Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Wall Street Reporter 12/16/03 on EXTI
"Wall Street Reporter," Dec. 16, 2003. Greg Szabo.
New products. Plus Sybiol and more..in 2004!
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/profiles/ExtenIndustries.html
You need Real Player to hear this interview.
Xenotech in Forum 2/11/04 with Pfizer
Annual Forum on ADME/Tox
February 11 - 12, 2004 Philadelphia, PA Conference Summary
CONFERENCE SUMMARY SPEAKER FACULTY SPONSORS / EXHIBITORS MEDIA PARTNERS REGISTER
"I got a good primer on some of the new thoughts/ideas on safety assessment of drugs."
-- Shripad Bhagwat, Vice President, Drug Discovery, Celgene Signal Research Division
“Congregating researchers and executives with a range of backgrounds and experiences was a very unique benefit of this conference.”
-- Marty Pagel, Senior MRI Spectroscopy, Pharmacia
“A good summary of current methods for metabolism and toxicity prediction by those who use them.”
-- Boyd Steere, Senior Scientist, Simulations Plus
A new report from Frost & Sullivan "World ADME/Tox in Drug Development Markets" reports that revenues in the pharmaceutical industry totaled $1,043 million in 2002 and expect an increase to $2,204 million by 2009. The report highlights the need for improved data to facilitate superior research methods and expects to spur the demand for ADME/Tox in the drug development markets. The report also believes the fragmented nature of the currently available ADME/Tox technologies will move towards being replaced by an all-in-one solution, which in turn attracts heavy investments and better adoption rates.
For over four years CBI has gathered together the industry's leaders in metabolic and toxicological studies to provide attendees with a powerful opportunity to learn implementable strategies, scientific methods and to hear about the successes and failures of the latest technologies and models. CBI's 5th Annual Forum on ADME/Tox, February 11-12, 2004 is a comprehensive program that gives specific ADME/Tox strategies and enhances collaboration between scientists working in drug metabolism and drug toxicity.
Learn from the over 16 industry experts from Abbott Labs, Amgen, Aventis, Cephalon, Eli Lilly & Co., Millennium, National Center for Toxicological Research, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Paradigm Genetics, Pfizer and Xenotech LLC on the new methods and tools you can use to predict drug metabolism and toxicity more quickly to minimize attrition rates.
2004 ADME/Tox Advisory Board:
Jeffrey Waring, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Abbott Laboratories
Kin-Kai Hwang, Ph.D., Director/Senior Scientist, Aventis Pharmaceuticals
James M. Grace, Ph.D., Head, Lead Optimization, Metabolism and ADMET Screening Groups in Discovery Drug Disposition and New Technologies, Eli Lilly and Company
Rakesh Dixit, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Merck & Co.
Sven Beushausen, Ph.D., Associate Director of the Proteomics Center of Expertise,
WorldWide Safety Sciences, Pfizer Inc
exti, I have no pipeline to the company, insider, etc.
You have many good questions and if you care to send an email to EXTI or ask these questions on the RB EXTI thread, I am sure EXTI or posters there can answer them for you. I cannot get into RB right now so I cannot give you the link.
I actually use this thread as a depository of information I had on EXTI. Most of my time spent on IHUB is for fun, not discussing a particular stock in length. If others want to discuss or answer your questions, they are free to do so.
Good luck to both of us and I do understand your concerns. Hope you get your questions answered.
They're working on updating their website now? Says who?
Perhaps they want to keep a low profile? Somehow I don't think
thats a big problem for an OTC stock in the pennies.
Since you have a pipeline to the company ask them this. What
was/is the non-exclusive deal Exten has with Pfizer? What is that
deal worth to shareholders? Very simple question that I can't
find the answer to. Was it per unit? Per year? Multi year? What?
Same thing with XenoTech. I understand the basic 18 million over
7 years minimum. How much per unit? Do they (Xeno/Exten) have
to sell a certain amount of units before Exten recieves
any additional monies from Xeno beyond the 18 mil? What?
Low-key and vague doesn't cut it with most informed investors.
Thanks in advance
Yes, I agree the website needs updates and I understand that they are working on it.
Perhaps they want to keep low key for now with a lot of things.
I have been in this stock for well over 5 years now so I can be patient for another few years as I believe in what the company has to offer.
Just too many things going on with this company for now.
Frustrating? Yes indeed it is. I am sure it will be worth it all next year at this time and in years to come.
I am not a trader at all so the ups and downs of a stock that I have done my DD on mean nothing to me. (do have a watchful eye tho)
Been around to long and I know better. I have a plan and work that plan for my investments in the stock market.
Patience? The parent company of MultiCell
(EXTI) has a website that STILL has the
corp. headquarters in Southern California!
ZERO updates about XenoTech, Roche, PZR etc..
You have to dig through the "news" section?
Whats-up with that?
I would think that updating their friggin website
to reflect 2003 major events would be a start. That
doesn't bode well in the confidence area for me Patricia.
Love MultiCell but those Exten people are big question marks
in my honest opinion. Holding EXTI on a week to week basis.
Patience Grasshopper, Patience
:)
It sure would be nice
to have some news from the parent company of MultiCell (Exten).
Do these guys have a pulse or what?
"Strike while the iron is HOT!"
EXTI patent information
Patent 5,866,420 Artificial liver device
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/neta....
Patent 5,532,156 Hepatocyte cell line derived from the epiblast of pig blastocysts
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/neta....
XenoTech presents 3/24/04 Society of Toxicology Annual
Poster presentation:
THE USE OF IMMORTALIZED HEPATOCYTES IN METABOLISM AND INDUCTION STUDIES
Presenting Author: Kevin C. Lyon [XenoTech]
Poster abstract number 1685
Presentation time: Wednesday, March 24, 2004, 1:30 - 4:30 p.m.
"The Society of Toxicology (SOT) Annual Meeting is the largest toxicology meeting and exhibition in the world, attracting approximately 6,000 scientists from industry, academia, and government. The program includes a plenary and other special lectures, symposia, workshops, roundtable discussions, and platform and poster presentations. The meeting also offers continuing education courses ranging from basic to advanced levels. In addition, the Society presents annual awards to recognize outstanding achievements in toxicology."
Why Attend the Annual Meeting?
Cutting-Edge Science:
The SOT Annual Meeting provides the most comprehensive coverage of toxicology. More than 2,000 abstracts plus more than 60 scientific sessions present the latest in "cutting-edge" research.
Networking:
The SOT Annual Meeting — toxicology's largest meeting — allows you to network with colleagues and leading scientists from around the world.
Booth Number 910
XenoTech, LLC
About Our Company
XenoTech's products and GLP contract services optimize the discovery, development and approval of pharmaceuticals and other xenobiotic products.
We are also pleased to offer *licensing* on a breakthrough technology: immortalized hepatocytes whose function and morphology closely replicates fresh human hepatocytes. This system delivers unmatched convenience and long-term utility, including screening for induction of multiple human CYP enzymes (contract studies are also available).
Booth Number 910
XenoTech, LLC
http://www.toxicology.org/memberservices/meetings/am2004/am.html
Tradetrek analysis of EXTI chart
Shows 5 day forecast with bit of analysis but its' accuracy is unknown
http://www.tradetrek.com/NN/default.asp?symbol=EXTI
Time will tell as is true with so many other stocks.
The one thing I really like is that they are shareholder friendly and they do respond to shareholders questions.
I have researched and then did some more research till I am just about buggy eyed and so far I cannot seem to find anything that makes me uncomfortable with being a shareholder.
Details of New Form 4 Filed By Szabo today.
This details his convertible note exchanged for shares.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811779/000109472203000004/xslF345X02/primary_doc.xml
There is no room for misinterpretation here. Table II is filled out to detail the derivatives portion of the transaction AND there is the following note in the Explanation of Responses section:
1. A convertable promissory note of principle and interest totalling $59,178 was exchanged for Exten Industries Common Stock,at $0.20 per share, totalling 304,589 shares. The loan was given to the Company and promissory note documents executed on August 3, 2001."
It is extremely encouraging to me (and I think it should be to all shareholders) that Exten's management team not only addresses shareholder concerns, but takes action to alleviate them. Too often we invest in companies that have a great product or technology, but have suspect or incompetent management. We are very fortunate that EXTI has both an incredibly promising technology AND a talented (and well-vested) management team at the helm.
Regards,
Rick
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=18316
I believe in MultiCell and its product/s.
Now with that said, the parent company (Exten) is:
1. On the OTC?
2. Has over 100 Million shares issued and climbing?
3. Employee count of less than 20?
Can they (Exten) get a listing on Nasdaq or Amex and come out
of the wilderness in 2004? Get into the black in 2004? Secure partnership agreements with big Pharma's in 2004? Hire quality
people at a fast pace? Buy companies that complement MultiCells products etc.etc.
