While I appreciate detailed open discussion about any matter involving the company, I do really see how your points have much effect on my estimation that Ironridge has already used roughly 450M shares to churn and retrieve their original loan back (~$700k). Even taking into consideration your two points, of excess and exhorbitant legal fees as well as even lower minimum share prices for Ironridge to use as their conversion/issuance prices, I do not see how it would account for a doubling of my estimation of about 450M shares used all the way up to your estimation of over 800M shares or more.
The verbage used in the rather boiler-plate caption in their 10G is there to simply protect them from not allowing participants to pump up the volume and price for sustained periods of time and Ironridge having to at some point issue new shares into their position which are limited by the then high price which would drastically decrease their share allotment. It is basically stating that on any time Ironridge goes ahead with an "order", the price they CAN use (not "choose" to use) is discounted 70% from the closing price of the day prior to the "order" and that price is not to EXCEED the average of the volume weighted average prices of the five consecutive trading days (so long as the aggregate trading volume exceeds $2.5M) thereafter. This is standard practice for most equity financing in the market. It is nothing new. It just protects the funder so that they know they will be allowed to get the most possible shares based on the long term activity in the stock as possible without having to do an issuance after delaying and waiting a very long time while there may exist incredibly high volume and high prices (which would limit the size of their issuance). Look at this way, if they did not have this kind of protection, then at any time Ironridge "chose" to submit an "order" for another "traunche" of shares, the company or some other participant could spike the volume and price for many consecutive days while they issue shares to Ironridge, and the company would have the excuse of the high volume and high prices to not issue Ironridge very many shares and then once Ironridge obtained the shares the volume and price could drop off a cliff and Ironridge would find it very difficult to ever be able to churn a decent number of shares in order to make back their original loan. This is not rocket science, it is very simple.
It does not really matter on which exact day between Sept 04 and Sept 26 2012 (or any day in Sept for that matter) Ironridge actually chose to submit the order for the issuance because if you look at all the closing prices for all the days in the month of Sept, they span 0.0017 to 0.0031, even using the lowest price, 70% is 0.0012 and so assuming 143,500,000 shares it would mean about $172K was accounted for instead of my earlier assumption of $300k; that is a difference of about $128k, which if you use the lowest 200 DMA of 0.0019 for all the trading since then it would mean an extra measly 67M shares. If you actually look through my calculations I made today versus what my assumptions were in the November post, there was about a 110M share discrepancy and this 67M shares now fit right into that range of error. Just saying, of course, neither of us is going to know exactly how the issuanced panned out for Ironridge, but IMO it does not make sense that they have not already churned enough shares to make back the original loan or that somehow the A/S needs to be increased in order for Ironridge to be allowed to keep issuing shares. I don't see it. Just my opinions. I think speculating about what exactly the monetary value we can place on "reasonable attorney fees" or how other Ironridge deals panned out with other issuers is just a waste of time. This deal is what we are discussing and it has nothing to do with other funding arrangements made with any other issuer or what happened to the company story for those other stocks. I think your figures are way off, they assume 800M shares or more issued to Ironridge and/or over $1M in funds paid back to Ironridge which I think is total speculation and there is no proof for it and I only know what I know as an investor from filings and shareholder notices and what those suggest for me anyway is that Ironridge has already retrieved their original $700k loan so they may still be left with a 9.9% position of pure profit from that deal but even that is total speculation and even that would mean that no more dilution will take place as a part of the first funding arrangement. Believe what you wish but numbers don't lie only bashers with an agenda lie and I think we have all read exactly what you have been spinning on other boards day in day out. From my perspective it is very suspect for such a known basher to be attempting to act like such reasonable steps are being taken to objectively consider estimates using what appears to be rather speculative fuzzy math.
Do or do not, there is no try.
$RFMK
