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.
I voted no / yes today, 600k shares.
NO to increase A/S.
YES to RS.
The RS will raise the stock price and at least make an appearance of a more legit company. This will also give them nearly 400 mil shares to dilute, which is enough money to burn for now. If they can put together a credible plan on what they do with this money and show real results, they can come back and ask for more shares via increase in A/S.
I do agree, if both get voted down with NO, this company is toast and all of our positions will be absolutely worthless.
I do not buy that they need both to be successful. Implementing both would raise a lot of cash, for sure, but this is cash they have shown they cannot spend wisely to this day.
They RS alone will give them access to tens of millions of dollars, they don't need more than that at this point.
We have 3 choices as shareholders...
1) R/S of 50:1 --- 200:1 will provide up to 390,000,000+ more shares to dilute
2) Increase A/S to 800,000,000, gives management another 400,000,000 shares to dilute
3) Both of the above (we should not give management both, for obvious reasons)
Management purposely set it up so either way they are able to add at least another 390,000,000+ shares for issuance.
I see no reason why any financing announced in 10-K or 8-K depends on approval of both.
We should approve #1, vote no on #2. Let management show us they can work smart with our capital.
Thanks to Long-vestor for starting up a serious discussion on these points.
The investor in your example who paid $1.00 per share simply made a really risky and, in hindsight, stupid bet on a company that at that point did not even have a single product for sale.
Reverse split or not, unless this investor averaged down substantially, they have virtually no hope of breaking even any time soon.
The reverse split alone really has no consequence. It is the prospect of continued dilution that should be of grave concern to investors.
At the end of the day, this company is going nowhere selling its current line of products.
They have no business expanding to UK, Australia, or anywhere else until they have adequately capitalized and funded a solid advertising campaign. A crummy amateur looking video with pro athletes won't cut it. We need Ortiz, Tiger, etc.. telling the world front and center why Fuse is the best.
I.E.. works faster than any other product due to delivery method, faster results = more time training and winning tournaments, World Series, etc...
There are 2 distinct proposals to shareholders.
1) to increase a/s to 800k. This will allow them access to more financing through dilution. Bad if the business does not improve quickly, good if sales / licensing deals pick up because it buys fuse time.
2) reverse split 200:1. This is more or less window dressing, but may attract more investors and improve liquidity.
We will be asked to vote on both.
They got $1 mil new cash from new investors in exchange for convertible debt + warrants, what do you think we should vote on the increase in AS? Don't have a choice, really.
$700k note was exchanged for new notes under this deal, so we aren't going out of biz. Tonto should be prosecuted!
Company is fighting here...I see this as a good thing, stock may go lower but I am average down here.
Good news is no default. They have the capital from this transaction to keep the business going.
Bad news is more dilution and more uncertainty as to the companies assets
The silence is not the only thing disturbing me. IR promised an update regarding the loan before "the holiday," and now they will not respond to me. Obviously there is something going on, and I do not have a good feeling about it.
We see where it goes.
I did sell some shares I bought at 2.2 yesterday near the top, just taking profits to make up for the losses on other lots. Not down much at this point.
When was this trade again? I remember it being November sometime..
What was the price?
If it was at 4 cents, that would cover the loan. I seem to remember it being closer to 3 cents.
They haven't, they diluted the stock heavily to pay bills. This the current share price. Clearly they just need cans to find growth, they are moving in the right direction.
I bet q1 revenues are at least $250k
But if their expenses increased exponentially with sales why did their annual loss go down over 40%?
It may seem that as they sell more their loss goes down? That doesn't make any sense...
$500k revenue for the year, not exciting. Does mean they sold $200k of product in the last quarter. That is probably over 25,000 units at $8 avg... More of you assume a lower cost.
They did give a lot of freebies away, probably hurt revenues and margins..
Loss for they year was cut by over 40%. However, I am not using government math, so this is still not good.
Overall, moving in the right direction..slower than we hoped.
All this is at the bottom of the late filing notice, for those who did not read it.
Thoughts?
Weren't the notes paid off? This shows the debt was essentially eliminated.
The 82 mil shares were offered for the Exchange Warrants and remaining A Warrants.
Bottom line, FUSE doled out nearly 150 mil shares in 2 months to clear all these old deals out so they could get fresh cash.