50/50 chance IMHO
Xenotech deal re $18mil & $800K from Szabo
By: alandail
03 Dec 2003, 09:25 PM EST
Msg. 18206 of 18213
Jump to msg. #
two things from Greg Szabo
1 - the 800k from the last Q is in addition to the $18 million minimum, thus the XenoTech deal is worth a minimum of $18.8 million
2 - The conferences generated 150 leads for XenoTech.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=18206
Email from Szabo re Form 4 and shares
Questions from poster and answer 12/3/03
By: rickj_65
03 Dec 2003, 10:14 PM EST
Msg. 18209 of 18211
(This msg. is a reply to 18106 by stillpursuing.)
Jump to msg. #
Stillpursuing
My last post on the issue as well.
Dear Mr. Szabo,
While I am very happy to read the PR today about insider's exercising and purchasing options, I am confused and concerned as to how the recent SEC Form 4 transactions have been filed if they are to reflect the transactions referred to in the PR.
Previously you had e-mailed me stating that many of the Form 4 stock acquisitions are not actual purchases, but they are stock issued to officers in lieu of cash for services rendered. Operating on your e-mail clarification, the stipulations in the 10K regarding officer compensation, the Form 4s themselves, and my knowledge of how Form 4s are filled out, I assumed that Mr. Newmin's recent transactions were also for services rendered in lieu of cash. Based on this information, I maintained a strong opinion on Raging Bull that these transactions were not purchases or options conversions, but they were stock compensation for services rendered. I know some of the transactions were compensation, but I'm confused as to the nature of the other transactions and am particularly concerned that the SEC Form 4s may not be filled out correctly.
According to the SEC Filing rules Form 4, Page 11 Section 4:
"4. Transactions and Holdings Required to be Reported.
(3) All exercises and conversions of derivative securities, regardless of whether
exempt from Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. Every transaction must be reported even though acquisitions and dispositions are equal. Report total beneficial ownership following the reported transaction(s) for each class of securities in which a transaction was reported."
My questions are as follows:
1) The 11/25 transaction by Mr. Newmin for 636,909 shares with a purchase price of $.10 appear to be either an option conversion or a conversion of convertible debt into shares of stock. If it is a conversion of options, then why wasn't the section Table II (Derivatives) filled out to represent the derivatives conversion?
2) Similarly, the 11/27 transaction by Mr. Newmin for 250,000 shares appears to be an option conversion due to the $.21 share price and subsequent sale of 250,000 shares. Again, if it is a conversion of options, why wasn't Table II Derivatives filled out?
3) What is the nature of the 11/27 transaction by Mr. Newmin for 786,000 shares acquired at $.15? Is this stock acquired from convertible debt?
4) In reference to the transactions stated in your PR today, are there further SEC Form 4's that need to be filed?
I would greatly appreciate your response as I would like to clear up some misinterpretations made both on my part as well as others on the Raging Bull thread. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this.
And his response today:
Mr. *****, we work closely with our SEC attorney to be certain we comply with all rules. Although I don’t remember prior communication, it is a fact that the board, Mr. Newmin, and myself receive stock for all or part of our compensation. Mr Newmin receives, and has never received, any cash for the services he has provided to Exten and its shareholders. He receives periodic stock. These transactions are ALL reported. With reference to the conversions, we report on Form 4 when we receive the stock, not when we agree to convert. I, for example, just received my certificate for the $59,178 loan that I converted. Greg Szabo
Stillpursuing...
When I said I would get back to you, it was because I was awaiting Greg Szabo's response before closing the issue as I still had some unresolved issues (which are still unresolved) and also because I had addressed you separately in my previous attacks to you I wanted to address you separately here. I did not mean to imply any further escalation and it is regretful that you had interpreted it that way.
Egotistical needs notwithstanding, I have no problem with being or admitting when I'm wrong (it certainly happens enough for me to be comfortable with it). However, when you go to the great lengths of due diligence that I often do to get to the truth and have a significant amount of comfort and confidence in that due diligence, it is that same confidence that is not easily shaken. Unfortunately, that degree of confidence can brim into frustration and condescension when challenged.
Ultimately, my research and due diligence regarding the insider transactions proved to be wrong and your assertions regarding the buying and accumulating were correct. The Form 4s in question do not provide the appropriate level of detail to describe the transactions that were clarified in the PR and that is why I wrote Mr. Szabo. The fact that a document which is supposed to be a tool for accurately and verifiably reporting transactions between the company, it's shareholders and the SEC can be interpreted more than one way with a degree of finality is a problem (beyond EXTI) as our vociferous exchanges can attest to. However, I will leave that issue for the company's SEC attorney to grapple with and hope that future Form 4s are clearer for the benefit of all parties involved.
For years I have willingly shared my DD on these boards in an effort to cut through the BS that plagues them in order to help those investors that don't have the time, the patience, nor the resources, but have the same goals. The irony that bothers me is that the attitude and condescension in my posts to you and MyDogBuster are not only an embarrassment, but they are counter-productive to the reasons I post in the first place. I am truly sorry to you and to other posters on this thread who had to read it. I also apologize for discrediting you and implying that you were a hypster. Obviously you are also trying to help investors out with your own perspectives and due diligence. Best of luck moving forward and upward.
My apologies,
Rick
PS - I find it encouraging that the company clarified the insider transactions for everyone via PR. First of all, it shuts up people like me. Secondly, if it were harmfully dilutive, we would've never seen a PR. And more importantly, it clarifies the detail that is not immediately discernable in the SEC filings. I'm not sure how many companies actually do that. I do give this management team an A+.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=18209
Email from Szabo re Authorized Shares 12/03/03
By: ccc343
03 Dec 2003, 04:30 PM EST
Msg. 18195 of 18197
Jump to msg. #
e-mail response from Greg Szabo.......
-----Original Message-----
From: ccc343@[mailto:ccc343@e...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:31 AM
To: info@e...
Subject: Authorized shares
Dear Sir or Madame,
At the close of the last shareholders meeting, the company released
a
PR stating that an additional 100,000,000 shares were authorized by
the
shareholders. I know this generated some dilution concerns, but once
clarification was made as to what the shares were to be used
for(mergers,acquisitions), this concern diminished. The guarantee from
the company not to release these shares into the float has been
honored.
My question is, out of the additional shares authorized, how many
remain available for mergers or acquisitions?
I am not sure if you can legally disclose this information and I
understand completely if you cannot. Thank you in advance for your
response.
Sincerely,
From: Greg Szabo [Add to Address Book]
To: ccc343@
Subject: RE: Authorized shares
Date: Dec 3, 2003 12:22 PM
Mr., the additional shares were needed for mergers, acquisitions
and fundraising. When a public company needs cash, stock is sometimes
the only way to raise money. You may have noticed a recent press
release
talking about debt being converted to equity. These convertible notes
exchange the debt for stock. You do get some dilution but you
dramatically improve the overall position of the company. To answer
your
question, we set aside shares that might be converted for these loans.
Even if all the loans are converted, the majority of the shares are
still available for use.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=18195
Szabo SEC Form 4 12/03/03
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001094722%2D03%2D000004%2Etxt&FilePath....
11/10/2003 12/2/2003 A 304589 A $0.2 1890038 D
Thanks for stopping by. Yes, I know of that site and there are a lot of strong shareholders holding onto their shares for a long time.
They have so much potential and seem to be doing all the right things.
Have a great day.
Hi Patricia,
Exten is also well thought of over at wwwDOTstemcellsclubDOTcom
EXTI is followed closely by a highly educated group on stem cells
and the like. I too believe in the MultiCell products and the
abilities of those products to save the Pharma's time and money.
The timing of the product to the market place could not have
been better either. 2004 will be breath-taking imo.
Old News Articles Archives/EXTI 64 articles
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/PI/search.jhtml?magR=all+magazines&key=Exten+Industries
Old SEC filing, Multicell/Rhode Island Hospital
FORM 8-K/A 11/27/01
Page 12
Multi-Cell Associates, Inc. has an exclusive licensing agreement with Rhode Island Hospital for the use of certain patent technology. The license agreement is effective as long as the Company utilizes the technology. The patents under this license agreement will expire from 2009 through 2020.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811779/000108638001500096/0001086380-01-500096.txt
Upcoming Conferences
Society of Toxicology
March 21 - 25, 2004
Baltimore, MD
Booth 910
Poster presentation:
THE USE OF IMMORTALIZED HEPATOCYTES IN METABOLISM AND INDUCTION STUDIES
Presenting Author: Kevin C. Lyon [XenoTech]
Poster abstract number 1685
Presentation time: Wednesday, March 24, 2004, 1:30 - 4:30 p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------
7th International Conference on Drug-Drug Interactions
June 14 - 16, 2004
San Diego, CA
Go to Institute for Scientific Exchange, Inc.
