I do not know what all this second guessing should be and why somebody can come up with the word toxic. (If preferred Shares are considered toxic, then 85 % of all NYSE companies have a toxic share-structure. The wording preferred has a clear meaning and certainly nothing to do with the word toxic) But be it as it may. All well explained in the filings and all this by the way is an integrated part of the known O/S (based on the recent filings with reference to increased Holdings from Inst. Investors.
From the 9/30/2013 DECN Form 10-Q filing....
During September 2013, the Company initiated a unit offering memorandum to sell shares of its $0.001 par value common stock to private accredited investors. The unit offering offers two (2) shares of common stock and one (1) warrant convertible on a 1:1 basis, warrants into into shares of $0.001 par value commons stock. As of September 30,2013, the Company had subscriptions receivable totaling $1,900,551 of which $1,539,301 was receivable for 2,798,728 units pursuant to the offering memorandum. Cash totaling $1,539,301 was received from the subscribing shareholders during October 2013.
And last but not least but out of Fairness. DECN as a matter of fact got a fantastic Price for their subscriptions:
The price for DECN in September 2013 was: $ 0.2 and 0.9. So the monthly average as a matter of fact was $ 0.55 (See Chart) and this is as well the price paid by the subscribers.
For those playing the discount fiddle, I would respond, the subscribers paid a premium of 175 % versus the low price of $ .20 against the bashers theory that they got a discount of 50 % from the high of $ .90.
But there is neither nor, as a matter of fact, they paid exactly the monthly average price. Everybody knowing who to handle a calculator could have found this out by calculating the ratios based on the filings as of September 30.2013.
And another point: When they opened for subscription it was certainly not September the 30th when the stock was paid at the high of $ .90 but they rather started the subscription around before middle of September and therefore fixed an excellent price for the company and as well for the shareholders as the discount reporach is a laughable as would be, if somebody would say, they paid a huge premium.
Conclusion: The $ 0.55 level was fair value for all. For the company and for the subscribers and for the rest of the shareholders, as it reflects exactly the middle average of the monthly price of September. And a final word: Every “expert
“ would actually know, that so-called subscription prices are based on a monthly average and voila, we return again to the $ .55 Price.
Would they have done it, just 1 month before, their average Price would have been roughly 0.25 instead of $ 0.55.
