Since I am attacked in this post I will respond:
1. LIQR filed an SB2 with 2 years AUDITED financials with the SEC prior to becoming a public company thus the filing is correct & proper. Check the SEC records. As for the "Loss" it is not an actuall "Loss" there is a $202,000 non-cash transaction that includes $135,000 of stock to employees & suppliers and $65,000 to consultants. This was paid out shares of stock not cash, thus no "loss" occoured.
2. I have unequivicably not been paid any shares of stock in LIQR, this is a personal attack and a slander on me. TOTAL BS! (Wish it was me though!)
3. Back to my note #1 above, LIQR filed an SB2 with the SEC verifying audited accounting for the two years prior to trading on the exchange!
4. The vendor terminations mentioned in LIQR's 10Q are for last quarter ending May 31, 2009, DKAM was liquidated in this quarter, considering the News release was filed on July 1, 2009 they will likely file the info from that termination in their 10K. The back orders with DKAM were still in effect as of May 31, 2009.
5. That is incorrect, I have seen several old releases of LIQR that say DKAM in them.
6. The SEC holds an obligation to shareholders for companies to report the most current information available, if known. That is just good legal sense to let shareholders know what the most current calculated position is for a lawsuit. This is also true for share dispursments, planned distributions or other known quantity items that effect shareholders. Too bad DKAM treats it's shareholders like mushrooms, but that is not a negative reflection on LIQR.
7. That may not be the way a liquidation clause works with the LIQR contract so this is pure speculation. Also, if damages exceed the value of product sold in any liquidation, the balance would still be due and owing. No way does that effect the validity of their claims against DKAM
8. How do you have proof that others were being fulfilled by December and not LIQR? Does not appear in the DKAM filings. This is pure speculation.
9. Again, this filing is from LIQR's 3rd Quarter, DKAM liquidation would have fallen in their Q4. Totally invalid point made.
10. You are assuming that the value of the inventory was sold at a price that would cover the cost of the marketing expense. Also you are fogetting the Triple Damages that DKAM suffers under the contract for not filling the generated orders of $830,000. This is where the meat of the litigation lies IMHO.
11. If DKAM and LIQR have a contract agreeing to loss of sales, which is claimed in the LIQR filing, then DKAM will have to pay loss of sales at triple damages.
Rules are rules, laws are laws and contracts are contracts. This is not going away just because you wish it to.
What DKAM should do is work this out with LIQR, fill these orders and let both companies make money!
