Annual Report is out:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/397773/content

That's interesting.... I read something about MundiPharma 'not being in it for chump change' repeatedly on this board. Appears they weren't really 'in it' at all. Suing an overseas company for breach of contract would take time and effort - not to mention the funds required, which clearly BIEL doesn't have. If the contract were iron-clad that would certainly help. That said, it could take years to sort it all out. Optimistically, perhaps they could arbitrate a quick settlement for some much needed cash. One can hope anyway.

I will be very surprised if he answers that question. Were I in his position, 'we are exploring all options' is all I would reply. Consider that if he admits he will no longer provide funds it could create panic among shareholders. One could conclude a number of negative things about that: (1) he has lost faith in BIEL's ability to keep the doors open; (2) BIEL might not find other sources for funds to continue operations (and I think that is a difficult nut as things stand); (3) he doesn't think it likely he will see a return on future (or past) loans. On the other hand, he puts himself in a tough spot if he says he will continue to fund BIEL, and then changes his mind at some future date.

I think a straight answer either way is injudicious for him and the company. Hope you will be able to share whatever response provided.

The product you reference is not related to BIEL.

BIEL stopped being an SEC registered company years ago. It would be nice if BIEL had continued to file quarterly financial reports. They don't have to, and they no longer do so, which earns them a Pink Limited Information sign on the OTC markets. That's it - there is no punishment or legal recourse or anything else. If BIEL decides not to file the next annual report it will earn a STOP sign, which will further dissuade newcomers from investing. We have to wait to see what happens when the annual report is due next year.

There are many OTC pink sheet companies that continue to operate and trade as Pink Limited, and even with STOP signs, though the latter gets very dicey for investors. I cannot think of a single positive reason for stopping quarterly filings. It could be a cost saving issue, but that isn't a positive development. Investors are now in the dark essentially regarding BIEL's performance. The utter silence since the Synergy deal was announced isn't helpful either. The stock is just churning now, waiting for some solid news, positive or negative.

FYI: This is the BIEL board, NOT the BIEI board.

Oh, the irony.......

Easy: simply request being added as an assistant moderator. If there are openings (I think the max allowed is six), you will likely be added. If the maximum limit has been met, then you are on a waiting list for when someone drops off or is booted.

People can remove themselves as mods, which has happened here in the last few months. If people are inactive as mods, they will drop off after a certain period as well. A mod can get booted for repeated TOS violations, or for manipulating posts by consistently removing posts that do not violate the TOS.

Prior to the new TOS, most post removals were due to personal attacks, duplicate posts, or spam. Now that the restrictions around personal attacks have eased, there are very few posts that are removed. In addition, a person whose post is deleted always has the option to appeal to the paid Admin staff for reinstatement, and Admin staff's word is final. If Admin restores a post (or removes one), an assistant mod cannot undo that.

The CE mark expired because the company neglected to renew it in a timely manner. That is well known to this board; I believe the company admitted the expiration, admitted it was the company's error, and then took steps to renew it. AFAIK, it is currently active. It was something of a big deal at the time, as the company was exploring distribution in countries that required the mark for the product to be sold. It was some time ago, because I believe it happened when Andrew Whelan was still CEO.

BIEL would likely have to do something (or not do something) to earn a STOP sign. If the plan is to report annually and not quarterly, then I would not think a STOP sign would be triggered. I believe this can bounce along for awhile without quarterlies, file the next annual report, and keep on trucking. Sure, lots of other things can happen; just doubtful without another trigger event that BIEL's status changes substantially.

Yes, and there is a way to go yet to get to gray sheet status. I don't foresee that, despite the apparent halt in quarterly financial reporting.

The ins and outs of the daily Reg Sho report, and what it portends, has periodically been discussed on this board. It's significance, or more importantly, its lack thereof, is almost universally misunderstood when it comes to OTC penny and sub-penny stock trading.

There are a number of sites, including SEC and FINRA sites, that are most helpful. The following OTC Markets blog is very good:

https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2023/05/08/what-investors-should-know-about-finra-daily-short-sale-volume-data/

It includes the following:

There is a lot more that gets lost, and misinterpreted, around the daily Reg Sho, which provides about zero prima facie information relative to a sub-penny stock. It's virtually useless as a single indicator of any kind of shorting as is commonly understood in the markets.

Just did not really expect it to drop below .0003; I thought it would bottom there for awhile, as there have always been buyers at these levels. The lack of financials hurt a bit worse than I expected it might.

Nothing necessarily happens, other than it would be nearly impossible to sell one's shares. I think it would take a major event to get to no bid. This looks like some dumping, that's all.

Someone mentioned dilution, but I think the AS count is about maxed out...unless, of course, BIEL share structure has changed since the last released financial report. If it has, it might have shown up in Q2 fins. Were fins not released so this wouldn't have to be made public? Maybe. Were fins not released because sales were utterly abysmal? Maybe. Were fins not released in order to save outside accounting fees? Maybe. Could be a combination of some or all of these, or something else entirely. No way to know with the company completely silent. It's like the Synergy 'deal' - well over a year now and nary a word about it. Like it never happened.

