electronic Transfer would not be possible.
Now let's do the math. If 500 Mio shs. would have been placed in Germany during the last 2 years and they all would still be sitting on the legend, what will happen to those Shares? Of course still a number within the O/S, but they would never come to the market unless of course, all those holders would open an account with a Broker in the USA, which I doubt they would do as the regulations in the USA with companies not DTC eligible are rather became restrictive as well plus the handling with companies who are not reporting.
I can certainly not confirm who is selling, but I wrote what is a fact that People were forced to sell due to a new Banking policy in Germany and Switzerland.
As I do not know E.K. I cannot go into this.
But what I can say is the following: All those who purchased AAPT Shares in REGs deals will never be able to collect them, if the subscribers came from Germany and or Switzerland. This game is over due to the new Regulation. From this Point of view then, maybe 500 Mio shs. will never be in the System. Think about this.
In the military, as in any organization, giving the order might be the easiest part. Execution is the real game.
When in Business one learns quickly, if one get's sued for patent infringement you stop all negotiations for new contracts. And DECN got sued by Johnson and Johnson as we all know.
Knowing this, I am surprised why some still ask why Genstrip is not in Walmart, CVS and more? Simply because you cannot negotiate contracts during such a period otherwise it could become very costly.
But we know, the light at the end of the tunnel is not the light of a Train moving towards DECN but the sun, as DECN has beaten J&J 3 times in court and a bill of a certain size will be presented to J&J to pay for this and that and more.
Those not familiar should just take intus These 2 conclusions which I assume makes it clear, that J&J lost heavy.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner proved that claims 1-3 of the ’105 Patent are unpatentable. The ’105 Patent relates to monitoring the level of a substance in a liquid, particularly the level of glucose in blood.
And then to add to it:
Patent Owner next argued that the combination of Winarta and Schulman fails to meet all limitations of the challenged claims, but the Board found this unpersuasive because Patent Owner only addressed the references individually and not in a combination. The Board then found that once again, Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations was not enough to overcome the obviousness finding.
And who is this board? Legal minds (judges) scientists and professionals. And they decided in favour of DECN against J&J. Well if this is not good enough for me, what then. If we Need more evidence of the Quality of the DECN Management, this is it. They beat J&J 3 times and this speaks for the qualification of K.B. as CEO of DECN.
Conclusion: Once J&J accepts the bitter pill, DECN will be free to negotiate with the big retailers.
What I wrote is a possible script.
But you are right of Course, all creditors are entitled to be heard by the court. The court is ultimately responsible for determining whether the proposed plan of reorganization complies with the bankruptcy law. But most of the time when they have to decide between Zero % and or XXX % they go for the latter.
With reference from which side the selling pressure should come from I cannot Elaborate and I will certainly not go into speculation. But the question would then be, who is the buyer?
As you may be Aware of the fact, as of Oct.1sth in Switzerland and Germany you cannot longer hold US Shares (exept NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ) below a market Price of $ 1.-- and not being up to date with their filings. Banks told Clients already in 2013 that this will be coming in 2014 so that those holders would be prepared, that they would have to sell such stocks or it would be booked out. But then as well, they are not allowed to buy such shares as Banks will no longer settle such trades.
I would then guess, that those who Held such Shares either already left the Party during the period 2013 and 2014 and the Johnny come lately have to react now. Some of them may have opened account(s) in other places of the world so as to Balance the sales from their accounts in Germany and Switzerland with buying from their new accounts. Based on this I would guess, that this could be what is going on.
And then reading this:
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner proved that claims 1-3 of the ’105 Patent are unpatentable. The ’105 Patent relates to monitoring the level of a substance in a liquid, particularly the level of glucose in blood.
And then to add to it:
Patent Owner next argued that the combination of Winarta and Schulman fails to meet all limitations of the challenged claims, but the Board found this unpersuasive because Patent Owner only addressed the references individually and not in a combination. The Board then found that once again, Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations was not enough to overcome the obviousness finding.
And who is this board? Legal minds (judges) scientists and professionals. And they decided in favour of DECN against J&J. Well if this is not good enough for me, what then. If we Need more evidence of the Quality of the DECN Management, this is it. They beat J&J 3 times and this speaks for the qualification of K.B. as CEO of DECN.
The short - Long played out since posted here.
