Ihub forum members.
I have recently raised a number of questions regarding the latest of a long line of 'deals' floated by DNAP management.
As in the past when I questioned any of these schemes I have been attacked and reviled. That's OK, it's seems to be a part of the ongoing ritual.
Some of the long term participant here and on RB may remember the vehemence of the responses to my questioning of the GMED deal all those years ago. I suggested that it was a little incestuous in regards to the major players (tbf etc) I also claimed that GMED had no money so the deal was dead on arrival. I was dismissed and ignored (win put me on ingore for the second time in a week, lol Worktoplay even dragged Craig Hall on to the board to refute my argument.) We all know how that deal turned out.
I understand that any kind of discusion that undermines basic assumptions can generate a certain amount of discomfort among those to whom the assumptions have been afforded the status of 'fact'. I can't help that.
I can, and will, continue to ask those questions. Many of the answers to those questions will turn out to be positive, some will inevitably slant to the negative, but it is only by asking the questions that we have any hope of arriving at the answers. I don't have any regrets for posing questions that turn out to be wrong, any more than I take much satisfaction for being right. I just like to get to the bottom of things. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't read them. I respect your options and I don't mind being ignored.
I have often been questioned about my motives, and while I don't think that motives have any bearing on the truth or untruth of any particular statements, they certainly seem to be relevant to many here. having done a little soul searching I will therefore offer my understanding of my own motives. I don't expect them to be accepted by most, but I will offer them anyway.
I don't like being lied to, I don't like it one bit. I don't like being misled and I don't like being 'nuanced'. I prefer to be dealt with in an open and honest manner. Over time DNAP and Frudakis have shown themselves to be quite willing to bend the truth and misdirect the investors whenever it suited their fancy. the examples are well known to all. I have learned to be very wary whenever a pronouncement is made. There is an old joke about how can you tell when someone [of questionable repute] is lying?. The answer is; Whenever his lips move.
I have gotten to the point that whenever Frudakis'[or any of his proxies] lips move, I listen very carefully.
This ceased to be an issue of 'investment' for me a long time ago. I am here now until the bitter end, in order to see if the reasonably plausible science can drag the company, in spite of it's disrepute, into the light.
With that in mind, here is my latest observation for your consideration.
If the pps falls much lower than it's present price (0.014) then the Biofrontera deal cannot be consumated as written, here's why;
The present capitalization of DNAP based on 750Million shares outstanding and a pps of 0.014 is exactly $10.5 Million.
If the entire 300 Million shares referenced in the S2 for Dutchess are released the shares outstanding will be 1.05 Billion, and the pps will drop to 0.01 per share. ($10.5 Million divided by 1.05 Billion shares)
The 300 Million shares listed in the S2 for Biofrontera will be worth $3 Million, but Dutchess only pays 96% of the list price, so the revenue produced from such a transaction is $2.8 Million.
$2.7 Million is the amount that must be provided to Biofrontera by the first part of February or the deal is off.
Keep in mind that this $2.7 Million is only a small fraction of the $35 Million mentioned, yet it has already accounted for all of the available shares in the S2. There are no more without another reauthorization round, It's doubtful that such an effort could be completed by February.
I figure that the cutoff value is 0.013125. Comments?
regards,
frog
AI
