Your assumption is based on NHS being either:

1. Inadequate or incompetent.
2. Evil Corporation out to get PXYN.

These are PPO sales and as such, data should be flowing with a matter of days, not weeks. PXYN will know exactly how many qualified billings they are receiving each month.

That's not so. Nametae can argue the disclosure requirements all he wants but I'm telling you, every single contract I've seen to date incorporates terms, attachments, specifications that aren't published with the main contract. There proprietary disclosure laws in place.

PXYN may be public but NHS is not.

There will be more stuff to that contract. A Marketing agreement. A Billings agreement. Terms and specifications for how they intend to transact. Proprietary info that belongs to NHS.

Now you're arguing the same thing Rhenarium is. Diversification of Sales channels. Type of contract has nothing to do with the conversation.

None of that really matters.

The only risk is that NHS doesn't perform to expectation, in which case PXYN will be forced to pursue another marketing/billings service.

What you're arguing is sales channels. PXYN needs to further expand their revenue channels. 4-6 of these agreements with different, non-exclusive companies would fortify their revenue position. They are still at risk, but because of the lack of diversification of revenue streams.

Not because of the type of contract they signed.

I just want make sure I'm understanding you: You're saying that NHS is only required to market 1 bottle of pain cream, and provide billing service on 1 prescription. Then they're done. They never have to do anything else. They've fulfilled their end of the contract.

PXYN is now required to pay them $120M and is legally obligated to do so, enforceable under the Nevada court of law.

Is this correct?

The argument that PXYN signed a contract to pay for services without guarantees is without merit. The agreement is for x services, for x amount of fees.

Everyone here is familiar with this type of fixed price transaction. Your cable (or Netflix) bill is a fixed price contract with the company. You have agreed to pay xx monies for services (in the same way that PXYN has agreed to pay xx monies for services). If your cable company doesn't uphold their end of the contract, are you legally obligated to continue paying them?

No. You go find a new cable company (the same way PXYN did with marketing/billing services).

The burden of risk is on the contractor to perform. If they don't perform, you don't pay them.

If DirectTV starts streaming pirated movies and tv shows to your home, are you legally obligated to pay them? If PXYN receives unqualified billings for prescriptions, is PXYN legally obligated to pay TPS?

Saying that PXYN has the full burden of risk is like saying that you still have to pay every month if DirectTV stops services to your home.

Contracts just don't work that way.

Not getting into contract structures again other than to say; burden of risk is with NHS.

The ongoing PXYN/TPS lawsuit will also hinge on contractual laws of the state they are doing business in. The TPS contract was structured like a fixed price incentive contract where TPS met certain objectives (quality billings) and was paid. It's my belief the court will look at the definition of what a quality billing is, and then determine whether TPS fulfilled their objectives (which if I remember right, in their filing they've already self-professed they have not). Pays to reign in emotions sometimes ... The TPS filing was a hasty, ill-thought out counter claim IMO.

Pretty sure they'll reach a settlement agreement, but only after the anti-SLAPP has been resolved. Many of the TPS claims are grasping at straws -I expect 80% of it to be outright dismissed, if not all of it in it's entirety. Burden of proof is with TPS right now.

If I were PXYN I'd probably be waiting for the SLAPP resolution prior to settling. Should give them the appropriate leverage to settle on favorable terms.

Reasonable post finally. Agree.

TPS throwing wall darts hoping something will stick.

Broadridge will tell you that PXYN does not give them current share count information. PXYN will tell you they haven't gagged their TA. At any time, PXYN could fix this double-talk but they choose not to.

They're not gagged, however; for all intents and purposes it's the same. PXYN does not provide share structure updates to their TA essentially gagging them by not updating them. It's smarter and dirtier.

Share Structure remains the one thing PXYN continues to manage horribly.

Interesting to say the least, as a long-term goal. Think he needs to focus on the near-term right now.

Ed moved the goalpost this year. National is not enough; he wants to go global.

It's because of the Feb and March numbers; which topped out at $4M in Feb and then $3M in March. This seems to be the current ceiling under their old contract. The June fee schedule seems to corroborate this assumption.

you're correct on the reporting period, thanks for catching it.