Presentation by Andrew Parkinson, Ph.D.: [XenoTech]
IMMORTALIZED AND FRESH HUMAN HEPATOCYTES: USE AND PERFORMANCE IN METABOLISM, INDUCTION AND TOXICITY SCREENING
------------------------------------------------------------
7th International ISSX Meeting
August 29 - September 2, 2004
Vancouver, BC, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists
November 7 - 11, 2004
Baltimore, MD
Booth 202
NEWS article EXTI December 2, 2003
Exten Industries Announces $1.1 Million Increase in Shareholders Equity
Tuesday December 2, 8:12 am ET
WARWICK, R.I.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 2, 2003--Exten Industries, Inc. (Exten) (OTCBB:EXTI - News), a company selling liver cells to pharmaceutical companies, today reported that holders of the Company's convertible notes have elected to exchange $902,500 of debt for common stock. In addition, employees and directors of the Company have invested $268,000 to exercise stock options. The combination of note conversions and the exercise of stock options will add over $1.1 million of equity onto the company's balance sheet and will not only ease the debt load but will end the corresponding interest obligations on the notes.
Exten raised $1.7 million over the past two years through the sale of convertible notes in order to finance the acquisition and operations of MultiCell Technologies, Inc., now a wholly owned subsidiary. Note holders, which included officers, directors, and employees of the Company, converted the debt owed to them by the Company into shares of the Company's common stock at conversion prices of $0.10, $0.15 or $0.20 per share, in accordance with the terms of the notes. The stock options were exercised at prices ranging from $0.06 to $0.21 per share.
Mr. Jerry Newmin, Chairman and CEO of Exten, stated, "The note conversions and exercised stock options enable us to free our balance sheet of a majority of our debt and adds additional cash for operations. We expect that other note holders will convert their notes to common stock during 2004. The company now has a comfortable working capital position which will allow us to move some of our other product development programs forward."
About Exten:
Exten Industries, Inc., through its two subsidiaries Xenogenics Corporation and MultiCell Technologies, Inc., is engaged in developing liver-based products in the medical device, therapeutic and pharmaceutical testing arenas. Xenogenics is developing the Sybiol® synthetic bio-liver device. MultiCell provides hepatic (liver) cells and cell lines to pharmaceutical companies, and is developing cell-based toxicological and drug screening tests and biologics for use in diagnostic and therapeutic applications. MultiCell's cellular product expertise also enables production of liver-derived therapeutic proteins. Exten's corporate and research headquarters are in Warwick, Rhode Island. For more information about Exten and its subsidiaries, visit www.exten.com. Information included on the Company's website is not incorporated herein by reference or otherwise.
The matters set forth in this press release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. These risks are detailed from time to time in the Company's periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission including the Company's Annual Report, Quarterly Reports and other periodic filings. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof. The Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update these forward-looking statements.
Final post re Officers' Stocks post #63 explained
by a poster rickj_65 on RB
By: rickj_65
02 Dec 2003, 03:02 AM EST
Msg. 17956 of 17980
(This msg. is a reply to 17778 by mydogbuster.)
Jump to msg. #
Mydogbuster
It is clear from your post that you simply do not have experience in how SEC forms are filed, the various ways in which officers can be compensated in publicly traded companies, and how insider transactions are executed, filed and interpreted. Nor do you understand the implications of the SEC Form 4 on other SEC filings.
More importantly, you obviously have not contacted the company to straighten out your confusion, rather you continue on a misguided assumption. I've contacted the company already and G. Szabo explained how officers are compensated with regard to the Form 4s. I assure you with 100% conviction that if you contact the company and get this clarified for yourself, it will end this issue once and for all. However, I really don't anticipate that you will contact the company out of either laziness or fear of being found wrong.
In any case, I will try to explain this as simply and clearly as possible because I really am getting tired of explaining this concept.
YOU SAID: "Just who is paying the price that is listed on the Form 4."
The company is. The price on the Form 4 is the determinant of how many authorized shares the company takes off the shelf, grants to the officer, and subsequently puts into the float of outstanding shares based on the amount of money they owe that officer for services rendered.
Example: Let's say G. Newmin works 100 hours in October at a rate of $100 per hour (whatever his compensation is). At that rate he is entitled to $10,000 payment for services from the company. The company, not being in a position to pay him cash, pays him common stock (This is specified in all of the 10Qs). Common stock that is taken from the company's pool of authorized shares...currently 200 million. They are not selling or distributing outstanding shares that are part of the float.
The price of the common shares are determined as an average cost of the month in which the services were performed (company policy per G. Szabo). Let's say the average price of EXTI was $.50 in the month where Newmin's services were performed. In order to pay him his due compensation, the company distributes ("sells") 20,000 shares from the pool of remaining authorized shares to G. Szabo. G. Szabo paid for those shares in services, not in cash. The company "bought" G. Szabo's services and paid him in stock.
YOU SAID: "If it's the company then they are not filling out the forms correctly. THESE ARE STOCK OPTIONS. THE PRICE IS PAID BY THE PERSON LISTED ON THE FORM."
No, it is the company and they are filling out the form correctly...and you clearly do not understand how an SEC Form 4 looks like when it is filed for options conversions versus common stock distributions.
Here is an example of an SEC Form 4 with an options conversion.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/894743/000123682503000008/xslF345X02/edgar.xml
Note that both the Common Stock and Derivatives section are filled out completely. In order to convert options and file with the SEC properly, the company must indicate the number of options that have been converted (and that are to be subtracted from the company's total number of outstanding options). In addition, in the same filing, the company has to account for the common stock shares that have been taken off the shelf and that are now part of the float of outstanding shares available on the open market.
In this transaction, the company officer converted 3 separate 5,000 share blocks of options to common stock. He then sold the common stock for $17.9 per share. Note in the Derivatives section the option blocks all are marked with a "D" - meaning disposed. In the Common Stock section, there are 3 separate blocks of 5,000 shares acquired = indicated by "A". Then there is another entry for the 15,000 common stock shares being disposed for $17.90 per share. This is what an option conversion on an SEC Form 4 looks like.
YOU SAID: "THESE ARE STOCK OPTIONS. THE PRICE IS PAID BY THE PERSON LISTED ON THE FORM."
Wrong and wrong again. Call or e-mail the company...you'll be quite surprised.
YOU SAID: "I have never seen stock GIVEN to an employee in any other manner. Free stock is illegal because someone is responsible for the cost."
This explains your confusion and underscores your inexperience with executive compensation and insider transactions. The stock was not given to the employee. It was distributed to the employee as payment in return for services rendered. It was not free, it cost the company shares of their stock...a percentage of ownership and subsequent dilution. The only difference between offering these shares in a private placement versus an employee is that the private placement investors pay money for the stock, the employee pays for the shares in services rendered.
YOU SAID: "This conservation is stupid, mostly on your part."
Now here you're absolutely right. I look more and more foolish the more I try to explain this relatively simple concept.
Again, if after all the explanation and documentation I've provided you still don't get it, CALL THE COMPANY and get it clarified yourself.
I'm done with this issue as I'm weary of explaining it.
Good luck,
Rick
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=17956
TriStem??? EXTI competition?
The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service
Blood could generate body repair kit
19:00 26 November 03
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
A small company in London, UK, claims to have developed a technique that overturns scientific dogma and could revolutionise medicine. It says it can turn ordinary blood into cells capable of regenerating damaged or diseased tissues. This could transform the treatment of everything from heart disease to Parkinson's.
If the company, TriStem, really can do what it says, there would be no need to bother with conventional stem cells, currently one of the hottest fields of research. But its astounding claims have been met with bemusement and disbelief by mainstream researchers.
TriStem has been claiming for years that it can take a half a litre of anyone's blood, extract the white blood cells and make them revert to a "stem-cell-like" state within hours. The cells can be turned into beating heart cells for mending hearts, nerve cells for restoring brains and so on.
The company has now finally provided proof that at least some of its claims might be true. In collaboration with independent researchers in the US, the company has used its technique to turn white blood cells into the blood-generating stem cells found in bone marrow.
When injected into mice, these cells migrated to the bone marrow and generated nearly all the different types of human blood cells, the team will report in the January edition of Current Medical Research and Opinion (vol 20, p 87), a peer-reviewed journal.
Proof required
"I would be extremely sceptical of these findings and would need more proof," says stem cell expert Evan Snyder of the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, California, whose response is typical of many scientists New Scientist contacted.
"I was extremely sceptical," says team member Tim McCaffrey, a cardiovascular researcher at George Washington University in Washington DC, who was asked to evaluate TriStem's claims. "They did it in front of my eyes with my own blood," he says. "It's stunning."
Even if replacing bone marrow is all TriStem's method can achieve, it is still significant. Tens of thousands of people need bone marrow transplants each year. In some cases, doctors already extract stem cells from the blood instead of transplanting bone marrow itself. A donor is given growth factors that make their marrow stem cells proliferate and spill over into the blood, but the procedure takes several days.
TriStem's method might make it possible to obtain vast numbers of blood stem cells in a fraction of the time. "What's radical is the speed and ease with which it works," McCaffrey says.
Much, much more
But the company claims it can do much, much more. Ilham Abuljadayel, the founder of TriStem, says that by adapting standard culturing methods she has managed to turn white blood cells into heart, nerve, bone, cartilage, smooth muscle, liver and pancreatic cells.
