InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 12
Posts 1388
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/17/2005

Re: naturalborninvestor post# 11458

Monday, 08/11/2014 11:19:04 PM

Monday, August 11, 2014 11:19:04 PM

Post# of 63806
Interesting. I become confused when I read:

During the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, two consultants made up substantially 100% of the Company’s selling and marketing expense. Management believes the loss of these consultants to this organization would have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. For the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, the consultants earned approximately $7,400,000 and $722,000, respectively. Of the 2014 amounts, approximately $3.8 million consisted of stock-based compensation. The amounts payable at March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 were $2,415,701 and $1,411,493, respectively. The terms of each contract entitled the consultant to receive an amount ranging from 13% to 17.5% of the gross prescription sales generated. The Company estimates that these two consultants generated almost 100% of the revenue for each period presented. In addition, on March 31, 2014, we added one of these consultants to the Company’s Board of Directors.

Then I read:

As additional compensation, the Company also pays TPS 17.5% of the gross amount of qualified prescriptions billed and shipped by the Company.

At this point I am not sure if TPS 17.5% comes off gross billings; possibly. I KNOW that $7.4M and $722K are expenses against net revenue. And I keep seeing this 17.5% of gross billings.

My question is since "one of these consultants was added to the Company’s Board of Directors;" is that One and the Same Trestles. And, if so, would that not be a conflict of interest to shareholders. Hell, a board member made $7.4M out of $9.2M net revenues.

Anyway, just my thoughts.