If it runs to, and can sustain that price with this many shares in circulation; then I agree. More cost effective to R/S at that price.

I don't believe it can sustain a price of $0.30 for an indefinite trading period, however; without active buying support. Volume will collapse eventually, as it always does on the OTC.

Perhaps it's naïve but I want to say this also. Remember that public companies at it's most fundamental purpose, attempt to generate value for shareholders. While an R/S makes sense economically, it's a tragedy for shareholders (even planned and publicized ones). Companies R/S on the OTC for 2 reasons:

1. Because on the OTC, 99% of them fail and they re-enumerate for yet another attempt.

2. Because they attempt to uplist (your scenario).

The problem with this last scenario is that I've never actually seen a company uplist successfully after a reverse split. The last one I observed was N*SV and they publicized more than a year out their split/uplist strategy and still failed to achieve the minimum threshold after the R/S. They had quite a fanbase.

My point here is that when a company burns shareholders; they hardly ever recover. Is this 100% true? Of course not. But any Reverse Split compounds issues; never solving them.

PXYN may eventually attempt to go down that road. Right now, they look like they're about to make a lot of money. A buyback would be more practical.

At any rate, it's a rare scenario we're under. No one's really right or wrong at this point in time.

Just keep in mind the lead time PXYN has on PR's, vs the lag time they have on Quarterlies. They're about 180 days juxtaposed. What's reported in a PR today hasn't happened yet 90 - 180 days past.

They reported $14M in the last quarterly, which means the next 90 day period is April - June. Note the Flat Fee contract was published 15 June. Looking at the Fee schedule should provide everyone an indication of how the quarterlies are expected to play out.

April - June will be modest. Perhaps even underwhelming. I anticipate $3M - $4M per month in PPO sales, with the addition of $5M - $8M in WC sales over the full duration of the quarter; and whatever change NexGen can bring to the table (total: $21M - $26M estimate).

10-Jun-15 $1,000,000
20-Jun-15 $2,000,000

July to September (current) should see an acceleration of revenue but we won't see the quarterly until mid December. This is why I've been saying we shouldn't expect significant PPS gains until around Christmas. It's my hope they put together a Share Buyback and announce it around that time. I have no data to support that opinion, other than the fact that they will either decide to manage their public currency, or not. I will say that if they don't announce something by Christmas, chances are will likely go with a R/S instead. Private Placement has either decided to exit, or they're in for the long haul. There's no reason now not to announce a strategy here.

5-Jul-15 $2,250,000
20-Jul-15 $2,500,000
5-Aug-15 $2,750,000
20-Aug-15 $3,000,000
5-Sep-15 $3,500,000
20-Sep-15 $3,750,000

Oct to Dec should be fantastic but we won't see these numbers until the 10K is published April, next year. That's 10 months away. We still have a long road ahead of us but the majority of disruption is behind us. The only thing we have to worry about is NHS not fulfilling on their contract. Expect the shorts to continue pounding this fear until Christmas.

5-Oct-15 $4,500,000
20-Oct-15 $5,000,000
5-Nov-15 $5,500,000
20-Nov-15 $6,250,000
5-Dec-15 $6,500,000
20-Dec-15 $6,500,000

I'm glad you see it that way nametae.

Yep.

I'd like to hear what they intend to do regarding SS. Most of my concerns have been otherwise shelved (but not put away) for now.

So a company signs a deal that says they intend to pay a company a flat fee of $120M in the next 12 months.

General Assumptions.

A. You can assume this is all a scam.

B. You can assume this is a legitimate business run by incompetent management (meaning they signed a $120M flat fee contract with no idea how to get there).

C. You can assume this is a legitimate company attempting to succeed (meaning they understand their business and understand the fee schedule they entered into).

Answer: C.

Rationale: If they intend to pay a company $120M, it begs to argue that they will receive at minimum (plus cost and profit), that much in business. This doesn't include PfD, which I expect to net another $50M - $100M; this based on prior year WC business of $66M FY14 under TPS. Then whatever else NexGen can contribute.

