To: SunFun501 who wrote (214 ) 11/20/1997 11:20:00 PM From: JanyBlueEyes Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 706
The 10Q's and 10K's have alot of info - check it out:exchange2000.com - From the most recent 10Q:The Company expects to generate the necessary capital resources through the revenue generated by its new products , the issuance of equity securities in either public offerings or private placements, or debt financing. From exchange2000.com Their current quarter should come in over $1 million in revenues , an increase of 60% to 100% is likely. If LaserBrush gets to market in Jan., 1998, we could easily see an additional 100% rise in revenues in 1Q, '98LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From the most recent 10Q: ...Company filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, in an action entitled BioLase Technology, Inc. v. Rudolf Schneider. In this action, the Company is seeking to recover from a former distributor (i) lost profits alleged to be no less than $500,000 attributable to the former distributor's failure to perform its obligations, particularly its commitment to purchase minimum quantities of products, pursuant to the distribution agreement between the Company and this distributor, and (ii) $96,000 in amounts owed to the Company by this former distributor for goods sold and delivered and services performed by the Company. The defendant has not yet answered the complaint, which the Company is attempting to serve through established international procedures. From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings incidental to its business. It is management's opinion that pending actions , individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition , and that adequate provision has been made for the resolution of such actions and proceedings. From the 10K: edgar.whowhere.com 1992 : The compliant sought damages in excess of $250,000 based upon claims of negligence, product liability, breach of express and implied warranties, and violation of the consumer provisions of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, arising out of the Company's April 1992 sale of a Laser-35 to the plaintiff. On March 3, 1997, the Company agreed to pay the plaintiff $50,000 and the plaintiff agreed to return the subject Laser-35 to the Company .1995 : ....The plaintiff alleges that she underwent laser dental surgery with a laser allegedly produced by the Company and seeks unspecified damages from the Company on theories of product liability, based on allegations that the laser was defective by reason of design, manufacture and lack of product warnings. The Company has answered the complaint, denying the majority of plaintiff's material factual allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses. The Company is vigorously contesting liability . The case has not yet been set for trial, and discovery is ongoing. The Company believes that liability, should there be any resulting from plaintiff's claims, would be covered by insurance . (FLS)1994 : This action involves a third-party claim against the Company in a suit in which a dentist, who was the lessee of a dental laser system manufactured by the Company, had been sued for breach of the equipment lease by the financing institution that was the lessor. .......The third-party claim against the Company in this action is for $78,408 in compensatory damage, $15,000 in lost profits, $50,000 in punitive damages, and attorney's fees and related costs. The Company intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The case has been inactive since the third-party plaintiff filed for protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Law on July 10, 1995 .