My version of the deal translated into plain english..
Transaction 1)
A Warrant holders exchanged this --- their right to purchase 13.2 mil shares between March deal signing and March, 2018
for this ---- 62.5 million shares now, no strike price, just straight shares that they subsequently sold for cash.
This gets them out of the way for this deal...
Transaction 2)
Same group of investors basically + MSLP give FUSE $700k in cash in return for 10% interest AND Warrants to purchase 23.3 mil shares at 0.065.
If FUSE gets another round of financing for $4 mil or more, Warrant holders can convert their warrants to terms under new financing arrangement at a discount to those terms.
If another round of financing is $4 mil or less, there is nothing in the current deal that changes the terms of the existing deal.
Interest on $700k + principal due in 60 days from deal or else investors get assets of FUSE.
So...Transaction 1 is getting rid of A warrants because those investors would not allow further dilution and hold their warrants, it would make them less valuable. So FUSE gave them cash now.
Transaction 2 is fresh cash.
POST DELETED
Your quote about their primary source of cash being raising financing from investors should be a common one for all start ups.
None of the financial data you reference from the 10Q is all that relevant today, given they only had 6 months of time selling their biggest products (EF & PF) at that point.
Look, we all know they are not going to make it selling their 3 core products themselves, so posting alarmist info about huge expenses vs small revenues should not shock anyone, but it is really not relevant to what FUSE is trying to accomplish.
FUSE needs a big deal ($5-$10 mil) with a big investor, use the cash for advertising with the athletes we have signed, and several major distributors will come.
FUSE needs cash! Everything else is in place!
Can you post a specific SEC filing that references this delinquent account with CURE?
If you are simply looking at their recent 10Q AP balance and assuming this is delinquent, I believe that is a poor assumption. Nearly every company has some sort of AP due on their 10Q, and no mention is made of past due accounts.
Does that mean all AR accounts are past due as well, and FUSE should be sending leg-breakers after Walgreens? (I say in jest, of course)
Thanks for clarifying, they will have to increase authorized as well. I don't think they do one without the other.
A few opinions about financing here. Pretty basic, but it makes sense to me.
1) The timing of the $700k financing is interesting in that it occurred just before this huge Walgreens order, which I think most would agree has occurred by now, as evidenced by newly manufactured products and more widespread availability throughout stores.
I believe FUSE used the money from this and stock offerings to finance inventory displays/ distribution and perhaps TV commercials with Ortiz.
They should have been paid by Walgreens for all inventory ordered, so unless they used cash from that for something else, paying back the $700k in time should not be an issue.
2) Without pledging assets of company, how else is FUSE supposed to raise cash at this point? Warrants to buy stock that is not going up will not entice investors, they want a sure thing such as interest on loans and assets if the company fails to pay.
3) If Tuffin and Hebert actually default on the loan, I believe they will be sued for breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders and their reputations as professionals will be tarnished forever. I for one would contact any company they may work for in the future and let them know how they ran FUSE into the ground by writing checks they knew they could not cash.
4) Why would FUSE put some specific requirement to raise an additional $4 mil in capital in their previous round of financing when they have no idea where this will come from? They must have something lined up to get this $4 mil, perhaps contingent on certain likely events occurring (i.e. larger distribution orders, MacuDrops, other licensing opportunities coming up?)
5) We know at this point they cannot dilute much more without a reverse split, so they need to grow at a rapid pace on their own at this point, so 2014 will be a critical year, and it would not surprise me to see more deals like the $700k financing occur.
Good point, Griff. Probably started with a vitamin to prove to pharma it works, then see who wants in!
If they did some sort of pain / flu med in a drop they would make a killing. It would work in minutes and no more risk of stomach bleeding from acetominophin.
Drug companies should jump on this because they lose so much money to generics each year, this would give people a reason to pay for brand name again.
Imagine a Day-Quil / Power / Electrofuse combo. Flu relief, energy, and hydration!
And you could make a commercial out of it, like Drew Brees with Ny-Quil.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you think MacuDrops go in your eyes!
I could see how one may think this....but just FYI, it is the pill in a drop delivery through your mouth. Like EF or PF but actual vitamins.