TriStem has not yet published results proving all these claims. Since the company has worked only with human cells, it cannot perform what is regarded as the "gold standard" test of stem cells' versatility: inserting them into an embryo to show they can form all the different tissues. But if TriStem's method really can produce a wide range of cells, its potential is huge.
For starters, it would avoid the ethical issues associated with embryonic stem cells, the most versatile kind of stem cell. TriStem's method would also make it easy to treat individuals with their own cells, avoiding any problems with immune rejection. The only way to obtain ESCs that match a patient's own tissues would be therapeutic cloning, yet to be achieved with human cells.
The adult stem cells found in various tissues in the body could also solve both these problems. But there is still much debate about their versatility, and even if some are capable of forming just about any cell type, they are scarce. Extracting and multiplying them is difficult and time-consuming.
In addition, TriStem's claims challenge the scientific dogma that specialised cells cannot revert back to an unspecialised state or be converted from one type to another. Other groups also claim that they can "transdifferentiate" cells (New Scientist print edition, 12 October 2002). But none can do so as swiftly and easily as TriStem.
Killer antibody
Its "miracle" hinges on an antibody manufactured by DakoCytomation of Denmark that is normally used to detect abnormal brain cells. In the early 1990s, while working as a consultant immunologist, Abuljadayel tried to use the antibody to kill leukaemia cells. Instead of dying, the cells altered form and flourished.
Abuljadayel says the antibody binds to a receptor on the cell surface. But how the antibody triggers "retrodifferentiation", if indeed it does, remains to be established. To avoid arguments about whether the cells produced are genuine stem cells, she calls them "stem-cell-like cells".
Abuljadayel applied for a patent on retrodifferentiation in 1994, and in 1999 founded TriStem with the help of her husband, Ghazi Dhoot, then an investment banker. The company has long struggled to convince mainstream scientists that its system works.
Like TriStem, McCaffrey encourages sceptics to try the procedure themselves before condemning it. "I don't think there's voodoo involved, but until a number of people do it, other scientists have every right to be cautious," he says.
For many researchers, alarm bells ring loudest over the failure of TriStem to get such groundbreaking results published in a leading journal. They also ask why Abuljadayel has had no permanent academic position.
Gross mortality
Then there is the question of whether TriStem really has achieved retrodifferentiation. Alexander Medvinsky at the Institute of Stem Cell Research in Edinburgh thinks the antibody might simply kill ordinary white blood cells, leaving stem cells behind.
But McCaffrey rejects this, saying that tests show the white blood cells remain alive. "There is no gross mortality, and the numbers surviving are of the order of 90 to 95 per cent."
Not all researchers are as sceptical. "The results reported here are impressive," says Bob Lanza, chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology of Massachusetts. "If successfully repeated, this process could have broad clinical potential."
TriStem is sufficiently confident that its method works to start human trials. Earlier in November it received permission to carry out a clinical trial of its technology for creating stem cells from blood. Senior government research collaborators in the country hosting the trial have asked for the location to be kept secret for now.
The method will be used to treat a dozen patients with aplastic anaemia, a condition in which people have a severe lack of bone marrow. Abuljadayel plans to treat the patients with blood stem cells derived from tissue-matched donors. "Within a week, we should find if the cells have taken," she says, adding that any improvements in the patients' condition should be immediately noticeable.
The results should be in by the end of March. Watch this space.
Andy Coghlan
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994418
Poster did research and these are his opinions/findings
By: jazzbeerman
30 Nov 2003, 07:14 PM EST
Msg. 17736 of 17815
Jump to msg. #
Tradenride-
Thanks for posting that article, very interesting, and apparently very controversial, but a great read nonetheless. I hope it's for real, it would be a huge benefit to medical science.
Oh- by the way- what does that article or Tristem's tech have to do with immortal metabolic human hepatocyte test kits for pre-clinical drug candidates and drug/drug interactions?
That is what's driving- or will be driving the price of Exten's stock.
One other thing- What does Tristem's science have to do with plentiful immortal hepatocytes that inexpensively pump out fully human proteins for countless lucrative benefits to medical conditions faced by a significant percentage of the world's population?
While I'm thinking about it- What does Tristem's early pre-clinical controversial science have to do with what is considered the most advanced, and most hopeful, patented, artificial liver assist device that already has inroads (and VIP medical advocates)in a multi-billion dollar market at major hospitals accross the US?
Well?
If you supply a good answer/line of logic, I just might keep my eye on Tristem, I mean- are they public?- what is their financial situation? it's truly fascinating stuff. I love reading about that sort of thing. But at this point, I wouldn't throw any money at them, as opposed to exti.
Oh by the way- you're spend way too much time sublty "dis-iing" this company, I don't know why, but for some reason I don't completely trust you.
Nothing personal, you're probably a nice enough guy.
If I were you, as you apparently don't seem to be too gung-ho on the near term future of exti's pps, I'd simply leave, and put my money elsewhere, but for some reason, you don't, and you continue to try to spread some sort of subtle doubt to people. Why is that?
Do you still think exti is going down to 12 1/2 cents sometime soon? That's what you said recently right?
Anyway, if Tristem's phase I data loks good in March '04, that'll be great news. If I could, I might even allocate some dollars to them- if it's public, not already crazily priced, has the kind of world-class caliber management and scientists that exti has, etc., etc. But why should that influence my feelings and investment in exti in the least?
I'd simply have TWO winning companies.. For now, I strongly believe in one of them.
- long and heavy since .20 :)
good luck to you,
j
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=17736
My EXTI Candlestick Analysis site
Candlestick Analysis Friday 11/28/03
Today’s Candlestick Patterns:
Long-Legged Doji
Today a Long-Legged Doji formed. The prices traded well above and below the session’s opening level, but closed virtually even with the open. Be careful, this is a sign of a great amount of volatility and indecision; the current trend may be about to stall!
http://americanbulls.com/StockPage.asp?CompanyTicker=EXTI%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&MarketTicker=OTC%....
When I start checking it daily, I will see if it gives analysis at the end of each day or if it is a previous day analysis.
Not Updated
since 11/28/2003 Okay, this is Fridays analysis per site that I copied and pasted what they showed at this moment.
How accurate their analysis is???? I do not know. I will try to copy and paste it each day and then look at a weekly chart after 7 days and see if I can learn it this way.
Continued posts re Officers' Stocks post #61
By: rickj_65
30 Nov 2003, 02:12 PM EST
Msg. 17704 of 17706
(This msg. is a reply to 17674 by stillpursuing.)
Jump to msg. #
Stillpursuing
I must apologize for breaking the news to you that your recent comments regarding insider transactions can be interpreted as misleading to investors here. What I should've said simply is "you are wrong." However, because you posted excitedly (some call that hype...ESPECIALLY WHEN USING CAPS) that the officers are BUYING and ACCUMULATING stock, when they are merely being compensated for services in stock, I believe that qualifies as being misleading...albeit unintentionally. Accumulating - yes; receiving compensation - yes; buying - no.
Having clarified that, I want to thank you for your advice, but personally I will "read up on my stock options as compensation" when they apply to the discussion at hand. And I assure you, I doubt there are many on this thread who have read the SEC filings on this company as many times or as thoroughly as myself.
Perhaps you could help me out and please point me to the SEC filing which indicates that these Form 4s are stock options? In fact, don't waste your time because they're not there. You see, this is where I DID read "stock options as compensation." If the filings did apply to stock options, you'd see the "derivatives" section of the Form 4 filled out appropriately. More on that here...
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=12276
The transactions in question are common stock acquisitions (a misnomer IMO) where common stock is taken from the company's outstanding shares not on the market, granted to the officers as part of their compensation as specified in the SEC filings, and they now comprise part of the float on the market. This is very, very different from an officer of a company taking his own cash and buying outstanding shares from the float - thus decreasing the theoretical size of the float and also adding the boost to investor confidence. This is what I believe you are implying in your posts when you post in caps that the officers are "BUYING and ACCUMULATING" and that is why I'm spending this energy correcting you.
In my e-mail to Greg Szabo, I asked him to clarify to me where the provision was that called for a $.07/share purchase price because I couldn't find a warrant or option provision that called for that price (note again - there is none) and the common stock at the time was trading for around $.30.
I had asked how officers could purchase stock at such a discount and that is where his comment "He was not given stock at a discount as the stock was trading at this price at the time" applies. For the transaction in question the price was $.07 which corresponds to the historical stock price in June-Aug.
If you still don't believe that you've misinterpreted the transactions, this is what you should do for your benefit as well as others on the board who you've unintentionally confused or possibly misled...
Call or write Greg Szabo and ask these questions...
1) Were the recent Form 4 transactions related to officer compensation in the form of stock options? (His answer will be "No")
2) Were the recent Form 4 transactions related to officer compensation in the form of common stock? (His answer will be "Yes").
3) Did the officer purchase this stock on the open market? (His answer will be "No")
4) Did the officer receive these shares from the company in lieu of compensation for past services performed? (His answer will be yes).