The TPS trickle-down revenue should net them another $20M alone FY15 (PXYN posted $10M in WC A/R's Dec 31st). If they meet their flat fee schedule, that's $120M + $20M = $140M and this doesn't account for any other direct or indirect cost or profit.

Before you get into the $66M TPS revenue -let me restate: I'm making the assumption that we haven't seen PfD spin up yet. I keep making the argument, contrary to almost everyone here -that we haven't seen the real contribution of this side of the business yet. They published the PfD disclosure in April for a reason.


Look, Ed is many things, but not an idiot. I've met him, I sat down and had lunch with him. I can't see this guy entering into a fee schedule like this without some idea of how he intends to pay for it. Ed's demonstrated a clear lack of marketing and salesmanship knowhow IMO. But operationally he's been efficient and on top of things.

Again, my projection: $21M - $26M Q2.

In order to meet the flat fee schedule, they'll need to increase net output even further.

Shebanows a hustler, just like everyone else surrounding PXYN. Lot's of guys betting up or down here. I personally have no doubt in my mind that he'll find a way to dump if things go south.

But right now, it's my belief his bet is to the upside. We have a company that's going to make $150M - $250M net revenue in the next 12 months. I think Ed is trying to run a legitimate business. I think he may have been the smarter than average patsy that saw an opportunity. He could have stayed with TPS if this were the share selling scheme like some are insinuating. Half his family seems to be working at PXYN right now.

I think there's also a lot of money involved, and plenty of forces working to bring PXYN down.

Dirty, cutthroat game going on right now.

well there you go. good find...

Prior to the merger, PAWS was a dirty shell, but still public. If the PAWS shell was sold to Rubicon prior to the merger as you suggest, there should have been a filing from the old PAWS management, Dan Wiesel and crew indicating such.

Please post what you've discovered.

Express Scripts isn't the definitive Gateway for insurance claims processing. Yes they control a considerable portion of the market and have influence.

To my knowledge, PXYN doesn't use Express Scripts for anything.

And charts are meaningless in a low volume market.

Your scenarios aren't really realistic and aren't worth commenting on. I will say yes, my points are somewhat academic. That's why I prefaced it with the statement that I really didn't want to get into a lecture about it.

Now...

There are businesses out there that are competent; and ones that are not so competent.

This is a different sort of risk. This sort of risk doesn't change.

That said...

When you plan an acquisition; you typically do due diligence on parties prior to an award; commonly referred to as Market Research among the acquisition community.

What PYXN has asserted in their dispute with TPS is that Garbino misled them as part of their documented due diligence.

I'd assume PXYN will not make the same mistake twice.

There's no reason given, to assume the worst yet. I realize there's a natural inclination among penny traders to be ultra cautious. I think that's a good thing. But sometimes it translates into paranoia.

Well there you go. Good Faith effort. We should be done with this topic then.

I don't want to get into a lecture. When I say that there is a spectrum of risk for contracts, I say that with the full training and experience of a professional who assesses acquisition risk on a day to day basis.

I'm not describing something that's fluid, or kinda sorta.

What I describe is risk assessment and acquisition strategy. How much risk does a business take on when considering the award of a contract?

Where is the risk?

Under a fixed price contract, the burden of risk is on the contractor. Again, that's not kinda sorta, or depending on. It's founded on contract law. It's based on Regulatory law depending on your state. The burden of risk is on the contractor to perform.

It's Absolutely Applicable Here. This is what I'm trying to tell you. Whether you're building a house as you say, or delivering a commercial item as you say, or performing a service as I'm saying, risk is assessed on type of contract put in place. It makes no variation depending on purchase. Risk is assessed this way because it's directly applicable to what the customer is required to pay.

Now you can say that there is a concern that NHS will breach contract, like TPS did. That's a valid argument, but clearly unsubstantiated. You could make the argument that PXYN has a history of contracting with unreputable companies, and that's more plausible and acceptable.

But going around saying the NHS contract is a disaster because they're paying a flat fee with no disclosed performance metrics is absurd. Show us the metrics! That's an argument I can and will get behind.

