The reference to Medmar in the February 21, 2018 M
Post# of 15624
(Total Views: 330)
Posted On: 04/12/2018 9:58:19 AM
The reference to Medmar in the February 21, 2018 Microcap Daily article is misleading. Notice how it states:
The reader is misled on purpose to believe that this is referring to a September 30, 2017 agreement. The Medmar agreement was actually signed on September 30, 2016. As of April 21, 2017 Medmar is no longer in the picture, and the issue is now water under the bridge.
From the company's September 30, 10-Q:
D. Medmar Settlement
Further to Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2016, OWC received $50,000 from Medmar LLC (“Medmar”) during February 2017. On April 21, 2017, OWC served written notice to Medmar of OWC’s determination to prepay the non-recourse loan by Medmar to OWC in the principal amount of $300,000. OWC exercised what it believes is its absolute right to terminate certain distribution rights granted to Medmar under the loan agreement and has repaid the entire principal balance of $300,000, during the period.
I suppose because it refers to "right to terminate certain distribution rights", It's fair to ask if Medmar retained any rights at all. But unless I'm mistaken or clarified this is just speculation.
Quote:
On September 30 OWCP announced it signed an agreement for $300,000 with Medmar LLC “Medmar"
The reader is misled on purpose to believe that this is referring to a September 30, 2017 agreement. The Medmar agreement was actually signed on September 30, 2016. As of April 21, 2017 Medmar is no longer in the picture, and the issue is now water under the bridge.
From the company's September 30, 10-Q:
D. Medmar Settlement
Further to Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2016, OWC received $50,000 from Medmar LLC (“Medmar”) during February 2017. On April 21, 2017, OWC served written notice to Medmar of OWC’s determination to prepay the non-recourse loan by Medmar to OWC in the principal amount of $300,000. OWC exercised what it believes is its absolute right to terminate certain distribution rights granted to Medmar under the loan agreement and has repaid the entire principal balance of $300,000, during the period.
I suppose because it refers to "right to terminate certain distribution rights", It's fair to ask if Medmar retained any rights at all. But unless I'm mistaken or clarified this is just speculation.
(0)
(0)