Whose fault is it? “We have also had to defen
Post# of 11803
(Total Views: 557)
Posted On: 08/14/2019 10:42:35 PM
Whose fault is it?
“We have also had to defend trade dress claims filed against us solely because these claims are expensive to defend, whether the claims are real or not. In addition, we have been sued in several jurisdictions over a single business transaction. Often these cases involve substantial over-prosecution where we a have been held accountable by Plaintiffs for a myriad of things including words written or posted in public forums by anonymous persons
... [ANONYMOUS POSTERS, dun dun dunnnnn!]
We have also been a victim of the unapproved acts of prior management. These acts have resulted in claims from individuals and entities since the Board relieved former management of duty in 2006. Nonetheless, these claims have resulted in the use of management time and company resources to investigate, litigate, or settle, some 13 years later. In addition, we accrue contingent legal fees and product liability fees. As of June 30, 2019, our contingent legal fees accrual was $240,000 and our general contingencies accrual was $245,069. Contingencies total $485,069 and are reflected herein.
... [MANAGEMENT FROM 15 YEARS AGO?]
Sadly, shareholders and non-shareholders have already attempted to contact PARAGON in a manner similar to our earlier situation with Retail Monster. The company has promised PARAGON that we will take legal action against these people should this activity continue.
... [try being original? Same excuse, different ‘partner’?]
After delivery of approximately 11,000 pieces (units) of GenUltimate!, 3,000 GenUltimate! meters and cases of lancets delivered to Bolivia, the company was contacted by authorities in the U.S. and then again several months later by regulators in Spain concerning the partners and silent partners involved with this international agreement. As a result of these contacts, the company, on March 20, 2017, terminated the Preferred D Subscription Agreement and terminated the International Distribution Agreement.
... [how soon we forget?]
In June 2018 the company came to terms with a third international distributor who will sell the company’s products in Mexico, Puerto Rico and in select South American countries. Initially the sales by the distributor will be our GenUltimate! test strips and meters, and our GenSure! test strips and meters. Governmental approval is needed for these products. This distributor has so far not distinguished themselves.
... [‘so far’? Guess what? Past performance CAN BE indicative of future performance... DITCH THEM]”
I tire of this; the most of these documents are just a recounting of every wrong that’s been done to DECN in the past two decades or so.
Additionally, another “leaving the runway” moment in the making? Let’s have them pay cash, up front, this time, and they can pay for testing and packaging alterations:
“During the month of August 2019, the company received a strong inquiry from an Eastern European distributor for the distribution of our GenSure and GenPrecis products, two of our products that do not have USA markets. The Board decided to engage with this distributor. The company’s GenSure product is available for immediate delivery. The GenPrecis product in October 2019.”
I think the writing has been outsourced to Eastern Europe as well, as evidenced by the previous sentence and:
“As we began levy against Shasta we accepted offer of Settlement.“
What settlement terms and who offered it?
“We also intend to acquire additional private companies, or partner with small engineering companies that have developed technology requiring either regulatory approval, distribution expertise or both.”
HOW DO YOU INTENT TO PAY FOR THOSE ACQUISITIONS? Don’t make me laugh!
“Meetings are scheduled in the month of May 2019 at both Walmart and CVS pharmacies, primarily for our GenUltimate TBG products.”
.... And? It’s August.
“The case against Shasta resulted in a $3.6 million judgment and a more recent settlement. The case against Conductive Technologies Inc. CTI is more complicated. We initially believed that”
... believed what? That’s literally where that ends, no transcription error here. [CTI discussion does happen much later, at the bottom]
“We anticipate that in the next 12 months that we will be starved for cash from time to time as the need for cash to finance our FDA 510K prosecutions and product developments will outstrip our abilities to raise cash from traditional sources. The company’s Board has established and reaffirmed that the company will not allow our need for cash to be exploited by toxic funding entities. We will, from time to time seek to raise capital from small funds.”
Just a brief note: there’s nothing preventing ‘small funds’ from being ‘toxic funding entities’... quite often, they are just that.
“Our current cash position is critical.”
Indeed! Better hold off on those acquisitions!
In the “show me” category, if this is accurate and the final agreement(s) follow this model, well done:
“1. a modest cash payment for a standstill agreement made upon acceptance of the proposition of between $1.5 and $2.5 million
2. a cash payment at closing of any agreement in recognition of an exclusivity lock-out for five years of between $5.5 and $9.5 million
3. on-going license fees at a rate of 1.5 times industry standard for similar license agreements”
But as I said yesterday: nothing here for stock flips. Who could’ve guessed?
