American Scientific Resources (ASFX)

[dannol48]

The progress you dismiss is strongly evidenced in the record topline and restoration of gross profits that certainly helped cashflow (the goal stated to offset at beginning of year), and the narrowing loss (which BTW you misguided the board with a hugh miss of $6M loss verus actual loss of $785K).

Refinement of language quarter-over-quarter, as progress or change, is exactly what is required and they are doing an excellent job (IMO) of getting the facts to investors. They set a baseline for capital need at the beginning of 2011 (where that language of requirement started) with a stake in the ground, and are showing progress and changes in path for the year. What they may or may not need or do with capital funds, and the need to raise capital is a changing condition. However, a forward look with improving cashflow and conditions isn't incorrect either. That's not fraud and the depiction of fraud is highly inaccurate when full and complete disclosure is made (IMO).

I'm also noting your lack of acknowlegement (despite prior discussion on topic), that a great deal of the "book loss" for 2011 to date is for other than real capital/cash use, e.g. the options for employees at 40 cents in Q2. Disregarding fact is contributing you your inaccurate statements (IMO). One quote in your post shows the difference, i.e. the real cash burn rate is the issue.

"As reported in the December 31, 2010 audited financial statements, the Company had current liabilities that exceeded current assets by $5,149,524 as of December 31, 2010, and had reported a net loss of $7,040,767 and used $896,346 of cash in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2010."

It's not their obligation to report every sale made, so the possibility of another good quarter was shaping-up prior to mid-quarter with PRs that included new market (Japan), new venue (a hugh Canada private-label retailer), and reorders that included an order-over-order increase in amount (UK).