We have seen selling like this before, and at the end of the day, the PPS could be back to .0004, even after touching .0002. If someone is just selling off shares, that is entirely plausible. After all, somebody is clearly happy to buy them.

I think the longer financials remain delinquent, and no word from the company is forthcoming, it becomes more likely the share price hits a lower bottom than .0003/.0004. I think releasing them, no matter how awful, would be a positive. At this point you just have to wait it out - or, like this seller (or sellers) dump and take the loss. Unless I wanted the tax loss, I would be inclined to wait it out.

I know that; glad to be helpful. Would happily update and explain the financial report as well, if BIEL could only release it.

Nearly 100 million shares dumped at .0003. Oof. Looking at .0002's now. Really wasn't expecting that.

Somebody off-loaded 25 million at .0003 this morning. Painful

I periodically go to the BIEL corporate website; took another look today to see if there is anything under 'career opportunities', but it states there are no opportunities at this time. Then again, I don't know how often (if ever) the website is updated, as the last financials reported there are from 2021.

Meanwhile, Kieth Nalepka's LinkedIn profile no longer indicates he is on the BOD of BIEL at the top of his profile as it once did; however, it still indicates he is on the BOD under the 'activity' section. The thing is, if you fail to put an end date on anything showing in the activity section, LinkedIn will consider it current until you apply an end date, if I recall correctly. He may very well still be on the board, but it is very unclear how much work he is doing on behalf of BIEL, if any. He clearly has a new position with another company, which may not take kindly to moonlighting, if that is in fact what is taking place.

Financials would provide some clarity, but no sign of them. I am beginning to think they are not forthcoming, which is surprising since BIEL has been good about providing them previously (even if late periodically).

Doesn't work that way in the OTC with a non-SEC registered company; at least around not filing financials. BIEL has the 'limited info' sign up. Eventually it could become a 'stop sign', but that takes time and continued missed filings. The only consequence for that is it usually scares off prospective investors, and trading skids to a trickle on its own without any formal sanctions.

No matter how bad financials are, better to have them and stay current then leave everyone guessing. The longer they are late, the more speculation ensues. Is it just bad numbers, or something else? Or maybe BIEL just decided to report annually only. Maybe it saves outside accounting fees. We just don't know, and uncertainty isn't a positive.

I wasn't suggesting BIEL do either an R/S or declare bankruptcy; just pointing out that poor cash flow can sink even a profitable company, and profitable companies with negative cash flow have been forced into reorganization to stay in business. Investors wouldn't care for the results of either option at this juncture, but I am not anticipating either to be undertaken.

Again - would be nice to get financials. No quarterly report, and no explanation, does not create positive vibes.

A CPA that goes 'inactive' doesn't really relinquish the CPA designation. An inactive CPA does not have to retake the CPA exam to reactivate the license. I also believe someone can claim having earned the designation even if it is inactive, as long as it's made clear that the status is inactive. Now someone with in inactive status cannot certify financials as a CPA - that has to be done by a CPA with an active designation. That said, BIEL has an external CPA to do that, which is standard practice in most companies regardless of how many active CPAs are on staff in an organization. It's a very common scenario.

All that notwithstanding, it's frustrating to have the financials outstanding at this juncture. BIEL's financials have been traditionally straightforward, and as someone pointed out previously, a good deal of the quarterly report is a cut and paste from the previous quarter. It's sales, profit/loss, and cash flow that are critical and it doesn't (or shouldn't) take much to put that together. We are not talking about a company with multiple subsidiaries or complicated accounting issues, at least historically, and there is nothing to indicate that has changed. It is tempting to conclude BIEL cannot afford to pay and external CPA to sign off, but I cannot imagine things are that bad in terms of cash flow. Then again, it is possible for even a profitable company to require a bankruptcy reorganization due to negative cash flows; though that seems counter-intuitive, it does happen, and BIEL is not a profitable operation.

Getting the fins out - regardless of what they show - would stop speculation and be a positive development. The longer they go unfiled, the more speculation it will drive, and the more negative that speculation will be.

It isn't necessarily that anything in particular happened with regards to Kelly's CPA license being inactive. If a CPA isn't actively a practicing CPA, or actively doing CPA work for a company, they can let their license be parked as inactive. My last firm had a number of executives who started their careers as CPA's within the business but had taken operational leadership roles and were no longer doing accounting related work, so their made their licenses inactive. I believe there are things like continuing education courses required to keep these active, and these individuals didn't have the time or the need to do that. They could always have reactivated them had they so desired. Very common in some industries.

I know of CEO's for companies who were CPAs and had deactivated their licenses. They had entire departments working for them to do that work. In Kelly's case, she isn't working as a CPA, even if she does the 'books' for BIEL, and I believe she gets outside CPAs to prepare the reports. Makes sense in her case.