5) Do you think it is correct to characterize these transactions as purchases? (I'll be interested in hearing his answer to that one).
Then forward this post to him and ask him to tell you where I've misstated or misinterpreted any fact.
As I stated previously, it appears to come down to semantics. You believe that these transactions qualify as insider "buys". I personally do not believe being compensated for services in common stock qualifies as a "buy". A purchase is a financial transaction that I do by exercising a choice. The officers do not have this choice. It's not like the officers are given a wad of cash and have the choice to either bank the money for personal use or purchase more company stock. These are transactions that are going to take place with the officers continously because that's the way they are compensated. It is no more or less bullish an event than any previous or future Form 4 filing of like transactions. And that is precisely why I feel posting that the officers are buying the stock is not only wrong, but misleading.
Regards,
Rick
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=17704
By: rickj_65
30 Nov 2003, 02:15 PM EST
Msg. 17705 of 17706
(This msg. is a reply to 17704 by rickj_65.)
Jump to msg. #
Stillpursuing - Another thing
If you should happen to e-mail Greg Szabo, please CC me on it...datascope@att.net.
If I am wrong you will get the most sincere apology from me on this board. And if you are wrong, I won't say a thing.
Regards,
Rick
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=17705
EDIT: I will update this information as it is clarified from the RB posts
Dr. Maggio speaks!
"Our next guest is Dr. Edward Maggio, CEO of Cengent Therapeutics, headquartered in San Diego, CA. Cengent Therapeutics is a structure-guided drug discovery company utilizing integrated, proprietary computational and experimental technologies to accelerate and optimize drug discovery. Cengent was formed following the synergistic merger of Structural Bioinformatics, Inc. and GeneFormatics, Inc., both leaders in structure-driven drug discovery. Cengent provides the most comprehensive suite of structural services and capabilities for accelerating and optimizing drug discovery from target identification, structure determination, and lead generation to lead optimization and preclinical development. Cengent currently has four preclinical programs in obesity/diabetes, anti-infectives, oncology, and inflammation. The company has raised over $90 million to date from investors."
If the speaker icon doesn't respond then I recommend right-clicking it and selecting "save target as". Save it and try opening that. That's the only way I could get it to run.
http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=480
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=17671
By: maxleverage
30 Nov 2003, 12:35 PM EST
Msg. 17673 of 17701
Jump to msg. #
Maggio says Cengent has/will have a tool that can predict, with over 91% accuracy, whether a breast cancer tumor will reappear within 5 years. Heard that on the interview. eom
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=17673
Interesting post/Officers' Stocks
By: rickj_65
30 Nov 2003, 12:12 PM EST
Msg. 17667 of 17693
(This msg. is a reply to 17657 by stillpursuing.)
Jump to msg. #
Stillpursuing/WestEffer et al
How many times do we have to revisit this topic?
The shares being reported by officers in the recent SEC Form 4s are NOT purchases. The officers are not buying the stock...they are granted the stock as compensation for services performed. Please refer to page 11 of the most recent 10Q...
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811779/000108638003000061/extq0803.htm
"Even with the new agreement with XenoTech, we have operated and will continue to operate by minimizing expenses. The largest expenses relate to personnel and to meeting the legal and reporting requirements of being a public company. By utilizing consultants whenever possible, and asking employees to manage multiple responsibilities, operating costs are kept low. Additionally, a number of employees and the board of directors receive company stock in lieu of cash as part of their compensation to help in the effort to minimize monthly cash flow."
Also please refer to this e-mail from G. Szabo to myself...
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=6464
"Thank you for your interest in Exten. Mr. Newmin, along with myself, our Board members, and some of our consultants are paid in stock instead of cash for some or all of their services. This is of great benefit to the company. Mr. Newmin in particular takes no cash and never has for all of the services he provides. We accumulate the stock that is earned by all and then a board resolution must approve its issuance. In this case that you reference, the stock was issued for services in June, July and August. He was not given stock at a discount as the stock was trading at this price at the time."
Stillpursuing - one can certainly spin this by saying the majority of the officer's compensation go into company stock, therefore its like he's getting his paycheck and immediately buying more stock. That's one way of looking at it. However, if you state that they are "purchasing" or "buying" stock, you are misleading investors on this thread. The officers are being compensated in stock...nothing more, nothing less.
Westeffer - When the company is in a financial position to compensate officers in cash, I'm sure they will. In the meantime, the company needs the services of these people. They have to be paid in some way for their services, right? OK, EXTI can either pay them in stock...whereby the stock is continued to be held by insiders. Or, EXTI can raise cash by offering private placements which also dilute the stock. However, the stock is no longer in insider's hands...they are in private placement financier's hands. Until Exten's revenues are such that they can begin paying officer's compensation AND use cash to bring their products to market, if you can come up with another method where the company can get the cash from I'm sure the company would love to hear it. In the meantime, I am grateful that the company keeps their shares in the family so to speak.
Regards,
Rick
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=17667
Szabo/Newmin EXTI stock purchases
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/60/1545.html
October 21, 2003 Greg szabo acquired 202,700 shares at an executed price of .07 per/share.
Total shares held by Szabo....1,585,000
Total shares held by Gerald Newmin.....14,166,800
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=17642
3 Acquisitions since October 2,2003 for a total of
2,000,000+ shares. These were PAID for. Acquisition price for the 300k+ shares on October 2,2003 was .07 per/share...total cost $24,000.
On 11/07/2003....1,300,300 shares acquired at an executed price between .15 and .21 per/share.
On 11/25/2003... 741,500 shares acquired at an executed price between .10 and .67 per/share.
On 11/07/2003 250,00 shares sold at an executed price of .45 per/share. Total proceeds of $112,000.
Net shares acquired since October 2, 2003 after the sale on 11/07/2003 was OVER 1.8 million shares that he held and did not sell!
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/68/858.html
Thanks for stopping by. I noticed you had EXTI there.
Hello All,
Just thought I should stop by and introduce myself...
Recently, I started a "virtual" stock fund called the Contax's Five & Dime and a Couple of $$ Too Investment Fund! (CFDTDF) here on iHub. One of the Fund's holdings is EXTI.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=2082
Please stop by, if and when you get a chance, and say hello...
Cheers!
contax
EXTI Market Makers
http://otcbb.com/asp/tradeact_mml.asp?searchfor=EXTI&searchby=i
Market Maker List
EXTI EXTEN INDUSTRIES INC Download All Page of 1
November 28, 2003
MPID Market Maker Name MP Quote Status Trade Halt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total MPID Count: 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGIS AEGIS CAPITAL CORP. Active
BAMM BROKERAGEAMERICA, LLC Active
BKST BROOKSTREET SECURITIES CORPORATION Active
BMIC BILTMORE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Active
CAPT D.C. CAPITAL, LLC Active
CRWN CROWN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. Active
DATA Track - ECN (DATA) Excused
DOMS DOMESTIC SECURITIES, INC. Active
FRAN WM. V. FRANKEL & CO., INCORPORATED Active
GNET ARCHIPELAGO TRADING SERVICES, INC. Excused
GVRC GVR COMPANY LLC Active
HILL HILL THOMPSON MAGID, L.P. Active
JEFF JEFFERIES & COMPANY, INC. Active
JRZY JERSEY SHORE TRADING GROUP INC. Active
MAXM MAXIM GROUP LLC Active
MAYF MAY FINANCIAL CORPORATION/SPECIAL ACCOUNT Active
MLCO MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED Active
NAIB GLOBAL PARTNERS SECURITIES INC. Active
NATL NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION Active
NITE KNIGHT EQUITY MARKETS, L.P. Active
PERT PERSHING TRADING COMPANY, L.P. Active
QUIN PARK FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. Active
SACM STERNE AGEE CAPITAL MARKETS, INC. Active
SCHB SCHWAB CAPITAL MARKETS L.P. Active
SEAB SEABOARD SECURITIES, INC. Active
TDCM TD WATERHOUSE CAPITAL MARKETS, INC. Active
TRAC Track ECN Excused
VFIN VFINANCE INVESTMENTS, INC Active
VIEW VIEWTRADE SECURITIES, INC. Active
WIEN WIEN SECURITIES CORP. Active
Monthly Share Volume Report EXTI/Oct
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/tradeact_mv.asp?SearchBy=issue&Issue=exti&SortBy=volume&Month=1....
November 29, 2003
EXTI - EXTEN INDUSTRIES INC
Total Share Volume 43,111,849
This might be a list of the shortsellers but I am not sure. Anyone?
Newmin shares Form 4 (corrected post)
Common Stock 11/25/2003 11/26/2003 A 636909 A $0.1 14212270 D
Common Stock 11/25/2003 11/26/2003 A 29606 A $0.57 14241876 D
common stock 11/25/2003 11/26/2003 G 75000 A $0.67 14166876 D
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001020908%2D03%2D000004%2Etxt&FilePath....
Sorry for error in previous post.
Gerald Newmin files Form4 11/26/03 buys EXTI stock
common stock 11/25/2003 11/26/2003 G 75000 A $0.67 14166876 D
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001020908%2D03%2D000004%2Etxt&FilePath....
