Biostax Corp (BTAX)

[LW89]

In general, my guess is that Fidson needs a guarantee of funding from the non-profit/government entity that they can take to a bank as collateral (unless they are willing to front their own cash). That cash could then go to pay IMUN.

Under GAAP rules, IMUN can't recognize revenues until they know what the price/revenues are, have transferred ownership to Fidson with return and payment policies established and a realistic expectationthat they will be paid.

Fidson likely reports under IFRS - and I gather the revenue recognition rules are similar...but I am not certain....but it would be hard to check Fidson's books.

Here's where it could get interesting - depending on how IMUN might want to play their cards. They could cut corners a bunch of ways (aka channel stuffing)...essentially shipping/transferring ownership of product to Fidson but then granting Fidson some outsized return/payment conditions and then recognize the revenues on IMUN's books....

It is totally illegal (look at US vs. Michael Baker and Michael Gluk - the ARTC case) but it doesn't stop people from doing it....and it's not like PWC is auditing IMUN....and /or IMUN's auditor has the resources to physically inspect inventory - particularly that isn't in the US....and might be in the DR or might be in Africa....or might be stuck in customs somewhere. I want to think that if IMUN planned to pull that sort of stunt it would have happened already - but one never knows.

Think about how many times they've said something was approved but then come back a month (or year) later and say "Wait! There's more." More likely we might see some vague funding PR piece when insiders need to make some trades.

If I get time to look deeper or have other thoughts I'll come back.