The Company continues to incur losses and, at June 30, 2018, had an accumulated deficit of $41,692,920 (September 30, 2017 - $34,246,816). The ability of the Company to continue operations as a going concern is dependent upon raising additional working capital, settling outstanding debts and generating profitable operations.
True but not new information, all available through DD already taken into account by many shareholders and as such factored into the decision to invest.
These material uncertainties raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
Name one investment with no uncertainties either internal or external. Doubt is on one side of the balance of all factors considered and given their proper weight. By using only a selective portion of the available information, an argument can be crafted to favor a desired conclusion. You seem to be missing more than half the data here. Specifically just a few items...the PTAB Wins, the awarded patents,the fact that this is a patent play with an end goal of being monetized through either sale of licensing of the developed IP. Odd how this is always missing in these arguments.
Should the going concern assumption not continue to be appropriate, further adjustments to carrying values of assets and liabilities may be required.
True with should being the operative word. And should everyone decide to revert to landlines in order to simplify their lives everything stated above and below will be rendered moot. Not likely but "should" it happen, well game over.
There can be no assurance that capital will be available as necessary to meet these continued developments and operating costs or, if the capital is available, that it will be on the terms acceptable to the Company.
There are no assurances that this stock won't go to $1 a share tomorrow either. If you are looking for assurances and certainty as opposed to weighing the probability of any given outcome based on the available data to make your decision to buy or sell, then investing is really not for you.
The issuances of additional stock by the Company may result in a significant dilution in the equity interests of its current shareholders. Obtaining commercial loans, assuming those loans would be available, will increase the Company’s liabilities and future cash commitments.
True but again, there is always that tricky qualifier "may" and as with all qualifiers, if, might, could, should... there is an opposite outcome inherently contained though not explicitly expressed in the argument being proffered, if not, may not, could not, should not, etc.
If the Company is unable to obtain financing in the amounts and on terms deemed acceptable, its business and future success may be adversely affected.
There's that qualifier again, "if" it is able to obtain financing no problem.
Additionally, as the Company’s stated objective is to monetize its patent suite through the licensing or sale of its intellectual property (“IP”), the Company being forced to litigate or to defend its IP claims through litigation casts substantial doubt on its future to continue as a going concern.
This is a matter of opinion. Don't forget the "dilution mantra", the other side of that is dilution makes it possible to continue the fight in court, making this a going, and continuing, concern casting "doubt" on the premise VPLM won't continue to see this fight to it's conclusion.
IP litigation is generally a costly process, and in the absence of revenue the Company must raise capital to continue its own defense and to validate its claims – in the event of a failure to defend its patent claims, either because of lack of funding, a court ruling against the Company or because of a protracted litigation process, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to raise additional capital to pay for an appeals process or a lengthy trial. The outcome of any litigation process may have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
In the event..a fancy way of saying if. There's may and assurance again.
If you're going to argue in favor of a single outcome, don't base your argument on selective bits of information. It makes it look like you reached the conclusion before you began writing.
AI