Is this actually good news? The fact that FUSE is going to participate in the delivery of the #2 product in the market?
Perhaps B&L could simply acquire FUSE outright? It would probably cost more to sue Macular than simply buy FUSE.
I think the market is waiting until this delivery system gets proven demand and then someone will buy the company. FUSE just needs to tread water until then. Big question is can they.
I think we all agree the product is legit.
I agree completely.
Yes, IR told me via email that they expected financials to be completed by 12/31 and "in years past, they have typically been released in early January."
I doubt they will be released this year.
IR also told me on 12/16 that "CEO Brian Tuffin stated he should have an update on the $700k soon, anticipated most likely prior to the holiday."
I guess holiday without a capital H is New Year's Eve / Day?
Maybe Kwanzaa?
I am not trying to insult, but are you screwing the cap on after use? I have had 2 cans of it over the last year. Used 3-5x per week, sometimes would stop working out and go a month or two without use, then go use again, never dried out.
I doubt it. However, just google fuse science and you get Walgreens for sale ads. I bet the vast majority of fuse sales are through distributors and not direct. By cutting the price they would simply increase the number of units sold. Their margin / unit may be lower but they could still make the same revenues and profits.
Sure, it could mean dumping inventory or it could mean increased demand through distribution channels and they are just trying to bring direct in line to capture some of this demand.
They are still priced higher than Walgreens, this does not concern me.
Why would FUSE sell their products directly for more than one can buy through a distributor?
Higher sales do not equal bigger losses. That does not make any sense. Higher sales have an exponential effect on profits. Fuse has a 60% plus gross margin!
Sales and Marketing increased roughly 25% for the 9 months ending June 2013, from 2012 and G&A Expenses increased roughly 43%.
One cannot extrapolate these increases unit for unit on sales.
Given that in June 2012 Fuse really was not selling product on any significant scale (they were ramping up for 2013 --- judging by sales and inventory levels), I would assume the 2012 levels of the above expenses to essentially be more or less fixed, and any increase above that could reasonably be attributed to higher sales volumes in 2013.
If they do $1 mil in sales in Q4, they should have a gross margin of at least $600,000.
While this would still be a loss on the income statement, assuming substantial improvements on interest expense and diminishing increases in Sales, Marketing, General, and Admin, this would be very positive news, and could attract more distribution deals.
Obviously, if there are more licensing deals in the future, this additional source of revenue would only enhance the picture without increasing overhead expenses much at all.
I asked IR a direct question about their plans for note repayment we will see what response I get.
They should be able to provide an answer to whether they plan to pay back with cash from operations (i.e. sales) or financing (another round of screwing shareholders).
Also, I had asked IR about when financials would be released, they claimed the 10k "would be filed by Dec 30th barring any setbacks", so I doubt anything is coming out this coming week.
They further said that for the last 3 years they have filed in early January, which most on this board are already aware. This was mentioned, I believe, to set the expectation it is not coming out before the end of the year.
2 thoughts. How does fuse stack up against OHR and perhaps this means a big company like regeneron buys fuse or licenses tech for drops. Just pure speculation.
Ohr article
http://www.newsdaily.com/health/c330965272276e80c0d80c66ca456642/ohr-aims-big-with-eye-drop-to-rival-blockbusters#.Up-IIWMoAzU.email
Regeneron injection product
EYLEA® (aflibercept) Injection Approved For The Treatment of Macular Edema Following Central Retinal Vein Occlusion In Japan
TARRYTOWN, N.Y., Nov. 22, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGN) today announced that EYLEA® (aflibercept) Injection has received approval for the treatment of Macular Edema Following Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
"We are pleased with the approval of EYLEA in Japan in the macular edema following CRVO indication, a significant cause of visual impairment in adults," said George D. Yancopoulos, M.D., Ph. D., Chief Scientific Officer of Regeneron and President of Regeneron Laboratories. "This approval reflects our commitment, along with our partner Bayer HealthCare, to bring EYLEA to patients worldwide."
EYLEA was approved in the United States for the treatment of neovascular (wet) Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in November 2011 and for Macular Edema following Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO) in September 2012. EYLEA has also been approved in the European Union (EU), Japan, Australia, and in several other countries for use in wet AMD. EYLEA has also been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema following CRVO, as well as in selected countries in Asia and Latin America. Regulatory submissions have also been made in the U.S. and the EU for EYLEA in Diabetic Macular Edema.
