How can he get out?

If the claims are of one party to an agreement turn out to be false, then standard representations and warranties of contract would provide outs in most circumstances. Other terms may exist as to whether, or if, a party might cancel for reasons other than breaches.

As for your inferences about the Montana DEQ, why would they keep testing wells, at their own expense, if there were no possibilities? Maybe the wells are shit. But the fact that they keep testing them (and producing oil when they test them) seems to indicate, that the Forward people are foolish dreamers who believe their own story, not fraudulent scammers (They could be fraudulent scammers, but, talk about a long con. Form a company, find some wells, drill out the plugs, buy some fake oil and sell it and pay taxes on it to Montana, just to find MEDT five years later to get their hands on all that MEDT cash. Wow! These guys are good!).

How about this one for size? What if they are right, what if standard pumping equipment is insufficient, what if?

Pinksheet companies are ALL ABOUT "what if." If they weren't, you would be an idiot to invest in any of them. Period. If the potential for massive increases wasn't there as an incentive you should go 100% bluechip and stay away from the pinks.

I have no idea whether Forward/MEDT will succeed or fail, but neither do you. They only announced this thing a week ago, yet all of you are CERTAIN they are liars or idiots. You distort facts, contrive misstatements and search, wherever you can for something to pick on or at. Leave them alone to succeed or fail and then wear your shame or your "I told you so" faces when the facts are in. Whatever they may be.

Have a nice day.

Talk about misleading!

You quote the PR from the Letter of Intent and ignore the PR from the completion of the acquisition! They could, of course, announce that the acquisition has been unwound, if it gets unwound, but otherwise, the acquisition is complete per their last PR, so why are you spreading rumors like this one?

What is your agenda sir? Why are you grasping at disingenuous straws like this one? Isn't it enough to state that you believe its all bullshit and leave it at that?

I see your point, and its valid, but it depends on Forward having had control of these wells for 20 years? What if they have had less time? When did they register the wells. They were only formed in late 2004. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that they need money, but its been my experience that often times, very experienced people overlook the true value of what lies right in front of them because of preconceived notions. Maybe the Beeman boys have discovered something that other people just passed by, maybe they are local and know the history of what should and should not be abandoned. Maybe they are liars and maybe they are dreamers or maybe they will strike it rich? I think its way too early to tell on this one.

If the wells were abandoned by the prior operator in 89 and 90 are they the prior operator? Its entirely possible that wells that were uneconomical in 1989 and 1990 are economical now, especially if they really did spend money to recondition the wells. All the information I've seen posted here leaves these questions unanswered

Your questions and opinions are prescient and they deserve answers and Ari should address them, if he can, and if he can't he should get out of the deal. I think it might behoove a careful investor to submit that question to Ari and let him get the answer and respond accordingly.

IMHO

With respect.

Name: FORWARD ENERGY LLC
ID #: C137118
Type: LLC MANAGED BY MANAGERS
Jurisdiction State: MT
Status: ACTIVE
Status Reason: GOOD STANDING
Status Dates

Expiration Date:
Date of Organization: 10/08/2004
Last AR Filed: 04/14/2010
Inactive Date:
Involuntary Intent:
Diss/Widthdr/Revoke:
Principal Office Address

Street: 449 BUFFALO HWY
City: LAVINA
State: MT
Zip: 59046-0000
Additional Info

Term: PERP
Purpose Code: NONE STATED
Agent

Registered Agent: TRACY BEEMAN
Address 1: 449 BUFFALO HWY
City: LAVINA
State: MT
Zip: 59046-0000

Sir,

For the record and for the future, I'm male.

I respect your position greatly, but I am waiting to see what kind of money it really takes to get production out of these wells, if it can be done. Ari was very clear in his PR that no new drilling would commence until production occurs at the existing wells. How much can it cost to get two existing wells, that the Beeman's say have been re-drilled, slotted and tested, and for which public record exists of sales as recently as August of 2008 (According to Tracy Beeman)?

I am for giving these people the benefit of the doubt, maybe they found something, maybe they didn't but only time or Ari can tell what kind of a deal was made and how good or bad it may or may not be for MEDT.

Either these wells have some potential or they don't. The Beeman brothers may be a couple of guys who believe in something that is there or isn't there; or they could just be a couple of guys who are lying to Ari about everything, but if so, why did they post bonds?

