Fort Lauderdale FL, Aug. 11, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- DNA Brands Receives an LOI for the Sale of the Energy Drink Line
DNA Brands Inc., is pleased to announce that it has received a Multi-Million Dollar equivilant offer for the company's Energy Drink Line.
Stated CEO Adrian McKenzie: “I am not only excited by this development but what this will mean for our company, creditors and shareholders is that this will wipe out the prior debt incurred and provide assets on the books of the company”
Further Adrian McKenzie stated: “Once the debenture is accomplished this will pave the way to implement other plans as was touched upon in my conference call. I know that perhaps many were unable to listen in so attached to this PR is a transcript for all to review.”
The following is a transcript from the Conference call held on August 11, 2016 at 3:10 p.m. conducted by Questionnaire, Mr. Vance Paulman and CEO of DNA Brands Inc. Mr. Adrian McKenzie.
Vance Question:
This is not your normal area of expertise you having a background in finance as I and most people know Adrian. So what got you interested or excited about DNA Brands to get you involved in a company like this knowing of course that you would be assuming debt.
Adrian McKenzie:
Well yes Vance. Actually you’re right I did not start in the beverage industry. I have a finance background. I was a broker for many years from 2001 through 2008-2009. When the mortgage crisis fell apart I actually jumped on the other side and started creating public companies and created several, however, I took over DNA Brands as a project. I was familiar with the company. I’m familiar with management. The company itself did a great job. They had a product they built from scratch. They got it to the markets 27 million dollars was spent on this company. It was unfortunate for management at the time. I guess there was just a butting of the heads.
I was not there. But management seemed to really do the wrong things. You don’t announce you have contracts with major players such as Coke or Pepsi and not have those in hand. In my opinion that was the beginning of the end for prior management. So I came in.
I have the background. As I mentioned 27 million dollars was slated to get the company where it’s at. So my job now is basically to find a half a million dollars to get the product back on the shelves. In doing so I have run into many hurdles, many roadblocks, some happy investors, some not so happy investors, however, I’m here to do a job to get there as soon as possible.
Vance Question:
Keeping in line with that, I would like to just touch base on the share structure, what it is like currently for the company because many thoughts are out there that the TA is gagged. You want to be transparent so of course you would like the shareholders to know exactly what is going on and that’s the whole point. So what is that like currently for the company today and how do you see it in the future.
Adrian McKenzie:
Okay, let me address something. First of all with the TA being gagged. That was not something that I put on the TA. That was prior management gagging the TA and as it stands the TA is owed money so the TA is a great company, but when the TA is owed money you have to jump through hoops to get favors done. At this point, I cannot get the gag removed until the company is caught up-to-date with the TA, but that being said I am aware of the current share structure. As it stands right now there are 7.33 billion shares outstanding. The company is authorized for 10 billion. And of the 7.33, I would state 5 billion of that is in the investing public hands. The other 2.3 or so is in creditor hands. Not to say that cannot come to the public it can, but the creditors are being very good and playing ball at the moment.
Vance Question:
When you put out a PR for this conference call you did have a list of questions. So we are going to get into those if those are okay with you right now.
Adrian McKenzie:
Well absolutely. I encourage it. You know like I said I have received questions via email, I have received questions-people text messaging me. I am very open. I put my phone number out there so please. People call me all day everyday. I just got a call yesterday from a poor lady that god bless her soul she bought the stock at 85 cents, and I had to tell her like you need to buy more stock because you need to cost average down.
Vance Question:
Now before we get into those questions, I would like to ask because this has been broached many, many times and it is discussed all the time. Regarding Reverse Split, do you see in the near future anything possible in that regard? Do you see that happening?
Adrian McKenzie:
To let you know. Being on the inside of a company, being an officer of a company, even if I was to do something like that I couldn’t tell you, however, what I can tell you is I could have reversed split the stock back in February when I took control. I was advised to do so but I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to see the common shareholder lose a lot of money. The stock as it stands right now is in the toilet. We all knew this as soon as we inherited the company. I could have easily gone and applied to FINRA to reverse the stock and put it at whatever I want. Put it at a dime. Put it at a dollar. But I chose NOT to do that so because I believe that with assets as the foundation of the company this stock can easily trade in the sub penny range liquid as water.
Vance Question:
Before we get into those questions that you came up with, I would like to ask you this. As you know the holding period of any stock is 1 year. Now what if someone were to hypothetically say that since taking over as CEO you’re the only one who has made say hundreds of thousands of dollars off from this stock (for say an individual or individuals who might have that idea).
