I dont ignore statements of fact from a 10Q and then project my wants on them and imagine other scenarios
The company has to by law state HOW IT WOULD PLAN TO PAY OFF THAT DEBT in default.
At this stage BY FACT, since they did not suggest a sale of MERIMED stake to pay off that debt and rather dilution or payment from a settlement (and I have explained in past posts why this is unrealistic - go read them if you have not), then dilution is the source of funds to be expected.
Moreover, since their Merimed stake is their only asset with 'real' value at this stage, it would be material if they sold it so they would have to state that it is being considered. I suppose many here don't get that materiality point. The patents do not have real value on their balance sheet as of yet, so if you are selling off your only material asset to pay down debt (or anticipate it) you have to kind of disclose that fact sir -that is a FACT.
I am not ignoring anything, I am just not MAKING THINGS UP.
By the way, its not 'due diligence' - DD has nothing to do with their statement.
I am repeating the point because people are arguing statements of fact disclosed in the legal filings of a public company and making statements that are not in that document (ie sale of merimed).
The sale of merimed to pay off the notes as of the date of that 10Q is a fiction
If you don't find this to be an issue, then why keep repeating the fiction that merimed is being sold? There is ZERO statement from the company to that fact currently/as of the most recent quarterly (as as any investor knows always go from the most recent), and the only statements are
1. Dilution
2. Settlement (implausible short to mid term, thus out of the picture)
Case closed. If you are confused read all my posts on the subject, I can link them all since I have had to repeat it so many times
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