Which is a false statement, what Tracy told me or that its rude to publish someone's number without permission?

With the same respect in return, you are absolutely correct as to the contact information of an owner or representative of a public company and anyone posting information about MEDT should feel extremely free to do so. In point of fact, they might have a moral obligation to do so.

That said, I don't believe Tracy Beeman is an officer or director or contact person for MEDT, but rather for a wholly owned subsidiary. It is certainly acceptable to call him, but the question is whether or not it is acceptable to post his phone number. Forward is not MEDT and MEDT is not Forward. From what has been published, MEDT is a shareholder (albeit the only shareholder) of Forward. If you wish to call Montana and get his number, you should call him, you just shouldn't post it unless you ask him if its ok with him first. MEDT made a point of listing their contact information in the PR. People should call Ari. IMHO.

Maybe I'm just too polite, however, he could have just stated that Montana has his number on file and would be happy to give it to anyone asking, rather that making it public for all to see.

Being as I'm a friggin idiot. Could you also explain the iHub rules to me a little further. If someone controls, or controls with others, say 50-70% of the float of a company and maybe 33% of all the outstanding stock, do they have something to do with the company?

Who says they haven't fulfilled the contract? ANYT? "Implied terms"? ROLFLMFAO

http://www.anythingsupermall.com/staticpages/index.php/FUSION

Well that's simple. It's not. But, what does that matter? Who is this person? Does he speak for MEDT? Ari talks through PR's, disclosures and on his website. To my knowledge he doesn't post here.

Nothing in Ari's PR's have been shown to be false or misleading. They are all conditional and based on projections and hopes, just like every other pink sheet stock, including ANYT.

Just because some guy somewhere got over enthusiastic and spouted off something wrong is so immaterial as to defy belief that you would even respond to it.

Since wantsum2 had the insensitivity to post Tracy Beeman's cell phone # online, anyone can now call him and bother him with pointless questions.

I just called him in response to your post, and here is what he had to say.

The wells were "plugged and abandoned" in 1989 and 1990, not "shut in", by the prior operator, when the price of oil hit $12 or so per barrel and the wells became uneconomical to operate. This is the entire purpose of the State of Montana's bond requirement, to ensure that if an operator abandons a well, the money to plug it is available.

Forward has bonds on both its wells and it last pumped prior to, and then sold oil, in August of 2008 and all of that is public record. Funding has most definitely been in short supply since August of 2008. Thank Lehman Brothers for that. I seem to remember something about September 18, 2008, I think that's the day McCain suspended his campaign and lost the election.

Since they took over these wells, they have drilled out the plugs, slotted the wells, and tested them thoroughly, but they need money to get into production. He has left it in Ari's hands to make disclosures to the public concerning the amount of money necessary to get the wells up and running and the time frame to do so is almost entirely dependent on funding, not work, though scheduling of certain equipment might play a role, but if funding were on hand today, the time frame would be measured in weeks, not months.

So what? What does it matter that they haven't produced more? They need money. Every small company needs money. ANYT needs money. MEDT needs money. They have very clearly stated that what they need is money for advanced pumping equipment. Since the morons in charge took down the banking system, money is hard to come by.

The issue that you should be addressing isn't whether or not this is fraud, it is how much money do they need to get up and running and how many barrels per day will they produce if they get it. Then you need to address whether or not MEDT is capable of coming up with that much money or not.

MEDT's press releases have been extremely conditional. They haven't started some massive campaign about how great everything is, they only put out three all year and everyone of them has dependencies and conditions and a lot of what ifs. However, they do have millions of ANYT shares and even down in the dumps its over a $1,000,000. So, if they can come up with that money, and its more than what it costs to get the wells up and running, then we all have a play here and if they can't, or ANYT can figure out a way to stop them from selling their shares, then we don't.

If they have pumped any oil, then the wells are recompleted. These wells are not "plugged and abandoned" they are shut in (not producing). There is a significant difference. wantsum2 stated that they produced two truckloads of oil.

All of this depends on what Ari's definition of what a "relatively major expenditure" is.

IF they need fancy pumping equipment, what does that cost? Is it "relatively major"? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't?

But to go about making accusations of fraud is preposterous. Many, many people can make allegations about MEDT or ANYT or a host of other companies, the issue is, are any of the statements untrue?

