InvestorsHub Logo

CryptoRain

12/31/13 11:49 AM

#67596 RE: Tontis_Acheater #67593

And if you actually believed that, you would be shorting every share you possibly could, as would many others. Hmmmmmm, that's not happening, why?

life1

12/31/13 11:54 AM

#67597 RE: Tontis_Acheater #67593

Tont.thanks.I cannot agree more.The filing says what it said.Did you see any legal language which says "current investors/shareholders go bonkers"?No...You know the reason.

i have closely traded and seen what bankruptcy looks like CEDC,SVNT,PCX .All of it was case of bankrupcy.So in all those cases,common holders had a beer and returned home.

In this case,it is DIP but not bankruptcy filing.Which means it is a takeover by force.Like DROP assets,stationary,we get to belong to MSLP and will be dealt with.

The logic of screen going down on the 8th Jan,2014 is absurd.And so you presume all the share holders are even seeing the DROP trade because they are averaging down ?:):)No Sir.Please...

The management (even if) they allow DIP,would negotiate terms for the share holders .Yes,I agree with you on one thing.We will not have the right to fight the compensation.Even if it is going to be 1000 DROP to 1 MSLP,we are scape goat and like BZNE,we could go legal but....

DROP common holders will be compensated/converted/diluted/flushed out by one or the other means BUT never "0".With the FUSE potential,I see a decent deal for the commoners.

Patience pays!!!

BAR123

12/31/13 12:11 PM

#67599 RE: Tontis_Acheater #67593

So if everything you say comes true ( which I doubt ) where does that leave the contracts with the athletes? What happens to Tiger, Big Papi, Murray, etc. I would think that this would be very valuable to MSLP going forward.

highonstock

12/31/13 1:45 PM

#67619 RE: Tontis_Acheater #67593

Tontis from what i see its mere speculation on your part.
However, since we are speculating here and im going with your story, wouldnt it make sense that if the two companies were working together on a strategic initiative that they have a building to produce a final product together? If the larger company has the monies to afford the rent, but any risk associated with the building is tied to FUSE, it sounds like a strategic relationship to me? Keep in mind Musclepharm and "other investors" has stated in the PR they have made a strategic investment in FUSE.

from the PR:
"The investment in Fuse emanates from our interest in its delivery technology and products," stated Brad Pyatt, Founder and CEO of MusclePharm. "It is aligned with our strategy of leveraging our marketing and distribution channels while bringing both innovation and sophistication to the sport nutrition market. We look forward to continuing ongoing discussions with the Fuse management team and exploring various possibilities for a mutually advantageous strategic relationship."

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/musclepharm-makes-strategic-investment-in-fuse-science-inc-otcqb-mslp-1850317.htm

AIMHO