BABA down 7.95
AMZN down 4.68
So the Long Amazon trade costs roughly 4.7 %
while the short BABA gave a return of 7.95 %
Difference 3.25 % plus. Not bad return for a market with this Kind of volatility.
Just some thoughts.
Slowly it is getting attractive down here and if there would be a plan, this should be the plan:
Tender for 51 % of the company which gives you the majority: Based on the assumption that AAPT has roughly 1.5 billion shs. outstanding then 51 % would be equivalent of 765 Mio shs. Let’s assume the tender would be at $ 0.003 then the cost would be roughly $ 2.3 Mio. However under a tender you pay with shares so the actual cost for those doing the tender would maybe be $200.000 or even less, depends at which price those treasury shares were or are in the books and how the tax implications would be.
Having the majority you turn around and put this newly acquired company into chapter 11 and then you reorganize under the bankruptcy laws of the USA “AAPT”. The subsidiary AAPT could then remain in control of its business but protected from the debtors. (like we have seen with GM or others) Debtors would get 10 % (better than nothing under chapter 7) or could get a right in the company that acquired the shares through a tender and therefore have a chance to recoup more than 10 %.
Studying the last 10Q then AAPT showed Liabilities of $ 5.8 Mio. 10 % from this would be $ 580.000 Mio, but then the company that would have made the acquisition would get a company with an accumulated deficit of approx.. $ 29 Mio. If I take an average of 25 % which could be deducted from the tax (if the acquiring company is profitable) then we are talking about approx. $ 7.25 Mio. From this benefit they could negotiate an amount for accrued taxes not fully paid due to chapter 11 of let’s say $ 800.000, so the IRS would have gotten all the money back.
In short: For every company having an interest in a brand – made in the USA – this would certainly be a perfect fit as for little costs they would actually gain some millions due to a tax play, which has been done before with other companies. And who could have an interest: Asian or South-American companies trying to get a cheap entry in the USA for a label and the brand: Made in the USA. Will it happen? Well I have seen other strange things in the M&A business and if something get’s to cheap then you have smart lawyers coming out to their clients with a script the more you have the chapter 11 tool at your hands. (Those doubting:Chrysler, GM and almost every of the Airlines and more where restructered very cheap under the same protection rule by some wealthy Hede-Funds and Private Equitiy companies.)
An this from the National Law Review Journal.
I would say, this says all why some are extremely bullish on DECN but then of course one has to take the time to reveiw the legal treatise. Won't take too Long for other magazines taking the subject up again on their front page. The case David versus Goliath is too juicy to be missed.
Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. v. LifeScan Scotland Ltd.: Final Written Decision IPR2013-00247
Quote:
Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. v. LifeScan Scotland Ltd.: Final Written Decision IPR2013-00247
posted on: Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Takeaway: To show that a claimed feature is critical requires showing that the specific claimed feature achieves unexpected results compared to the generic prior art.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner proved that claims 1-3 of the ’105 Patent are unpatentable. The ’105 Patent relates to monitoring the level of a substance in a liquid, particularly the level of glucose in blood.
The Board began with claim construction, stating that the terms will be interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. In the Decision to Institute, the Board construed the terms “proportion,” “proportional to,” “downstream,” and “substantially unidirectionally.” The parties did not contest the prior constructions, and they were adopted in this Decision.
The Board then reviewed Petitioner’s argument that claims 1-3 are obvious over Nankai and Schulman. First, the Board addressed the level of skill in the pertinent art, and adopted Patent Owner’s unopposed definition. The Board then addressed Patent Owner’s arguments in response to Petitioner’s challenge. First, Patent Owner argued that it would not have been obvious to reposition Nankai’s reference sensor part to be upstream of the working sensor parts because there is criticality in positioning the reference sensor part upstream. The Board stated that the criticality of a claimed feature may be demonstrated by showing that the specific feature claimed achieves unexpected results compared to the generic prior art, and Patent Owner failed to make such demonstration. Patent Owner then argued that Nankai simply averages its multiple measurements rather than comparing them to a difference parameter, but the Board found this unpersuasive because Petitioner relies upon Schulman, not Nankai, for disclosing the comparison of multiple measurements to a difference parameter. Patent Owner next argued that Nankai fails to address the detection of an inadequate size sample, but the Board found this unpersuasive because the claims do not limit the sample size and when considering the rationale for combining references, the problem examined is the general problem confronted by the inventor before the invention was made, not the specific problem solved by the invention. Patent Owner then argued that Schulman does not disclose a test strip having the claimed structure, but the Board found this unpersuasive because Petitioner does not rely on Schulman for that disclosure. Patent Owner next argued that Nankai, Schulman, and the ’105 Patent do not use the same “fundamental technique” for measuring glucose oxidase-mediated electrical current. The Board found this unpersuasive because Patent Owner did not explain its relevance to the combinability of Nankai and Schulman, and the Board disagreed with the assertion. Finally, Patent Owner argued that there is no evidence supporting a rationale to combine Nankai and Schulman, but the Board found this unpersuasive because Patent Owner did not credibly explain why it would not have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to have taken away from Schulman the limited teaching that is being relied upon by Petitioner.