Why don't you wait for MEDT to file their quarterlies or see if they don't.

All of the assumptions you have made and others here as well are just that assumptions. If MEDT is changing the ownership of the wells, they have a problem, if they aren't they don't. If they have to do extensive work to recomplete the wells, that they know about, they have a problem, if not, then they don't.

Time will tell.

Well, if you read your friend wantsum2's post, you will note "George Hudak reports that they have 2 oil wells that are shut in (not producing) and 1 gas well which is also shut in (not producing)."

Shut in means not producing.

The PR says "proved undeveloped reserves"

SEC Regulation S-X, Rule 4-10 says in relevant part.....

Proved undeveloped reserves. Proved undeveloped oil and gas reserves are reserves that are expected to be recovered from new wells on undrilled acreage, or from existing wells where a relatively major expenditure is required for recompletion. ... Under no circumstances should estimates for proved undeveloped reserves be attributable to any acreage for which an application of fluid injection or other improved recovery technique is contemplated, unless such techniques have been proved effective by actual tests in the area and in the same reservoir.

If they have spent money to recomplete the wells and have concluded that work, and they produced 2 whole truckloads of oil, then these wells may be, in point of fact, proved reserves, but they have obviously taken the conservative approach. They said something about advanced pumping equipment in their first PR, maybe they consider this to be a, "relatively major expenditure?"

So much for fraud.

Also, as for the other claim you made, no where in any PR is anything said about changing the ownership or operational status of the wells. It says that MEDT is buying the shares of Forward and that current management will stay in place. I called Montana too and they only care if the ownership of the WELLS changes hands.

Their PR says very clearly that they are not in production. All I can see is that there have been tests and that they have plans to go into production. It seems obvious that Forward ran out of money, but was able to get 2 truckloads of oil out during testing and they just need $.

MEDT has millions of shares of ANYT and unless ANYT can find a VERY good reason to enjoin them, then MEDT can just sell the shares necessary to pay for the start of production, or go belly up.

Its a called a gamble, but wantsum2 implies there is some sort of law broken and I would like him to point out which statement in any of MEDT's PR's is not true.

Your math is wrong.

The total amount added to shareholders's equity on a consolidation is the VALUE OF THE STOCK sold to Forward minus any of Forward's liabilities, not the value of the oil, if any at all. The value of the estimated reserves is meaningless in this calculation. If Forward was buying MEDT, the total value would have been Forward's COST minus Forward's liabilities. In this case it's MEDT's COST added on the one hand and the total of Forward's liabilities subtracted on the other hand.

If I buy your company that owns a gold mine with $100,000,000 in proven reserves and pay you $13,400,000 in stock for it and you have a $7,000,000 note for it that you gave the hermit who owned it, my company will book $6,400,000, not $93,000,000. The $93,000,000 only goes on the books as it is sold, the $13,400,000 stays in Paid-In-Capital forever, the note might get paid, or better yet, converted to stock (that adds to Capital and Equity) and the gold, as it's sold, goes in as income and that amount, less expenses, goes into equity at that time.

If Forward finds 1,000,000 barrels of oil, it won't go to equity, it will go in as a footnote. If Forward or MEDT buys more reserves, the price of the stock will go on as equity.

Why don't you all wait until MEDT files their quarterlies before passing judgement. Ari will have to explain everything in great detail. Maybe Ari thinks that the 200,000 barrels plus Forward's potential (if any) is worth @$9,000,000 after Forward's debts right now. Maybe its not. Only time will tell.

otcMarkets.com charges the issuing company $3,000 a year plus a $500 application fee for displaying Level 2 quotes. Sometimes, they post them for free, to try to entice an issuer into paying the $3,500. They charge similar amounts for being able to publish reports in order to be current.

Nice deal they got going. Paid by brokers on each trade, paid by issuers to give you a green light, when you they could comply with Rule 15c211 by posting the same information on their own website, and paid to publish Level 2 quotes.

Would you rather a company put the more money into pinksheets or building their business?

Just a note, FINRA does not let you pick your own symbol. It might be MFWT, it might not, but it will probably start with the letter M.

They used to let you suggest one, but even that feature is gone now.

Here's hoping its going to be MFWT.