There may not be sales numbers. Fixed Price contracts are typically structured around a Work Statement or Performance Statement. Do this service. I will pay you that monthly.

Based on the pay schedule, I would assume there's a Performance statement somewhere that we haven't seen that ties in performance metrics. That's typically proprietary info.

Let's assume you guys are right, and there's no further terms. No further conditions. No Performance Statements. No attachments or addendums.

Let's assume NHS has all of the power, and no incentive to perform as you guys are perpetuating.

Let's assume NHS does squat. Takes no action, because the contract favors them 100%. There's no terms, remember?

1. Legally, this is no longer a contract. A contract must have certain elements:

a. Offer and Acceptance. Check.
b. Consideration. X (I give you a Promise, in return for Promise. What you guys are perpetuating is that NHS doesn't have to give PXYN anything of value; or very little.)
c. Consent(If PXYN was extorted/coerced into signing a detrimental contract, the contract is null and void in the court of law. PXYN would not have Consent to contract).
d. Capacity. check.

What you guys consistently imply is just False. There's no understanding of proper contract law here, and that's not your fault but you shouldn't perpetuate info unless you first properly understand the info.

I don't disagree.

I disagree with the folks perpetuating that NHS is extorting PXYN with a flat fee contract and no terms.

That's silly talk. Terms and conditions often contain proprietary information that should not be revealed to the public. They gave us what's applicable.

Should they have given more? probably.

But stating there are no more terms is gobblygook.

Risk Spectrum for Contracts:

A flat fee contract type shifts risk onto the Contractor. NHS is the Contractor. PXYN is paying NHS to execute services. They don't make money if they don't perform. Assuming NHS will not satisfactorily perform on contract is juvenile and immature. Business relationships attempt to seek win/win scenarios.

Those that assume there are no terms or conditions to the PXYN contract imply that NHS is extorting PXYN. There is no evidence of extortion here. Again, it's juvenile to assume such.

These aren't 6 year old kids on the playground negotiating for lunch money.

Don't buy into the negative hype about contract specs. There's always attachments and addendums that aren't published. Just because they don't publish the additional terms doesn't mean they don't exist. I can literally pull up thousands of publicly filed contracts right now that do the same.

I am an industry veteran. This is standard practice.

I think speculation that the compounding industry is dead, dying or severely crippled is inaccurate, and paints a false perception.

What's true is that the industry has caught on to some unfair, even predatory practices and moved quickly to reign those players in. The gross margins were phenomenal. But unrealistic. Unsustainable. And frankly unfair.

Because the industry moved to regulate and cap billings on compound creams doesn't imply the death knell for the industry. It simply means there will be companies that adjust and survive. And other companies that don't adjust and die.

If you want to make the argument that PXYN is the latter company, that it isn't adjusting and is marked for consumption or BK, then please make that argument. I think PXYN has made adjustments. They're shifting toward a socially responsible company, with respectable practices. The writing is clear. Whether they succeed or fail in this transition should be the topic of discussion, not whether they live or die because of the market they compete in.

Also, I think dilution is evident on some days, but no longer the clear trend. I suspect the bulk of dilution from the Reverse Merger is behind us. Ed's been tight lipped until recently and I think this has something to do with it.

They will always have lawsuits in this industry.

The BoD needs some work... This is a family run business reporting financials with a clear lack of checks and balances. While I suspect Ed and family are generally good people, they leave themselves open to criticism by not inviting other, outside stakeholders to the BoD.

They're spending money on websites and multimedia. The video was a quality production and Ed was well polished (although his micro expressions still give away some rehearsal prep issues).

I think that if they intended a passive approach, they would:

1. Not have updated their websites. Let's face it, if this were a share selling scheme as many perpetuate, the original $29.99 websites worked just fine. No need to spend $30K on your information portal when you've already built up a plausible storyline and fanbase. Professionally developed websites and multimedia fall under CapEx.

2. They would not have renewed their OTCQB application. They can't survive as a QB company below .01. PR'ing this was a confidence statement. Whether they intend a more active role in share management, or simply intended this as a good faith message to investors remains to be seen but I suspect the former as I'll explain in a minute.