The Board then turned to Patent Owner’s evidence of nonobviousness – that Petitioner copied Patent Owner’s test strips – which was not disputed by Petitioner. The Board found that the evidence was not sufficient because Patent Owner only showed that the product was within the scope of a claim and did not show the required nexus between the copying and the claimed subject matter.
Next, the Board reviewed the allegations that claims 1-3 are unpatentable as obvious over Winarta and Schulman. First, Patent Owner argued that electrode W0 is not disclosed by Winarata as being a working sensor part, but the Board found this unpersuasive because Petitioner’s challenge is not premised upon operating W0 in the role of a counter electrode, resistance sensor, or trigger in order to obtain a glucose measurement. Patent Owner then argued that Winarta does not disclose any external circuit arrangement or calculation method in a device to allow glucose measurement at W0, but the board found this unpersuasive because Winarata does have circuitry for making measurements involving W0. Next, Patent Owner argued that because Winarata discloses three uses for W0, there would have been no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ it for the undisclosed use of making a glucose measurement, but the Board was not persuaded by this argument because Patent Owner did not explain why three disclosed uses would dissuade one of ordinary skill in the art from a fourth use. Patent Owner then argued that Winarta is silent as to whether W0 is the same size as W. The Board found that Patent Owner is correct, but credited Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that it would have been obvious to make them the same size in the course of adapting Schulman’s comparison method to Winarta’s test strip. Patent Owner next argued that the combination of Winarta and Schulman fails to meet all limitations of the challenged claims, but the Board found this unpersuasive because Patent Owner only addressed the references individually and not in a combination. The Board then found that once again, Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations was not enough to overcome the obviousness finding.
Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. v. LifeScan Scotland Ltd., IPR2013-00247
Paper 27: Final Written Decision
Dated: August 6, 2014
Patent 7,250,105 B1
Before: Sally C. Medley, Scott E. Kamholz, and Sheridan K. Snedden
Written by: Kamholz
©2014 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/pharmatech-solutions-inc-v-lifescan-scotland-ltd-final-written-decision-ipr2013-0024
Thanks for this article in The National Law Review.
Keep this in mind over the Weekend.
DECN is targeting a real market not a dream market.
In a way it is obvious why J&J fought so hard. I mean we are talking here about a fast growing market absorbing alone in the USA billions of $,s
DECN will get a nice share out of this market once the dust has settled.
Blood glucose monitoring devices market is very lucrative business with enormous future potential. Self-monitoring blood glucose market is primarily dependent on number of diabetic patients. So with the growth in diabetic patients blood glucose monitoring devices market is set to grow many folds. By the end of 2013 there was 382 Million people suffering from diabetes and this figure is expect to rise further to 592 Million by 2035.
For the year 2013 Self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) users has grown more than 50% from the number of users in 2007. China has the highest number of self-monitoring blood glucose device users but United States has highest number of test strips market share. Although self-monitoring blood glucose devices market is expected to grow with single digit CAGR, but its market is IN DOUBLE DIGIT Billion US$. United States controls the highest market share in the self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) market worldwide. 4 companies Roche Diagnostic, LifeScan Inc., Bayer HealthCare and Abbott Laboratories together controls nearly 50% market share of self-monitoring blood glucose devices.
See this for the first time. DECN is certainly on the Radar by some experts.
http://www.diabetesmine.com/2014/04/here-come-generics-test-strips-etc.html