The NYSE is, and always has been, a private institution that sets it's own holidays. Good Friday was, and remains, the most solemn day in Christianity (when Christ died for our sins, and Sunday is our day of rest, instead of Saturday, as it was for Jesus, because he rose from the dead on Easter Sunday (no religion based on Judaism would have countenanced his rising on the Sabath), and as most Americans during the 18th Century (and arguably today as well) were deeply religious persons, the idea of having any business conducted on Good Friday was an anathema to them at their cores. No business could legally take place anywhere in America on Sundays until the latter part of the 20th Century. In many places it still doesn't.

Federal holidays only apply to the Federal Government. Individual states and localities control the actual closures of business, and private employers are not bound by these laws except in a few specific instances.

The Federal Government is not permitted to make any law respecting an establishment of religion and no federal law exists making any religious observance a Federal Holiday With the exception of LBJ's exemption of churches from paying taxes in order to silence their political speech (a devil's bargain the churches have broken ever since) and the enactment of, "In God We Trust," and "One Nation Under God," in the 50's to battle the godless Commies (By the way, both these acts are massively unconstitutional, but no one has been able to prove "standing" (you have to prove you were hurt to sue) to overturn them, the latest decision having occurred during the last few months.) There is no federal law enacting Christmas as a holiday, Ulysses S. Grant did it by proclamation and it is entirely unconstitutional, but only a madman would challenge it in court and would have to prove standing ("Christmas is illegal and oh, by the way, can someone please stone me, I really want to die!").

Contrary to the meme of, "this is a nation founded on Christian Values," the founding fathers were not "Christians" as we see them today, but rather "Deists". Thomas Jefferson was almost certainly an atheist and his personal writings reflect this. He wrote a bible (still in print) which removed all references to the divinity of Christ and removed all of his miracles. He was most certainly in the minority of thinkers at the time. Franklin was right there with him, but most citizens were Christians of a puritanical bent, but for whom religion was a personal, not political issue, and none of them wanted a "national" religion for they were all far too familiar with the histories of religious wars in England and France that were not of a past that any could claim as "distant" in 1783.

Regardless, in my church we state, "Christ is Risen, Indeed He is Risen"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_greeting

Happy Easter!

You seem a sensible fellow, and as my handle implies, I like to think of myself in the same way.

As I read the Company'a PR, they have engaged a "reputable" auditor. So your first demand seems, to me, to be met.

Your second demand is entirely reasonable, and I would hope that they will attend to this ASAP, however, they are a development stage company and they need time to fully address this issue.

Third, as to their 100 to 1 P/E ratio, most emerging companies have sky high P/E ratios, if they have one at all. Not to say that this company is Google, or that they have a shot of becoming Google, but when Google had an infinite P/E for years before it turned a single dime in revenue.

Emerging companies have high P/E ratios because their supporters believe they will become large companies. They should have huge ratios by default. Why would anyone invest in a penny stock without one, or the potential for one? MSFT has a P/E of @ 20, but used to be around 10, this means MSFT is way over priced as its not going to be going up anytime soon, and tried and true companies should be around 10. AAPL is also around 20 and it is most certainly overpriced, but the public believes it is going to go up, so there you have it.

The greater the potential for growth, the greater the P/E. ANYT has a lot of believers. Maybe it shouldn't, but then again, if they can put forth a great plan, than they should have the potential for explosive growth and a P/E of 100 on a $0.10 stock is low.

I believe I have seen statements indicating that they intend to spinoff AGO/CCF as a registered offering through a Registration Statement on Form S1. If this is the case, and the shares being distributed are being registered (only thing that makes sense), then the shares will be free trading upon receipt.

If, on the other hand, they simply intend to issue the shares as a dividend to existing ANYT shareholders, then apply for a symbol in order to commence trading on the PinkSheets, the shares will be restricted under 144 for one year.

I don't see the benefit of attempting to do a dividend and apply for a symbol, as this would have to wait at least one year from the original inception date before any shares would be free trading under 144 and, therefore, eligible for a symbol on the basis of a new Form 211 filing.

If they are going the registration route, they will need an audit, a Registration Statement on Form S1, the SEC must grant effectiveness to the S1, and FINRA must approve their Form 211, but the shares would be free trading when you get them.

I don't know what an Ari type of statement is, exactly, however, I was simply, and politely, pointing out that the SEC statement fails, pointedly, to make it clear to the investing public, that current public information (CPI) is not necessary for Rule 144 compliance for non-affiliates of non-reporting issuers.