Still a major concern: share structure. During the past 6 months they've addressed just about everything, with the exception of SS.

The PR moves and updates would seem to indicate they're preparing a large PR push for the latter half of this year. If they intend to attract larger buyers, they will need to address SS at some point in the near future (3-6 months). There's really no way around it; it's the big Elephant in the room. Big Money won't enter without proven reassurances.

I'd still like to see another couple PPO channels opened up also. While we're no longer solely dependent on 1 sales channel, losing NHS would still hurt. They need further development in this area. Just as the TPS deal went sour, we don't want a repeat of the same issues with NHS. I suspect PfD has ramped up considerably since the last Q. But that's still WC money, 3-6-12 months out, possibly longer depending on quality. NexGen is still a complete "?". Since inception, we really haven't heard much about them other than some vague lip service here and there.

All and all, still some improvements to be made but I can't help but see the risk/reward profile tilting in favor of bulls for the next 6 - 12 months. I think we're on the verge of a turning point here soon, as I explained in my last post.

As I understand it, PfD has the WC channel of business. Are you saying this is incorrect?

50DMA says it all. All the other predictive indicators, attributes and pattern identifiers are meaningless in low volume climates. 50DMA is still inching lower, toward the established bottom. .02.

We will squeeze in one direction, up or down when this happens.

Bears will tell you the worst case scenario. Listen to them if you want, but there is a fundamental value proposition here, in terms of risk/reward that is undeniable below .02. Below .02 is not sustainable and the chart will turn bullish in the next 30-60 days, inviting technical traders to re-enter.

A Confluence of Fundamental Events are about to happen.

Catalysts looking forward.

1. 50DMA will force chart to turn bullish just prior to Q2 report, mid-August (6 weeks out).
2. I predict $21M-$26M topline revenue for Q2 report, with a mild chance they come in above expectations.
3. Cash Flow positive. Their cash position has improved substantially each Quarter. Q1 was the tightest they've ever reported; halving the deficit from what was reported in the annual. If they still show a deficit in this area, it will be under $1M.
4. The MESA vs. TPS lawsuit will begin showing progress. IMO, I believe MESA has the strong upper hand. Others will disagree. Either way, this will impact the fundamental value proposition of PXYN, for better or worse.

New revenue channels should supplement the topline. We still haven't heard anything about Products for Doctors (PfD) taking over the Workers Comp side of business. This has been one of the untold stories and I expect things to heat up here.

NextGen should start picking up billings. I've been telling everyone to watch this subsidiary. This is the sleeper that will overwhelm everything if they can properly fund it. The Billings industry is a monster. They will live or die, long-term on the success of this spin-up.

1. 8 of 10 people who rely on charts in an illiquid market and predict downward pressure are right only because it's an illiquid market. Those 8 people will point to the chart and say it's predictive. The sample size, which is what lends credibility to the probability theory behind charting isn't large enough in an illiquid market for accurate forecasting.

chartists who post in an illiquid market, are generally, immediately discredited.

2. PXYN's bottom is .02. I continue to say that in the face of recent, lower lows because, if not for the large seller, we would still be bottoming out at .02 with occasional dips into .017 to .019. What chartists don't understand is the fundamental value proposition of PXYN as recognized today. They're going to be wrong predicting that we go down further (unless another large seller dumps -this is abnormal behavior) because of the value proposition at this price. Anything below .02 is recognizably attractive for it's risk/reward profile. They're going to be wrong about a move upside in the next 30-45 days because the timing of a confluence of events aren't exactly right yet.

3. However; Confluence of coming events will turn the charts bullish. I'm referring to the 50 day moving average. As the 50DMA moves closer and closer to .02, we will begin to see bullish headwinds form. I expect around .022 to .0205. The psychological factor alone may push us slightly below .02 but the value proposition at this price will apply exponential upside pressure the lower the 50DMA reaches; this will vie for a reversal. I expect a very powerful squeeze to the upside in the next 45 to 60 days because of this confluence of events.

I've been growing progressively bullish on the moves I've been seeing lately.

Seems for whatever reason, Ed's finally relaxing his grip on information dissemination.

Seems they're gearing up for something.