Replies to post #200539 on Iconic Brands Inc (ICNB)

[Whiplash_Investor]

Straight from page F-12 of the S-1. The only reason that United’s numbers are included. Wait til United’s business is more from Hooters, then the auditors will disallow this. Even so, valuation of a company comes from the revs that come with it and unless Rich gives 51% of Hooters drinks to Iconic, too. Iconic will get 0 value.

“Since Iconic has been determined to be the primary beneficiary of United, we have included United’s assets, liabilities, and operations in the accompanying consolidated financial statements of Iconic.”

[236T568]

actually, when it comes to the Hooters deal, scam company ICNB owns NOTHING, ZILCH, NADA

it is United Spirits that has the licensing agreement with Hooters

and United Spirits is 100% owned by ICNB's CEO

ICNB owns 0% of United Spirits

Of course it gets excluded this is not news. ICNB is not a distribution company, we own the actual brands/products.

United does all the work to get the product from cradle to grave, which ICNB pays for.

Including United in our financials is more a transparency play that allows investors to see what is being spent there by ICNB.

United never was and one would hope never will be merged in ICNB because we cover different parts of the industry. I have no interest in owning a part of a company that is working on such low margins and stiff competition.

ICNB

Know your own DD.

$$$$$$$$$