The relevant part of the publication you linked to states, in part, "Adequate Current Information. There must be adequate current information about the issuer of the securities before the sale can be made. This generally means that the issuer has complied with the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act."

This is not completely accurate, and is, in my opinion, misleading. When people state ideas "generally" they are bound to do so incompletely or inaccurately. The SEC does make mistakes, they are, after all, mere mortals like the rest of us.

The true facts are that only paragraph (b)(1)(i), which is limited to reporting issuers, makes mention of requiring compliance with any part of paragraph (c) of Rule 144, and paragraph (b)(1)(ii) specifically states that only the conditions of paragraphs (d) and (i) be met with respect to non-affilate issuers of non-reporting entities.

Why you should get upset that I should point out the fact of poor guidance by the SEC escapes me. However, see if the link you posted, as regards CPI, comports with the table on page 21 of this document:

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-8869.pdf

For the record, nothing in anything that I have stated here should, in any way, indicate that I feel that any issuer should fail to provide the investing public with anything less than CPI. I don't believe that PinkSheets should be the arbiter of what is, or isn't, CPI (though, for the most part, I think they are doing their best to bring transparency to a market shrouded in lies on the part of almost every issuer), however, what constitutes CPI should be, and has been, determined by the SEC, and is spelled it out in Rule 144 (c) by way of reference to Rule 15c211. No one, in my opinion, should invest in any issuer that doesn't comply with those terms.

Finally, I have no particular axe to grind here, I just want everyone to know what the rules are and when people post links that contain improper information, or that omit relevant information, I will point it out. It is not your fault the SEC erred, however erred is what the SEC has done. It is nothing personal.

Thanks,

By the way, that page on the SEC's website is misleading as to current public information. Good thing they're the government or they might get sued!

Current info is only required for reporting entities or for affiliates of non-reporting entities. (see Rule 144 (b)(1)(ii). which makes non-affilates only subject to Rule 144 (d) and 144 (i). Note that Rule 144 (b)(2) requires all conditions of Rule 144 to be met. The reason for this is fairly simple, the SEC doesn't care about non-reporting company investors. Their attitude is, and remains, "Caveat Emptor!"

Rule 144 (i) is necessary for non-affiliates because the entire paragraph (b) is subject to (i).

Paragraph (d) is the holding period and (i) is shell status, although I'm sure you're well aware of this. I state it here only for clarity.

Also, in all honesty, I hope they go back to $0.30 or higher. I really, really do. I don't want to sound bearish, its not my intention. I just want people too have factual discussions.

http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule144.html

Rule 144 b., 1., ii.

My post doesn't say when the shares were issued, or if they were issued. I don't have a crystal ball, only the public filings.

ANYT's filings say they have about 188,000,000 shares outstanding. They also say they rolled the company back to only @ 100,000 before they started bringing in other businesses. These are the only shares that can possibly date back to the '80s. That doesn't mean they do, they could have issued millions of shares between '89 an '07, and the reports from '89 and back aren't on EDGAR, but those are the facts as stated by ANYT. Every share past @ 100,000 got issued, under 4(2), after February of 2008, and can only be free under Rule 144.

If somebody was an officer and had 50,000,000+ shares, and they were issued around two years ago, if they were to resign, would still be an affiliate (Based on 10% or greater ownership, which doesn't necessarily make her an affiliate, but I don't want to get into that discussion, but its control, not % that makes you an affiliate, however, every broker I ever heard of sticks to 10%) for a long time, but if they were to get below 10%, then they would have to wait 90 days to sell after they quit.

Anybody else with over 18,800,000 has the same issues.

Depending on when they were issued they are free now, or if affiliate shares and over a year old, free 90 days after they cease being affiliates, which could be a long time. Anybody with more than about 18,800,000 would be an affiliate until they got below 18,800,000.

Everything you say is true, however, there are no almost registered shares of ANYT. Only the shares that got rolled back to @ 100,000 in January of 2008 are (possibly) registered.

Registration requires a company to be reporting and ANYT hasn't been reporting since the '80s. Before they withdrew on Oct 9, 2007, their last filing was Jun 19, 1989.

Any shares after that had to be freed up under Rule 144. Looks like 180,000,000 to me. Who do you think is selling?

