Duke and Seepalms, I do understand them, but I make clear it is just my opinion. I am not a finance manager, nor an investment manager - that is why I am clear to state IN MY OPINION. That said, the at least 4 others you are referring too have all been issued their shares based on the same filings you are referring to.
Please share the exact ones you are referring to and I will gladly double-check my claims and will retract my statements if you are indeed correct.
The conclusion I get from reviewing them all is that they (Iconic, LG, JSJ,JMJ, WHC, and Typenex (which is JFV, Red Cliffs, Typenex combined in last 13g) have already been issued their shares in 2015.
So, as I have been stating numerous times here, and neither of you has put out the specifics as to what I missed, I am basing MY OPINION, and what I reviewed and to the best I could figure out based on that information. Neither one of you are stating with details where I missed - which I am happy to be corrected, just show us the details. And please do not pull the "it's in the filings if you understand line". Below is something to follow up your DEBT statement - that to me was way more misleading then my opinion about notes being done.
You stated Red Giant Entertainment is in "DEBT" to the tune of over 12 million dollars! Here is where you got it from and others can decide for themselves if you are correct or me: (I did the bold.)
From 10Q/A filed 7/20/15 notice it states "deficit" as opposed to "debt":
NOTE 3 - MANAGEMENT STATEMENT REGARDING GOING CONCERN
The Company’s revenues are insufficient to meet its operating expenses. The Company has incurred net losses of $1,222,538 for the nine months ending May 31, 2015. Accumulated losses, to date, resulted in an accumulated deficit of $12,535,541 as of May 31, 2015. The Company has a net working capital deficit of $4,530,541, as of May 31, 2015, and cash used in operations of $582,979 for the nine months ending May 31, 2015. The total stockholders’ deficit at May 31, 2015 was $4,508,940.
notice the "current portion of debt" actual debt as opposed to deficit
NOTE 5 - CONVERTIBLE NOTES PAYABLE
The Company entered into several lending arrangements with lenders, each with convertible features. The Company evaluated the terms of the convertible notes in accordance with ASC Topic No. 815 - 40, Derivative and Hedging Contracts – Contracts in Entities’ Own Stock and the underlying conversion features that are indexed to the Company’s common stock. The Company determined that the conversion features meet the definition of a derivative liability and therefore bifurcated the conversion feature and accounted for it as a separate derivative liability. Therefore, the Company recorded a derivative liability and recognized a debt discount on the notes on the origination date. The debt discount was recorded as reduction (contra-liability) to the Convertible Notes Payable. The debt discount is being amortized over the life of the notes. Additionally, the notes called for an immediate withholding for service charges, which has been treated as an original issue discount or deferred financing costs, a contra-liability charge, which is amortized as finance cost over the life of the loan. Interest expense, in the amount of $412,835 and $867,114 was recognized for the amortization of derivative debt discounts and deferred financing costs for the nine months ended May 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
A derivative liability, in the amount of $3,233,991 and $3,518,650 has been recorded, as of May 31, 2015 and August 31, 2014, respectively, related to the notes. The derivative value was calculated using the Black-Scholes method. Assumptions used in the derivative valuation were as follows:
Weighted Average:
Dividend rate
0.0 %
Risk-free interest rate
0.069 %
Expected lives (years)
0.069
Expected price volatility
497.25 %
Forfeiture Rate
0.0 %
Summary of Convertible Notes Payable:
Original remaining outstanding principal
776,490
Unamortized deferred finance costs
(3,784 )
Unamortized debt discounts
(104,349 )
Total
668,357
Current portion of debt
668,357
Long-term debt
-
In closing, I know we will disagree about REDG, pretty clear. At this point, not much more to debate unless you clearly show where I went wrong with how I am seeing things. If neither of you want to then that's fine, we'll just move on. I would much rather focus on the positives going on (POWfolio, Zwagbox, and Markiplier series) then continue to get stuck on this. always wish everyone the best regardless, thedocg
AI
