blue, I am largely done with this discussion.
I believe it is well shown, as you seem to acknowledge, that the preponderance of your statements on the matter proved vacuous.
"owed $4m" has been walked away from
$4m as an object subject to recourse has been walked away from, spose it could be, but it makes no sense.
Generally, that one has assets they were fortunate to have developed by developmental grants that only require repayment upon success is normally, normally I say, met with "good for you, lucky you, I wish I won such care free asset development with such casual repayment provisions pinned only to whether I am successful", not "yikes, look at this big missed debt, fire the aquisitor".
Again, for the last time. Wrong Fish.
On the other sutff, I felt is has been explored, variably described, reconsidered and so on. I direct you to www.ihub.com/wavx (2011-2012) for that analysis.
YES. It seems something in the order of one dollar to one million dollars of bad debt was being recorded as a receivable, and it just wasn't, and that the company failed to exact recourse against that amount, which, as memory serves was in the hundreds of thousands but less than a million category, and it got very confusing for me, and my memory is imperfect on this. I can't remember if it was differential recognition of 700k and just a bad debt of 200k (for some reason this number 118k just keeps popping up in memory) or what.
But your 4m is the wrong fish.
So parse what happened with that circa 200-700k-ish bit that I keep reminding you of, and there you have your point, that is the point where Wave and/or the experts they hired failed to recognize something in time for recourse. Most of it, (in previous hashings) it seemed were accounting things, but a bad debt is a bad debt. Saying you have an AR of 200k when you simply don't is a bad debt. That is a real material cash-flow type of error. About what they spend on donuts and decals in any given month.
You can mix that with the 4m isra.gov thing all you want, but I believe you are in error. It is unimaginable to me that the isra.gov royalty agreement would have ever survived a recourse effort as I believe your mud n the wall assumption of "missed" to be in error. Wrong fish.
Normally, gain normally, the consideration is WOW, you developed this asset on somebody elses coin and you only owe them something (a small amount, principle only plus modest interst) if you are successful. Wow. Yikes. Fire people.
WRONG FISH
The above content is my opinion.