Gerald W. Newmin chariman & CEO
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. Amber L. Morris, Emron Awwal and Karl Bruce Frank,
Fa2N-4 cells performed much like fresh human hepatocytes. These immortalized cells have potential for use as an alternative to primary human liver tissue for In Vitro Induction Studies.
Ronald Faris, Ph.D., CSO, MultiCell Technologies, Inc. We believe that MultiCell’s liver cell lines will rapidly become the gold standard throughout the pharmaceutical industry for testing of new drugs,” Faris said. “Our customers have been very pleased with the initial deliveries and we expect to see a ramp up of revenues as our cell lines become more integrated into their drug discovery processes.”
Edward T. Maggio, Ph.D, CEO, Cengent Therapeutics Inc.
This technology promises to increase the efficiency of drug discovery and save many millions of dollars by reducing the ultimate failure rate in clinical trials, benefiting both drug companies and consumers alike.”
Dr. Andrew Parkinson, CEO, XenoTech LLC
“MCT’s cell lines represent a breakthrough technology that has the potential to revolutionize how the pharmaceutical industry screens new drug entities, we anticipate significant worldwide interest in MCT’s cell lines.”
J.B. Mills, and S. .M. de Morais, Pfizer Global Research & Development
We investigated the use of a novel human hepatocyte clone [Fa2N-4] as an alternative reagent, which is readily available and provides a consistent, reproducible system.
These data show that use of Fa2N-4 cells in conjunction with the Invader® technology is a potential high-throughput in-vitro method for assessment of induction of ADMET targets.
Ann Randolph, Managing Director of BIOCOM (1993-1999)
“Exten is one of the most exciting companies I have seen. MultiCell’s immortalized liver cell technology platform offers enormous potential in a variety of critical markets. This company should grow rapidly and I am happy to be a part of this fine organization.”
Jerry Newmin, CEO, Exten Industries
“We are confident that sales in even a small percent of the drug discovery and toxicology testing arena will contribute significant revenues.
Dr. Parkinsons' words in news article 10/30/03
XenoTech Founder and CEO, Dr. Andrew Parkinson, states, "Our characterization studies corroborate and extend the earlier findings of MultiCell and Pfizer scientists presented at the 2002 ISSX meeting. Our results show that MCT's immortalized hepatocytes retain several functional drug metabolizing enzymes that previously had not been studied." Dr. Parkinson adds, "MCT's cell lines represent a breakthrough technology that has the potential to revolutionize how the pharmaceutical industry screens new drug entities, we anticipate significant worldwide interest in MCT's cell lines."
Qustion and Answer re Pfizer
from rb thread
By: Dr.Hill
22 Aug 2003, 10:45 PM EDT
Msg. 5700 of 17331
Jump to msg. #
Brasfield, a question.
i have been a holder of this stock for over 5 years..i was there when it went to 1.26 one day,, all on the promise of the liver device.. I am very glad to see that the company has morphed and developed a product that could potentially be huge, important products.. One thing that I am amazed about is that the company did not release a PR to announce that it had signed a 15 YEAR Licence agreement with Pfizer for its liver cells.. It did announce the original study, for which it received payment,, but why no mention of a 15 year agreement, which in my mind is huge news,, and a true sign that the technology is meaningful. I can understand that maybe it was not that material,, but i would think at this stage anything with EXTI should be considered material.. Any idea why no mention of this agreement,, except hidden in some SEC filings,, this could have gotten lots of new investors interested, and given the company better visibility in the market. thanks for any opinion,
Dr. Hill
By: missydook
24 Aug 2003, 07:14 PM EDT
Msg. 5703 of 17331
(This msg. is a reply to 5700 by Dr.Hill.)
Jump to msg. #
Dr. Hill
I did not have the time to go back and research the news releases but a few of them mentioned that MultiCell is doing business with "other Major Pharma Companies". I also inquired about this and was informed that Pfizer and other Companies wanted the fact that they are doing business with MultiCell kept confidential. The reason Pfizer showed up in the 10Q and 10K was the fact that it was a significant event and had to be disclosed in their SEC filings. These big Pharma Companies hold things very close to the vest and are not interested in helping a BB Company move its stock price.
News 2/3/03 MultiCell Technologies Signs License Agreement
with Major Pharmaceutical Company
Monday February 3, 8:05 am ET
WARWICK, R.I.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 3, 2003--Exten Industries Inc. (Exten) (OTCBB:EXTI - News) announced today that its wholly owned subsidiary, MultiCell Technologies Inc. (MultiCell), a liver cell engineering and research organization in Warwick, has just signed a nonexclusive license agreement with a major pharmaceutical company.
Under terms of the agreement, the pharmaceutical company may use two of MultiCell's proprietary liver cell lines for a variety of internal research programs for 15 years in exchange for an undisclosed amount and periodic renewal fees.
"Our cells may profoundly impact the drug discovery paradigm," stated Greg Szabo, acting CEO of MultiCell. "We envision that the cell lines we provide will facilitate early identification of potentially harmful side effects such as drug-drug interactions. We believe that many other pharmaceutical companies can benefit from our technology."
Ron Faris, president and CSO of MultiCell, commented, "The Company is pleased to conclude this agreement. We feel that our technology will provide the pharmaceutical industry with a unique and valuable tool for drug discovery. Ultimately, our technology may lead to vastly more efficient and cost-effective development of new drugs."
Exten Industries Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and commercializes biotechnology-based products and medical devices. MultiCell is dedicated to the development and commercialization of hepatic (liver) cells, cell lines, and biologics for use in diagnostic and therapeutic applications. In addition to selling hepatocytes to the pharmaceutical industry, the company will develop cell-based toxicological and drug screening tests. MultiCell's cellular products will also enable production of liver-derived therapeutic proteins.
Past news and more information are available on Exten's Web site, http://www.exten.com.
The matters set forth in this press release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. These risks are detailed from time to time in the Company's periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission including the Company's Annual Report, Quarterly Reports and other periodic filings. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof. The Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update these forward-looking statements
Newmin/email..did not exercise options/Form 4
as explained by rb poster
By: rickj_65
08 Nov 2003, 10:38 AM EST
Msg. 12276 of 17310
(This msg. is a reply to 12249 by tradenride.)
Jump to msg. #
TradenRide - Newmin did NOT exercise any options
You're missing my point.
I am clarifying Mr. Newmin's transaction because these transactions by EXTI have been misinterpreted and misrepresented by posters who do not exercise proper due diligence and jump to incorrect conclusions.
Again, Newmin DID NOT exercise any options. He simply monetized common stock which was granted to him from EXTI as compensation for employment/consulting services in lieu of salary. This process occurs and will probably continue to occur with officers and certain consultants until EXTI has enough positive cash flow to pay regular (and well-deserved IMO) salaries.
Newmin's Form 4 only indicates common stock acquisition and disposals and adjustments to total COMMON stock. There is NO activity in the derivatives section of the Form 4 (which there would be if any transaction related to options occurred).
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811779/000102090803000003/xslF345X02/primary_doc.xml
If Newmin were exercising options, there would be transactions listed in the Derivatives section of Form 4.
For example:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/894743/000123682503000008/xslF345X02/edgar.xml
The $.15 and $.21 acquisition prices (which is a misnomer given the nature of this particular transaction) are what the price of the common stock was at the time the services were performed and compensation determined...probably for services rendered in September and October (as previously explained in this e-mail from Greg Szabo to myself from last month)...
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EXTI&read=6464
By: rickj_65
10 Oct 2003, 12:18 PM EDT
Msg. 6464 of 17311
Jump to msg. #
E-mail clarification from G. Szabo on recent SEC Filing by G. Newmin:
I had asked Investor Relations (Greg Szabo) the nature of the Mr. Newmin's recently filed purchase of 343,000 shares at $.07 since I couldn't find a warrant or option provision in the SEC filings that fit the particulars of the purchase.
Response From Greg Szabo:
"Thank you for your interest in Exten. Mr. Newmin, along with myself, our Board members, and some of our consultants are paid in stock instead of cash for some or all of their services. This is of great benefit to the company. Mr. Newmin in particular takes no cash and never has for all of the services he provides. We accumulate the stock that is earned by all and then a board resolution must approve its issuance. In this case that you reference, the stock was issued for services in June, July and August. He was not given stock at a discount as the stock was trading at this price at the time.
I hope this answers your question.
Greg Szabo"
FWIW, I asked his permission to post his clarification in this forum.
Regards,
Rick
Revenue Question and Answer
from Yahoo board post #511
From: Alan Dail
Date: Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [EXTIhead] New poster revenue question.
John,
My understanding is this:
EXTI has received a total of $1.5 million from XenoTech. Of this,
$800k was for the right to negotiate distribution rights for
therapeutic proteins and is being recognized over 7 years. Part or all
of the rest was for prepayments of a portion of the first period
minimum royalties. The word portion is key here too - some royalties
were prepaid, with royalty payments yet to come.