Adrian McKenzie:
I would laugh at that and I wish that were true but that is not the case. I own the control block of the company. I do not own any other shares of stock. Even if I were too register my control block I have to hold onto my shares for at least 1 year minimum. I took possession on February 1, 2016. I haven’t held my shares for a year yet and I don’t plan on selling any shares.
That’s not why I took on this project. I took on this project to build something with substance. To give the shareholders back something so at least everybody involved has an opportunity to make some money back. I don’t know how much money they are going to make. I don’t know but I want to plan the opportunity to do so. So to answer your question, I would love to have a truck full of money but that just isn’t the case. Any savvy investor who knows anything about stocks and holding periods, they know that I have to hold the stock for 1 year.
Vance Question:
So now let’s get into your questions. Speaking in regards to question number 1 acquisitions. What are you working on currently and how are things shaping up in that regard. How do you see that currently.
Adrian McKenzie:
Well Vance. If I may I would like to address just because it would flow in sequence more about the relaunch and then we can talk about the acquisitions if you don’t mind.
Vance Question:
That sounds fair. So in regards to the relaunch of the brand what do you have to say in regards to that.
Adrian McKenzie:
Okay. Well I have aligned myself with two industry veterans and I know I am getting a lot of heat because I don’t disclose who they are, but the way it stands right now I am not allowed too. One of them is a former Pepsi Executive. He does not want his name out there affiliated with a penny stock that is riddled with debt because that is too much exposure for him. But he is gladly willing to give of himself and he is giving of himself. As far as the relaunch is concerned, it’s all a function of money. Let me back up. This individual has actually taken me throughout South Florida, made the introductions for me that I need in order for me to get to where i need to be, but at the end of the day I need to raise money. I have been trying to raise the money for the relaunch and I’m hitting some roadblocks. That’s not to say that it won’t happen but what I want to focus on are revenues. So that is where the acquisition play comes in.
As it stands, right now I’ve been speaking to three groups regarding acquiring companies. One is a juicing technology, one is a nutraceutical company with sports nutrition and one is a company in the energy business, but that’s actually refining coffee, burning them into energy pellets believe it or not which is a huge business. So my hope right now is to acquire a company. I want to acquire the company, give DNA some assets, give DNA some revenues and when we have that then we can focus on spending some money to relaunch the brand, because even if I were to raise a little bit of money to relaunch the brand, what happens if I have reorders. What happens if Walmart wants to place an order and DNA does not have the resources to fulfill that order. You know it’s putting the cart before the horse.
Vance Question:
Now as you have discussed you have LOIs that are in place as you know and everyone knows they are not binding. So if an agreement of some sort were in place there would most likely already be a signed and notarized acquisition or merger agreement of some sort even if it’s not fully executed. So in regards to this matter, can you say how certain you are, where you are in the stream of time? Do you think this might happen with one or all three of these companies? Are you positive it could, or it will? Where are you at exactly?
Adrian McKenzie:
Well I would like to clarify something. As it stands I am in discussion with three parties. The direction I would like to take DNA is more of a holding company whereby we can acquire revenue generating companies, therefore, we have a lot more flexibility on what we can do. Now to clarify. I do have an LOI but it is not with any of the acquisition candidates. DNA has been offered a multimillion dollar cash equivalent financial instrument to sell the DNA product line. That is who the LOI is with. So I haven’t executed it as of yet. I have it in my back pocket. That instrument if I decide to act on it will be used to put assets back on the books and it will also be used to simultaneously wipe out the creditors and when I say wipe out the creditors I mean off the balance sheet of the company. Creditors will receive the instrument as payment for the money owed to them and simultaneously dramatically reduce the debt on the books… Actually DNA will come out ahead and manage to negotiate a sum greater than the debt.
Vance Question:
That kind of leads into creditors. How many creditors were there. How many creditors are there now that you have to deal with.
Adrian McKenzie:
At the moment when I first took over, there were 6 major creditors. At the moment there are 4. One of them has been satisfied in the sense that he received his stock, and is trading it. So his credit position has been satisfied.
There are 4. There are 2 major funds that if you did your due diligence and I don’t want to mention people's names, but if you do your due diligence and check the filings when the company was a filer, you will see two major funds. The two major funds are still in the company and they are the ones that are actually keeping the company alive, and then two other creditors are private mom and pops that had invested in DNA Brands when it was under prior management, and I am working with them to get them something. Like I said my goal is to make sure the investor gets something back. Right now-you know the situation. I took over quite a workload. So my goal is to just make the investor their monies back.
Vance Question:
Now it looks like a lot of these points have been hit on here. There has been a lot of discussion on the streets about those who want immediate value. Why is it you refuse to sell off the rights to bring some cash value that way.
