Iconic Brands Inc (ICNB)

[Whiplash_Investor]

I’m not sure either, but Rich did a reversal of sorts, possibly so he can claim some part or all of the revenue. Bellissima and BiVi are sold by Iconic to just one customer...United, then United tacks on $1/case (theoretically) and sells to distributors. So clearly, the sale to United is Iconic revenue.

Now, it’s changed with Hooters Spirits. Hooters Spirits, owned and produced by United, sells it to Iconic (at cost?, for $1/case, for free? Who knows?) who in turn sells it to Hooters. This looks like an attempt by Rich to report some revenue on Iconic books and still give no part ownership of Hooters Spirits to Iconic shareholders.

So, there could be some revenue allocated to Iconic if allowed by the auditors. The only problem is that Iconic shareholders only get the Iconic portion of ownership on any sale of the company (clear in a large paragraph in the S-1). So no sales from Hooters are considered in the valuation.

It looks to me like an attempt to show sales in Iconic fins that aren’t really Iconic’s but a way to inflate sales revenue to keep investors interested and holding shares, so whales (who can see thru this) can dump their shares after restrictions are lifted for years to come.

But I wonder what auditors will say about this. We’ll see in April.