Alan
On Nov 22, 2003, at 2:00 PM, jsd726 wrote:
> I have only been following this company since it signed the
> agreement with Xenotech, LLC in August. I have purchased from .12
> on up and then back down again. I now have a decent size investment
> in this company. I very much appreciate all of the research and
> technical analysis on Webby's sight,on this board, and prior to this
> board, on the raging bull board.
>
> My revenue question comes from the 10QSB issued on 10/17/2003. The
> paragraph that I am referring to is under the notes to the financial
> statements - Note 2 Revenue Recognition:
>
> "The Company received an $800,000 payment as part of the agreement
> with Xenotech during the quarter. This is a non-refundable payment
> for the right to negotiate with Nosan Inc. for distribution rights
> in the Asian Pacific Rim for therapeutic proteins should they be
> developed. The Company has agreed to negotiate in good faith for
> the rights over a ninety day period. Management cannot estimate the
> exact time it will take to develop these proteins and begin the
> negotiations with Nosan. Therefore, the Company has chosen to
> regognize these revenues over a life of the Xenotech Agreement which
> is seven years. The royalty prepayment associated with this
> agreement, which is part of the first period minimum, will be
> recognized over the first period of the contract, which is sixteen
> months from the date it was signed."
>
> I'm not sure if this is just a poorly written paragraph or I'm just
> struggling with it. I believe, as Alan stated, that this $800,000
> is in addition to the $18m minimum royalty agreement. This
> paragraph states that this revenue will be recognized "over a(?)
> life of the Xenotech Agreement which is seven years." The last
> sentence states, however, that it is a royalty prepayment and is
> part of the first period minimum, which will be recognized over the
> first period of the contract, which is sixteen months from the date
> that it was signed.
>
> The body of the financial statements show that $100,000 of this
> payment is recorded as revenue and the other $700,000 is recorded as
> deferred revenue. This, to me, indicates that the $800,000 will be
> recorded as revenue over 16 months and that the agreement was signed
> in July of 2003.
>
> I bring this up because I believe that the minimum revenue recorded
> for the quarter ending November 30, 2003 will be $642,287($18m
> divided by 7 years, divided by 4 quarters) plus $150,000($800,000
> divided by 16 months times 3).
>
> The unknown, for the current quarter, is what the expenses will be.
> I do believe that the company will show a profit for the current
> quarter of between $300,000 and $500,000. A profit of $400,000
> would yield an EPS of 1.5 cents.
>
> Other than this company, I have zero experience with penny stocks,
> however I believe that a profitable company with growth potential is
> worth much more than the current market cap.
>
> I would apprecaite any comments/rebuttals, and thanks again for all
> of the great posts.
>
> John
OT: but in the same sector.Eli Lilly to Acquire Small Biotech
By TSC Staff
11/21/2003 03:39 PM EST
Eli Lilly (LLY:NYSE - commentary - research) on Friday said it will
acquire Applied Molecular Evolution (AMEV:Nasdaq - commentary -
research) for $400 million, or $18 a share, in cash and stock.
Lilly is paying a 53% premium, based on Applied Molecular Evolution's
closing share price Thursday. Applied Molecular shares surged $5.93,
or 50%, to $17.69 on the news. Lilly shares fell $1.31, or 1.8%, to
$70.23, off their recent 52-week high.
"We are confident that the synergies this merger creates will
accelerate our ability to discover and optimize biotherapeutic drugs
for cancer, inflammatory diseases, and critical care, as well as
diabetes and obesity," Lilly said in a statement.
Applied Molecular Evolution is an unprofitable biotech firm based in
San Diego. It lost $17.4 million, or 82 cents a share, on revenue of
$7.9 million in 2002. In the first half of 2003, it lost $14 million,
or 62 cents a share, on sales of $6.1 million. The Thomson First Call
census is for a loss of 22 cents a share in the current quarter,
ending in December.
Lilly's profits have dropped in the past two years and are expected
to fall again in 2003.
Indianapolis-based Lilly said the deal will close sometime in the
first quarter of 2004 and result in a "significant one-time charge."
HPLF. Competition? No way per this post #654 from Yahoo
From: Donald
Date: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:57 am
Subject: Re: [EXTIhead] Don't be concerned about HepaLife - HPLF
Case Closed!!! Thanks.
DS
justskweeznbuy <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
For those that may be concerned about HepaLife, read this....
A link to this doc is at the bottom of the page.
Later...!
Skw*e~e*znbuy
October 10, 2003
Stocklemon Reports on Hepalife (HPLF) and Patriot Gold (PGOL)
Hide Your Wallets….It's Scott Fraser Time Again….This time he is
giving out a 2 for 1 special.
Scott Fraser might be the most indecent newsletter writer in the
history of stock promotions. This month Mr. Fraser has crossed the
line as he has issued two reports just as the ink is drying on the
Securities and Exchange Commission instituted Cease and Desist
order. On September 25, 2003, the SEC released order on Scott Fraser
and the Natural Contrarian. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-
48544.htm
Here are some of the tidbits of the SEC order
"Between August 2001 and November 2001, Fraser wrote and disseminated
five materially false and misleading statements"
"Fraser made false and misleading statements concerning the purported
returns of his past stock recommendations in solicitation materials"
"False and Misleading Statement Relating to the Financial Success of
Subscribers to the Newsletter"
Ok, we admit, knocking Scott Fraser's stocks is too easy. During the
past 18 months Stocklemon has profiled 3 stocks covered by Scott
Fraser: EYPSF, SBSF, and AOGI. Since Stocklemon profiled these
Fraser stocks, they are down an average of 75%. Please see the
Stocklemon archives for the stories.
Let us not forget that in 2003 Fraser also recommended ZLNK at $1..
currently trading at .21 cents and EDGH was recommended at .85 cents …
currently trading at .22
This month, Scott Fraser brings us two stocks: Patriot Gold (PGOL)
and Hepalife (HPLF). Stocklemon has the physical mailed reports
mailed by Fraser on each company and Fraser calls each one of these
stocks his best stock pick of the year. Instead of reviewing
Fraser's reports, which are riddled with lies and exaggerations….yes
we said LIES, Stocklemon will go show why each company is a lemon.
Thank you Scott for the 2 for 1 special. We will be sure to send you
cigarettes if the government ever sends you to jail.
Hepalife (HPLF)
Shares Outstanding- 53,613,332
Market Capitalization- $140,000,000
Cash in Bank- $63,000
Hepalife is a company that is supposed to discover the artificial
liver… with $63k in the bank. Scott Fraser was given a budget of
over $300k to promote Hepalife in his newsletter.
Hepalife is the latest deal by Vancouver Stock Promoter Harmel
Rayat. Mr. Rayat is the majority shareholder of Hepalife. Who is
Mr. Rayat? Ask the Securites and Exchange Commission.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16662.htm.
HE IS A STOCK PROMOTER
As a matter of fact, the offices of Hepalife are the same offices as
were those for EquityAlert.com, Mr. Rayat's promotion company.
For that matter, the offices of Hepalife are shared with four other
companies that Harmel Rayat controls. Let's see how these companies
are doing so we can guess the fate of HPLF. All of the below
companies share the same small office with Hepalife at 1628 West 1st
Avenue, Suite 216 Vancouver, CA.
ETHO- .25
ETPT- .24
EDAN- .25
IPTH- .0001
Rayat and family print more paper (to themselves) than the New York
Times…or in his case the Vancouver Sun. Mr. Rayat has issued himself
and his family TENS of MILLION of S-8 shares of HPLF, options and
warrants at an average of $0.07
Who is the new President/CEO?
On September 23, 2003 Hepalife announced that Mr. Arian Soheili is
the new President/CEO of Hepalife. Is he a researcher? Is he a
Doctor? Is he a liver specialist? No, he is a front man for Harmel
Rayat.
Mr. Soheili used to be the treasurer, secretary, and director of
Biommune (BIMM)…now trading at .0001. The Rayat family were major
shareholders in Biommune. And in order to keep the streak going,
Biommune had a dubious history with the SEC for putting out false
news to the public.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-43246.htm
Company Fundamentals
Hepalife has committed $292,727, over the course of 2 years, to the
Dept of Agriculture for a 2 year collaborative research agreement.
They only had to put up $97k upon signing of the agreement.
Hepalife does not own any technology. This $297k is the total amount
that they must provide for the next two years. How much research can
really be done for that amount of money? They have not even tested
this on animals yet.
More importantly, artificial liver research is currently being
performed by well funded organizations and universities throughout
the world. No stock promotion, no newsletters, no SEC violations,
just real research. Here is a sample list of some research that is
years and millions of dollars ahead of Hepalife.
University of Michigan
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0102/Sep23_02/liver.html
University of Pittsburgh
http://newsbureau.upmc.com/TX/ArtificialLiverTesting.htm
University of Chicago
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990406044124.htm
Glasgow's Strathclyde University
http://www.pbcfoundation.com/research.htm
Nagasaki University School of Medicine
http://www.japantoday.com/gidx/news166708.html
Stocklemon believes that Hepalife is a classic pump and dump that is
being orchestrated by a team that is more than familiar with SEC
violations. Buyer Beware.