Adrian McKenzie:
I have the LOI. I can execute it at anytime but I am giving it some time because you know in reality what I would really like to do for the shareholders is I would like to go make my acquisition. I would like to create some revenues. We can launch the energy drink brand again. Therefore we will have 2 revenue streams and like I said I would like to acquire the subsidiaries to have multiple revenue streams.
Vance Question:
At least the LOI’s so you're heading in that direction.
Adrian McKenzie:
Absolutely. Even up until this morning I was in talks with Mexico. In talks with the Mexicans because one of the projects is based in Mexico and it's just a matter of penciling the right deal.
Some people are concerned that I am going to do something with DNA Bands, however, DNA Brands also has $1.6 million dollars of debt on the books. So a lot of companies would not want to inherit that. That’s why we have structured a financial instrument that can release proprietary product in the DNA drinks to a private party. A private party has agreed to put forth the funds to get the band relaunched. So in doing so that instrument will work to satisfy the creditors. Therefore I can make a merger/ make an acquisition and the party coming in won’t be saddled with the $1.6 million dollars on the books that will be hanging over people’s heads.
Vance Question:
In the event there were a post merger agreement and that’s what you are working for, what would your role be in regards to DNA Brands. You would still have a role in that company apparatus correct?
Adrian McKenzie:
At least in the near future. What most companies like to do is in the end take control. So what my role would be would be to guide them in to define their role. To bring in new management and to just point them in the industry.
Vance Question:
Another follow up question is how would the share structure be affected regarding DNAX common stock, preferred classes because it is assumed that ones would have to be created or modified. Is that correct?
Adrian McKenzie:
Stock would have to be created but that’s not a big chore especially with Colorado Corp. Again it is a very point and click thing. If I wanted to create common stock tomorrow I could do it, go to the Secretary of State website and do it. Again like i mentioned, if I wanted to reverse split the stock today I could do it, go to the Secretary of State, point and click and do it. My point being I am not doing that. I would rather see the stock trade here in the sub penny range by fall, all of the investors making money or something back. Have them average out. That would be silly considering certain people’s cost basis. I would like to see the common shareholder make money.
Vance Question:
Rounding this out. If you were to define DNA Brands from this point forward how would you go about doing that.
Adrian McKenzie:
The company needs to find a definite company. If I can take the debt off the books by spinning out the DNA Energy Drink to a company that is going to put forth the resources to get it up and into retail again that would be great. Once I have the debt written off the books, I can make my acquisitions almost immediately that would be great. Not to mention I don’t really want to get into detail about these acquisitions that I am screening are not small. That’s all I will say.
Vance Question:
You're sounding very positive you will accomplish these things. It’s not I think this can happen, I wish it would happen. You're taking definite steps to make this happen.
Adrian McKenzie:
Absolutely. As I said, I already have an LOI to get the debt off the books. That is the hurdle. That is accomplished and done so this is a public forum so it’s public now. But I will put it out in a press release in the coming days or weeks.
Again, it’s a catch 22. I inherited DNA with a lot of bills. Even the press release company is owed money so I need to be sweet to them in order to get my press releases done. I am trying to keep the public informed as much as I can.
Vance Question:
If someone were to say your just putting out fluff news what would you say regarding that? Is it better to put out no news and have everyone wonder what’s going on or is anything actually happening or is it good once in awhile to say hey I am still here. I am still working on this. I am here for you?
Adrian McKenzie:
I don’t believe that. Some people believe in doing nothing. I believe in letting them know. I’m here doing what I’m supposed to be doing and working for my shareholders. If some people don’t like it I’m sorry but it will be that way. You can call it fluff. You can call it an update but I’m going to keep you informed.
DISCLAIMER >
This press release contains statements that are "Forward-Looking" in nature (within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended). All statements regarding the Company's financial position, potential, business strategy, plans and objectives for future operations are Forward-Looking statements. Many of these statements contain words such as "goal," "aims," "may," "expect," "believe," "intend," "anticipate," "estimate," "continue," "would," "exceed," "should," "steady," "plan," "potential," "dramatic," and variations of such words and similar expressions identify Forward-Looking statements, but their absence does not mean that a statement is not a Forward-Looking statement. Because Forward-Looking statements involve future risks and uncertainties, there are many factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. The Company cannot predict the actual effect these factors will have on its results and many of the factors and their effects are beyond the Company's control. Any forward-looking statement made by the Company speaks only as of the date on which it is made. The Company is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any obligation to, update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, subsequent events or otherwise. Given these uncertainties, you should not rely too heavily on these forward-looking statements.
Adrian McKenzie
561 654 5722
www.dnaenergydrink.com