Bayer HealthCare and Regeneron are collaborating on the global development of EYLEA. Regeneron maintains exclusive rights to EYLEA in the United States. Bayer HealthCare licensed the exclusive marketing rights outside the United States, where the companies share equally the profits from sales of EYLEA, except for Japan where Regeneron receives a royalty on net sales.
About Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO)
Over 66,000 people in major European countries, more than 100,000 people in the United States, and about 140,000 patients in Japan, over the age of 40 are estimated to suffer from CRVO. CRVO is caused by obstruction of the central retinal vein that leads to a back up of blood and fluid in the retina. This causes retinal damage and loss of vision. Release of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) contributes to increased vascular permeability in the eye and macular edema. It has been shown that anti-VEGF treatment may help decrease vascular permeability and edema in the retina in patients with CRVO.
About EYLEA® (aflibercept) Injection for Intravitreal Injection
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) is a naturally occurring protein in the body. Its normal role in a healthy organism is to trigger formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) supporting the growth of the body's tissues and organs. However, in certain diseases, such as wet age-related macular degeneration, it is also associated with the growth of abnormal new blood vessels in the eye, which exhibit abnormal increased permeability that leads to edema. Scarring and loss of fine-resolution central vision often results. In Central Retinal Vein Occlusion, a blockage occurs in the main blood vessel that transports deoxygenated blood away from the retina. VEGF levels are elevated in response contributing to macular edema.
EYLEA, known in the scientific literature as VEGF Trap-Eye, is a recombinant fusion protein, consisting of portions of human VEGF receptors 1 and 2 extracellular domains fused to the Fc portion of human IgG1 and formulated as an iso-osmotic solution for intravitreal administration. EYLEA acts as a soluble decoy receptor that binds VEGF-A and placental growth factor (PlGF) and thereby can inhibit the binding and activation of their cognate VEGF receptors.
IMPORTANT PRESCRIBING INFORMATION FOR EYLEA® (aflibercept) INJECTION IN THE UNITED STATES
EYLEA® (aflibercept) Injection is indicated for the treatment of patients with neovascular (Wet) Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD). The recommended dose for EYLEA is 2 mg administered by intravitreal injection every 4 weeks (monthly) for the first 12 weeks (3 months), followed by 2 mg once every 8 weeks (2 months). Although EYLEA may be dosed as frequently as 2 mg every 4 weeks (monthly), additional efficacy was not demonstrated when EYLEA was dosed every 4 weeks compared to every 8 weeks.
EYLEA is indicated for the treatment of patients with Macular Edema following Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO). The recommended dose for EYLEA is 2 mg administered by intravitreal injection every 4 weeks (monthly).
IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR EYLEA® (aflibercept) INJECTION
EYLEA® (aflibercept) Injection is contraindicated in patients with ocular or periocular infections, active intraocular inflammation, or known hypersensitivity to aflibercept or to any of the excipients in EYLEA.
Intravitreal injections, including those with EYLEA, have been associated with endophthalmitis and retinal detachments. Proper aseptic injection technique must always be used when administering EYLEA. Patients should be instructed to report any symptoms suggestive of endophthalmitis or retinal detachment without delay and should be managed appropriately. Intraocular inflammation has been reported with the use of EYLEA.
Acute increases in intraocular pressure have been seen within 60 minutes of intravitreal injection, including with EYLEA. Sustained increases in intraocular pressure have also been reported after repeated intravitreal dosing with VEGF inhibitors. Intraocular pressure and the perfusion of the optic nerve head should be monitored and managed appropriately.
There is a potential risk of arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs) following use of intravitreal VEGF inhibitors, including EYLEA, defined as nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or vascular death (including deaths of unknown cause). The incidence of ATEs in the VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 wet AMD studies in patients treated with EYLEA was 1.8% during the first year. The incidence of ATEs in the COPERNICUS and GALILEO CRVO studies was 0% in patients treated with EYLEA compared with 1.4% in patients receiving sham control during the first six months.