“We have also had to defend trade dress claims filed against us solely because these claims are expensive to defend, whether the claims are real or not. In addition, we have been sued in several jurisdictions over a single business transaction. Often these cases involve substantial over-prosecution where we a have been held accountable by Plaintiffs for a myriad of things including words written or posted in public forums by anonymous persons
... [ANONYMOUS POSTERS, dun dun dunnnnn!]
We have also been a victim of the unapproved acts of prior management. These acts have resulted in claims from individuals and entities since the Board relieved former management of duty in 2006. Nonetheless, these claims have resulted in the use of management time and company resources to investigate, litigate, or settle, some 13 years later. In addition, we accrue contingent legal fees and product liability fees. As of June 30, 2019, our contingent legal fees accrual was $240,000 and our general contingencies accrual was $245,069. Contingencies total $485,069 and are reflected herein.
... [MANAGEMENT FROM 15 YEARS AGO?]
Sadly, shareholders and non-shareholders have already attempted to contact PARAGON in a manner similar to our earlier situation with Retail Monster. The company has promised PARAGON that we will take legal action against these people should this activity continue.
... [try being original? Same excuse, different ‘partner’?]
After delivery of approximately 11,000 pieces (units) of GenUltimate!, 3,000 GenUltimate! meters and cases of lancets delivered to Bolivia, the company was contacted by authorities in the U.S. and then again several months later by regulators in Spain concerning the partners and silent partners involved with this international agreement. As a result of these contacts, the company, on March 20, 2017, terminated the Preferred D Subscription Agreement and terminated the International Distribution Agreement.
... [how soon we forget?]
In June 2018 the company came to terms with a third international distributor who will sell the company’s products in Mexico, Puerto Rico and in select South American countries. Initially the sales by the distributor will be our GenUltimate! test strips and meters, and our GenSure! test strips and meters. Governmental approval is needed for these products. This distributor has so far not distinguished themselves.
... [‘so far’? Guess what? Past performance CAN BE indicative of future performance... DITCH THEM]”
I tire of this; the most of these documents are just a recounting of every wrong that’s been done to DECN in the past two decades or so.
Additionally, another “leaving the runway” moment in the making? Let’s have them pay cash, up front, this time, and they can pay for testing and packaging alterations:
“During the month of August 2019, the company received a strong inquiry from an Eastern European distributor for the distribution of our GenSure and GenPrecis products, two of our products that do not have USA markets. The Board decided to engage with this distributor. The company’s GenSure product is available for immediate delivery. The GenPrecis product in October 2019.”
I think the writing has been outsourced to Eastern Europe as well, as evidenced by the previous sentence and:
“As we began levy against Shasta we accepted offer of Settlement.“
What settlement terms and who offered it?
“We also intend to acquire additional private companies, or partner with small engineering companies that have developed technology requiring either regulatory approval, distribution expertise or both.”
HOW DO YOU INTENT TO PAY FOR THOSE ACQUISITIONS? Don’t make me laugh!
“Meetings are scheduled in the month of May 2019 at both Walmart and CVS pharmacies, primarily for our GenUltimate TBG products.”
.... And? It’s August.
“The case against Shasta resulted in a $3.6 million judgment and a more recent settlement. The case against Conductive Technologies Inc. CTI is more complicated. We initially believed that”
... believed what? That’s literally where that ends, no transcription error here. [CTI discussion does happen much later, at the bottom]
“We anticipate that in the next 12 months that we will be starved for cash from time to time as the need for cash to finance our FDA 510K prosecutions and product developments will outstrip our abilities to raise cash from traditional sources. The company’s Board has established and reaffirmed that the company will not allow our need for cash to be exploited by toxic funding entities. We will, from time to time seek to raise capital from small funds.”
Just a brief note: there’s nothing preventing ‘small funds’ from being ‘toxic funding entities’... quite often, they are just that.
“Our current cash position is critical.”
Indeed! Better hold off on those acquisitions!
In the “show me” category, if this is accurate and the final agreement(s) follow this model, well done:
“1. a modest cash payment for a standstill agreement made upon acceptance of the proposition of between $1.5 and $2.5 million
2. a cash payment at closing of any agreement in recognition of an exclusivity lock-out for five years of between $5.5 and $9.5 million
3. on-going license fees at a rate of 1.5 times industry standard for similar license agreements”
But as I said yesterday: nothing here for stock flips. Who could’ve guessed?
(0)
(0)