I have to admit, I didn't see that section. Maybe they are at each other's throats. I guess it reinforces my point that people need to read the documents carefully, especially me.

An injunction could, most certainly, stop any legend removal. But they have to go to court first. In Nevada, that's a neat trick.

Also, on what do you base your opinion that such an lawsuit is under way? Are you privy to something left out of ANYT's filings two days ago, or is it just some magical reading? Item V, A, 11 of ANYT's Feb 17 Annual Report seems to contradict this position entirely. For my money, I intend to believe ANYT, not you.

I can't say whether or not ANYT and MEDT are at each other's throats. They might be at some juncture,but nothing in the filings of either company would lead me to believe that these companies are at war. Why do you?

MEDT could go down like the Titanic, short of the ANYT shares, they don't seem to have a lot going for them, but they haven't had anything good going for two years, as far as I see things.

I'm hoping that they can use the ANYT shares to get something good going for shareholders, or they might not, only time will tell.

Since I was just born yesterday, what part of Rule 144 specifically refers to 10% (Hint: It doesn't)?

Furthermore, what part of what you posted disagrees with what I posted?

Point 1 echoes exactly what I stated in my first post about the holding period (Neither MEDT or ANYT is subject to the reporting requirements of the '34 Act, so the holding period is one (1) year (October something, 2008 until October something 2009). ANYT had more shares outstanding at the end of the third quarter than they do now, so the 10% guideline says they've not been an affiliate for at least three months. So the shares should be free now under 144. If they were mine, you can take it to the bank the legend would be off.

Point 2 makes it very clear that the issuer (ANYT), not the seller (MEDT) is required to post current information (By the way this not being current with Pinksheets, its following the rules laid down in Rule 15c211, which are far less stringent than Pinksheets see 144c.2. "Non-reporting Issuers. If the issuer is not subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, there is publicly available the information concerning the issuer specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) to (xiv), inclusive, and paragraph (a)(5)(xvi) of Rule 240.15c2-11 of this chapter, or, if the issuer is an insurance company, the information specified in section 12(g)(2)(G)(i) of the Exchange Act.")

Point 3 states 1% of the outstanding volume for OTC securities (both MEDT and ANYT) and ANYT has 188 Million shares outstanding and 1% of 188 Million is 1.88 Million and $0.092 times 1.88 Million is $172,000 give or take.

Point 4. states that affiliates (which MEDT may or may not be) have to sell through a broker. So what? Where else would they sell it?

Point 5. states that if they are an affiliate, and they are going to sell through a broker, then they have to file Form 144 (Form 144 does refer to 10%). Again, so what?

Finally, the final paragraphs mention the need to "satisfy the current public information condition" however, this only applies to companies that are reporting, which, once again, neither MEDT nor ANYT is.

Finally, MEDT has to get any legend lifted by the transfer agent. I don't know if there is a legend or not, but all it takes is a legal opinion.

LMAO

Rule 144 does not define an affiliate as a 10% holder. It defines an affiliate as "An affiliate of an issuer is a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such issuer."

The full text of Rule 144 is available at:

http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule144.html

The current information requirement is for the issuer (in this case ANYT), but it only applies to sales by affiliates. I don't see how MEDT is an affiliate (18,125,000/188,822,180 = 9.6%) but even if they are, 1% of 188,822,180 is 1,888,222 shares, every three months, or about $180K every three months.

I suggest all of you read the financials carefully. Pay close attention to Notes 2&3. Note 2. states that the the marketing agreement is in force, they recognized revenue from it and they they are in discussions to extend it.

Note 3. states that the shares are "available-for-sale" pursuant to FASB 115.

http://www.answers.com/topic/financial-accounting-standards-board-fasb-115

you can find the actual FASB 115 at FASB.org or by googling "FASB 115".

For FASB 115 to apply, these shares have to be passed the one year hold (not six months, that applies to reporting companies and ANYT is not reporting (neither is MEDT).

ANYT just put out their own financials, and in ITEM XIII, they list MEDT as a "greater than 5%" holder and even list the name and address of MEDT's registered agent. Note 2. of ANYT's Financials mentions the agreement and the shares as well and doesn't say anything about a conflict between the companies. MEDT is, in fact, the only holder of more than 5% of ANYT's shares, other than the current president of ANYT.

Figure it out for yourself, its all there in black and white.