The most common adverse reactions (5% or more) noted in the U.S. prescribing information for the approved indications of EYLEA were conjunctival hemorrhage, eye pain, cataract, vitreous detachment, vitreous floaters, and increased intraocular pressure.
Serious adverse reactions related to the injection procedure have occurred in < 0.1% of intravitreal injections with EYLEA including endophthalmitis, traumatic cataract, increased intraocular pressure, and vitreous detachment.
Please see the full U.S. Prescribing Information for EYLEA at www.EYLEA.com
About the EYLEA® (aflibercept) Injection Global Collaboration
Regeneron is collaborating with Bayer HealthCare on the global development of EYLEA. EYLEA is currently approved for the treatment of wet AMD in approximately 50 countries outside the U.S., including Japan and Australia and countries in the EU. EYLEA has also been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to CRVO.
Regeneron maintains exclusive rights to EYLEA in the United States.
About Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
Regeneron is a leading science-based biopharmaceutical company based in Tarrytown, New York that discovers, invents, develops, manufactures, and commercializes medicines for the treatment of serious medical conditions. Regeneron markets medicines for eye diseases, colorectal cancer, and a rare inflammatory condition and has product candidates in development in other areas of high unmet medical need, including hypercholesterolemia, oncology, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. For additional information about the company, please visit www.regeneron.com.
About Bayer HealthCare
The Bayer Group is a global enterprise with core competencies in the fields of health care, agriculture and high-tech materials. Bayer HealthCare, a subgroup of Bayer AG with annual sales of EUR 18.6 billion (2012), is one of the world's leading, innovative companies in the healthcare and medical products industry and is based in Leverkusen, Germany. The company combines the global activities of the Animal Health, Consumer Care, Medical Care and Pharmaceuticals divisions. Bayer HealthCare's aim is to discover, develop, manufacture and market products that will improve human and animal health worldwide. Bayer HealthCare has a global workforce of 54,900 employees (Dec 31, 2012) and is represented in more than 100 countries. More information at www.healthcare.bayer.com.
Regeneron Forward-Looking Statements
This news release includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties relating to future events and the future performance of Regeneron, and actual events or results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Words such as "anticipate," "expect," "intend," "plan," "believe," "seek," "estimate," variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. These statements concern, and these risks and uncertainties include, among others, the nature, timing, and possible success and therapeutic applications of Regeneron's products, product candidates, and research and clinical programs now underway or planned, including without limitation EYLEA®(aflibercept) Injection; unforeseen safety issues resulting from the administration of products and product candidates in patients, including serious complications or side effects in connection with the use of Regeneron's product candidates in clinical trials; the likelihood and timing of possible regulatory approval and commercial launch of Regeneron's late-stage product candidates and new indications for marketed products, such as the application of EYLEA® (aflibercept) Injection in the treatment of Macular Edema following Central Retinal Vein Occlusion; ongoing regulatory obligations and oversight impacting Regeneron's research and clinical programs and business; determinations by regulatory and administrative governmental authorities which may delay or restrict Regeneron's ability to continue to develop or commercialize Regeneron's products and product candidates; competing drugs and product candidates that may be superior to Regeneron's products and product candidates; uncertainty of market acceptance and commercial success of Regeneron's products and product candidates; the ability of Regeneron to manufacture and manage supply chains for multiple products and product candidates; coverage and reimbursement determinations by third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid; unanticipated expenses; the costs of developing, producing, and selling products; the ability of Regeneron to meet any of its sales or other financial projections or guidance and changes to the assumptions underlying those projections or guidance; the potential for any license or collaboration agreement, including Regeneron's agreements with Sanofi and Bayer HealthCare, to be cancelled or terminated without any further product success; and risks associated with third party intellectual property and pending or future litigation relating thereto. A more complete description of these and other material risks can be found in Regeneron's filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 and its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013. The reader is cautioned not to rely on any forward-looking statements made by Regeneron. Regeneron does not undertake any obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statement, including without limitation any financial projection or guidance, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
Bayer Forward-Looking Statements
This release may contain forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and forecasts made by Bayer Group or subgroup management. Various known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors could lead to material differences between the actual future results, financial situation, development or performance of the company and the estimates given here. These factors include those discussed in Bayer's public reports which are available on the Bayer website at www.bayer.com. The company assumes no liability whatsoever to update these forward-looking statements or to conform them to future events or developments.