BIEL stopped being an SEC registered/reporting company a number of years ago. BIEL isn't forced to file quarterly financial reports, though the failure to provide the last report in a timely manner has earned it the 'limited information' tag on the OTC Markets website. Not sure how much impact that has on trading. It might be cautionary to new investors looking to invest in a sub-penny stock, but there are still new investors who might be willing to risk some funds buying shares. Clearly the stock is still trading so there are investors who are not deterred despite the lack of timely financials.

A couple of posters have indicated they expect to see the reports filed eventually. BIEL has never NOT filed a quarterly report so I expect the fins will show up at some point.

Q2 financials were due August 15th.

One box is delivered which contains two sealed packages. Package One is the 7 day trial ActiPatch. Package Two is the 720 hour ActiPatch unit.

Recipient can open the 7 day trial ActiPatch and use the product. If results are not satisfactory, unopened Package Two can be returned for a full refund. If Package Two has been opened, no refund can be obtained. Recipient won't be likely to open Package Two unless the trial verson performs satisfactorily.

It makes sense to me considering there are two separate product items being delivered.

The way I take that is: Use the 7 day trial ActiPatch. If that doesn't work for you, return the ActiPatch 720 for a refund, as long as the ActiPatch 720 box has not been opened. Two separate products in two distinct packages, yes? I think that would cover it.

I see 200K shares traded on the uptick.

Thanks - missed the updates. I hate to see what is devolving here; so much mud-slinging. Perhaps the updates will be helpful. Appreciate the info.

/low bars...fat fingers

Go right ahead, if it pleases you. Did I misplace one? It certainly happens....

Swatting; those are swatting flies.

Look, it's just a funny meme illustrating the Oxford comma, which almost no one uses these days. Just meant to be funny, that's all.

I think you mean picking 'swatting fly' specks out of pepper......

I guess perhaps paying site members were asked. I think I would have asked assistant mods personally, paying or otherwise, but of course it wasn't my call.

Agree completely regarding your additional comments. I rarely look at other forums for the same reasons you mentioned and share your concerns as to the impact of the changes here.

I do not recall seeing the reasons for the TOS changes; I could have missed them, but to my knowledge or recollection I did not see them. I would happily share them if I did know.

To be fair to iHub, I was asked if I had any opinions on the changes, and I would guess perhaps all assistant mods were asked the same. For all I know, others may have been asked as well. Perhaps I was asked as a paying member. To my deep regret I looked them over briefly and did not offer an opinion, so shame on me. My excuse will have to be that I was just too busy with other affairs (both personal and work related).

I agree with your observations. I suspect that the Admins employed by iHub spent a huge amount of time monitoring boards (especially boards that have no assistant mods), and replying to requests for deletions, or responding to requests for restorations of posts. I often wondered how they kept up with the volume, which, as you correctly observe, will be greatly lessened with the new guidelines. The only two things left that took any time are SPAM posts (very few), and duplicate posts (more than SPAM, but not much more). Even items that still go beyond the mud-slinging bounds now allowed are not to be removed by assistant mods but are to be passed over by them to Admin for a ruling. I would likely not even bother doing that, as it requires guessing what exactly goes beyond the pale.

Perhaps more people will join now; the world is full of people who love pissing contest with personally offensive comments that are now allowed. TBH, though, there are many forums already available for that. I preferred this venue specifically because that was not allowed - and yes, the degradation is already evident. I have seen some hilariously witty personal attacks in my time; but what we will likely see is the usual 'asshole/moron/etc.' stuff. I could get that in a third grade classroom.

I might drop Admin a note at some point, but again I was asked prior to the changes, and I didn't offer anything at the time. I certainly didn't read the 'personal attack' section carefully - I just saw there still was one and moved onto something else.

Best Wishes

Much appreciate your proving my point.

Not the case at all actually. Those who posted negative comments may continue to do so just as they have done. The only difference is that responses can now be personal, instead of on-topic.

BTW - the same applies to the endless 'pumpers' who have predicted success (unsuccessfully) for the past 15 years - and they will likely get the same type responses in return.

All this changes is the tone of the conversations.

Nope - not the case.

What will happen, and is already happening, is that a discussion about the stock, its performance, the company, its leadership, or anything else related to BIEL itself, will be answered more often with vituperative insults and name-calling, instead of an even moderately intelligent conversation about the merits of the points presented. This applies to both positive and negative posts.

I mean, if you are happy with responding 'you're an asshole' instead of arguing the merits or demerits of a post, then fine. Seems to be the overall norm today. Sadly, it contributes nothing to the discussion.

Yep - sums it up perfectly.

Yes, the TOS have been modified. Accusations of bashing/pumping, along with name calling, all apparently acceptable now. TBH, I think it's a shame, as we can already see from the degraded tone of conversations. Creates a lot more posts to skip over while people sling OT mud around. To each his or her own I suppose.