Your Investor Relations Contact at Regeneron:
Manisha Narasimhan, Ph.D. Tel. 914.847.5126
E-Mail: manisha.narasimhan@regeneron.com
Your Media Contact at Regeneron:
Sandy Sexton, Tel. 914.847.3358
E-Mail: sandra.sexton@regeneron.com
SOURCE Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
News Provided by Acquire Media
Copyright 2013 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Honestly did not know bout Jimmy / Torrey Smith and Fuse. That is great they are using the product in game. It shows they believe in the products and that they work at the highest level.
Just gotta get some real publicity....
NFL using electrofuse in games?
During the Ravens - Bears game with about 11 minutes left in the 4th Q, Ravens corner Jimmy Smith got cramps in his calf.
They showed a shot of him getting what appears to be an ampule dropped under his tongue by team docs on the sidelines.
Could this be Electrofuse? I can't think of a better, faster acting product. They used to have to give you an IV...
Sorry, must have missed those. I am sure you can understand getting annoyed with useless and/or false information being posted about DROP.
No intent to attack, just saying that if you think something will happen either give rationale or state it is your opinion
I understand the legalese.
My point is that posting vague statements without facts that one can back such statements with is simply spam and an annoying waste of time to read.
In my opinion, I don't mind reading someone's theory, as long as it is clear it is such, but those statements see see to imply knowledge of fact.
This is so vague and useless, either be more specific or say nothing. Got any more details?
As of dec 2012 the GQR consultants 401k had 2 active participants and approx. $13 mil in assets. honig and the other participant started the year with over $15 mil, they lost $2 mil during the year.
The 401k is not a scam account and clearly is used for speculative investments, judging by the volatility
Public info available through the dept of labor 5500 filing database.
I think the idea was "First Product Free." So you give away 1 product because you are confident that the customer will like it and buy more / tell their friends, etc...
I don't think it was that bad, but they really need to get some of these athletes in real commercials (kind of like the Gatorade high school football "One More" commercials?)
I am sure that costs a lot of money, but if these guys all got big equity deals you would think they would put in 1 day out of their life to do it.
One has to believe they have one of the following options on the table:
1) They must have the ability to raise more cash through equity financing, but perhaps in terms not as "good" as this deal.
2) There may be a new business deal in the works that would either provide the cash or substantially guarantee the cash in the near future.
3) Perhaps demand for products is good enough that Walgreen's, DR, etc..have a backlog of orders but FUSE cannot fill, now they can manufacture and fill, resulting in payment from distributors. $710k / $8.00 (avg unit sale price?) is only 89,000 units. For a firm supposedly selling product nationally, that is not unrealistic.
I have seen several here speculate sales north of $1-2 mil in the recent quarter. If they can pull that off with limited funds, no real advertising, etc...I don't see why they would not be able to pay off in 60 days. If they do, that should be a great sign to all of us.
I am not sure why some are getting so bent out of shape with the terms of the financing received from Muscle Pharm and others.
FUSE gets $700,000 now, has to pay back at an annualized rate of 10% interest in 60 days (this equals a little over $11,000 plus principal).
The real downside to us shareholders is the dilution caused by over $23 mil new shares being issued due to warrants.
Although the notes are secured by assets, I highly doubt FUSE is going to essentially give away all the assets of the company for a paltry sum, They probably needed the money to fund inventories, advertising, and other initiatives that are likely to pay off in the near future.
The stock action today was a bit concerning, but I have a feeling more big news is coming in the next 60 days.
Did anyone notice that Mr. Honig signed the SEC 13G filing on behalf of the GQR, Inc 401k (his company).
http://ir.stockpr.com/fusescience/all-sec-filings/content/0001521536-13-000911/q1101317_bhonig13g-fusesci.htm?TB_iframe=true&height=auto&width=auto&preload=false
If he is putting a substantial amount of FUSE shares in a tax deferred account like a 401k, he must believe it will take off in a big way. He would be giving up the benefit of taking a capital loss on his position should it not work out.
Just an interesting observation, I may be off the mark.
First post here, BTW, been following for a while, great place to get insights on FUSE.
Thanks all!