Patriot Gold (PGOL)
The second of the Scott Fraser promotions this month is Patriot
Gold. Fraser was given a budget of $416,676 to produce this puff
piece for Patriot Gold. Again, the report is riddled with lies about
Fraser and his performance. It is so bad that even CBS Marketwatch
wrote about the lies that Fraser tells.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?
source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%
7B032B2ABE%2DE27E%2D4BFD%2DA358%2D4
ACFA5CEDE3D%7D
15.8 million shares outstanding (not including the 13.5 million
preferred shares or the 1.4 million warrants)
Market Cap.- $22 million (not including preferred)
Amount paid for mining rights- $12,500
How do you turn $12,500 into $22 million? Just hire Scott (the liar)
Fraser. Pay him half million dollars to write a report and watch the
magic happen.
Patriot Gold used to be in the business of Ostrich Farming until they
ran out of money. But then the management figured why deal with
Ostriches when we can deal with gold. Here is a brief timeline of
the events in Patriot Gold.
5/1/01 Out of the ostrich business because they did not have any
money to continue.
10/20/02 Bruce Johnstone appointed officer and director
10/31/02 The two other directors (Manfred Shultz and Gerald Hinkley)
resign as officers and directors of the
company.
5/30/03 S-8 filed for 335,000 shares pre-split (of 7.6 or 2.546mm
shares)
6/12/03 they issue 13,500,000 Series A 7% Preferred Shares to Bruce
Johnstone the company's sole officer and director
6/13/03 Schultz and Hinkley return the 700k shares (for no
consideration? And no explanation is given)
6/17/03 forward split of 7.6 for 1 and name and symbol change
7/21/03 Bruce Johnstone resigns as Officer and Director (just over 1
month after receiving 13.5 million preferred shares)
8/13/03 Sign formal agreement with MinQuest ("unpatented mining
claims"?) press release
9/23/03 company adds another 3mm shares to the previous 2.546mm that
were filed on
C'mon Guys, is this the old mine lease, S8, then newsletter pump and
dump? You have got to do better than this. Patriot Gold is not a
mining stock. Stocklemon believes Patriot Gold is a scam stock.
Minquest
Patriot Gold acquired this mine lease from a company called
Minquest. Minquest provides mining leases to many small companies
that are trading under 25 cents. Why should this be any different?
We have identified three companies that have acquired leases from
Minquest and where they are trading
REM.V ($0.43 Canadian or about 30 cents US)
http://www.newswire.ca/releases/December2002/02/c8976.html
Who is Patriot the company giving the S8 to? Employee options?
THINK NOT. According to their own filings, "We have commenced only
limited operations. Therefore, we have no full time employees.
BVT.V ($0.00)
http://dm-productions.com/bonaventure/MinQuest_pr1.htm
Miranda Gold Corp. (.14 cents on the Pink Sheets)
http://www.mirandagold.com/imperial.htm
Conclusion
Do not believe us, just read the SEC or the Mark Hulbert report on
Scott Fraser. His paid research has done much harm for investors and
Stocklemon believes that both Hepalife and Patriot Gold will both
face the same fate as the rest of the Fraser lemons.
Disclaimer:
Stocklemon.com does not guarantee in any way that it is providing all
of the information that may be available. We recommend that you do
your own due diligence before buying or selling any security. At
any times the princPGOLls of Stocklemon.com might hold a position in
any of the securities profiled on the site. Stocklemon.com will not
report when a position is initiated or covered. Each investor must
make that decision based on his/her judgment of the market.
http://www.stocklemon.com/articles/10_10_03.html
Upcoming Conference 2/23/04 to 2/24/04
http://www.isciencex.com/ETS-2004program.htm
4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EARLY TOXICITY SCREENING:
In Silico, In Vitro and High Throughput Screening Approaches
February 23-25, 2004
San Diego, CA, USA
Symposium Venue: San Diego Mission Valley Marriott
Featuring experts from the following institutions: AstraZeneca; Bayer Crop Science; Charles River Laboratories; Chiron Corp; GlaxoSmithKline; HemoGenix; Institute for In Vitro Sciences Inc.; Johnson & Johnson PRD; Lexicon Genetics; Millennium Pharmaceuticals; National Cancer Institute; NIEHS; Novartis Pharmaceuticals; Partek Incorporated; Pfizer, Inc.; Advanced Pharmaceutical Sciences, Inc.; Promega Corp.; University of Toronto.
ADVERTISEMENT
Weight Age
Gender Female Male
http://www.isciencex.com/ETS-2004program.htm
Look at these presentation topics and note that Pfizer
is one of the represented institutions...
--------------------------------------
9:00 AM – 9:30 AM
Overview: Challenges Towards Accurate Prediction of Human Drug
Toxicity (Albert P. Li; Advanced Pharmaceutical Sciences, Inc.;
Baltimore, MD) It has been estimated that the cost of drug
development is $800 million per new drug. One of the reasons for
the high cost is failure in clinical trials due to drug toxicity.
Furthermore, there are examples of marketed drugs that were
withdrawn due to unexpected drug toxicity, not predicted by
preclinical and clinical safety trials. An overview of the past
problems, present limitations and promising new technologies for the
prediction of human drug toxicity will be presented.
9:30 AM – 10:00 AM
Species Differences in Xenobiotic Toxicity (Joe Tomaszewski,
National Cancer Institute; Bethesda, MD) One of the constant
struggles that faces the toxicologist when evaluating toxicity data
on a potential new drug, is how much data is enough to ensure that
the Phase I clinical trial in man will be safe. Another is whether
the accumulated data is sufficient to predict toxicities in man.
One of the confounding issues that must be dealt with in this
regard, is the disparity in response that often times occurs in the
different animal species used to generate this data. Differences
in metabolic rate, size, clearance, body weight, surface area, etc.
are major contributors to the toxicological difficulties we face.
If one attempts to deal with this conundrum as a regulatory box that
must be checked prior to entering the clinic, the outcome often
results in failure. One of the keys to dealing with species
differences is to utilize all of what is known to explain those
differences and to draw upon past experience to help guide the way.
This talk will attempt to draw upon past experiences to help
understand some of these differences and shed some light on how they
can be used to design appropriate studies that produce interpretable
data. However, despite our best efforts, toxicities do occur and
occur frequently in man that is never predicted by even the most
carefully designed studies. This is perhaps one of the reasons
that the toxicologist needs newer tools in his armamentarium other
than the whole animal to predict human sensitivity.
10:00 AM – 10:30 AM
Nonclinical Testing Predictive for Idiosyncratic Liver Injury (Carl
L. Alden; Millennium Pharmaceuticals; Cambridge, MA) Preclinical
toxicology and metabolism functions must play a pivotal role in
improving speed and decreasing attrition attributable to toxicity,
side effects, or DMPK attributes. These functions must provide a
clear view of any drug development limiting barriers before
committing the enormous resources to develop the fundamental data to
gain market access. The technology now exists that enables the near
elimination of development failures because of DMPK attributes as
well as reduction of attrition attributable to toxicity or side
effects from the current benchmark level of 40% to less than 20%.
However, the dominant paradigm states that predicting for
idiosyncratic liver injury cannot be achieved in nonclinical
testing. Idiosyncratic responses can cause withdrawal from the
market (e.g. bromfenac, troglitazone) or prevent business success
(e.g. zileuton) potentially creating negative impact beyond the lost
cost of development. Idiosyncratic liver injury is also generally
considered to be non-dose responsive and of low/sporadic incidence
requiring sample size for detection that often exceeds the number of
patients tested in development. Review of the summary basis of
approval for three drugs causing idiosyncratic injury indicates the
dominant belief that preclinical testing does not predict for
idiosyncratic responses may not be true, at least in these cases. A
preclinical testing strategy to avoid idiosyncratic liver injury
will be described.
Toxicity Screening in Drug Development
Chair: Jim Xu
11:15 PM – 11:45 PM
The Design and Interpretation of In Vitro Safety Assays in Discovery
(Jim (Jinghai) Xu; Pfizer - Groton Labs; Groton, CT) It is now well-
accepted that the identification of safer drug candidates for
further development relies on a panel of in vitro safety assays in
Discovery. However, key elements in the design of such an in vitro
safety panel, and the proper interpretation of these in vitro
results, have not been fully addressed. This presentation will
focus on the strategies in designing an "optimal" in vitro safety
panel. Emphasis will be placed on the use of "optimal" in vitro
models, concordance with GLP tests, in vitro in vivo correlations,
and proper interpretation of the in vitro results.
11:45 PM – 12:15 PM
The Role of Early Toxicity Screening in Drug Safety Evaluation
(Jessica E. Sutherland, Charles River Laboratories Discovery and
Development Services; Worcester, MA) Early toxicity screens are an
extremely important component of pharmaceutical safety assessment.
A properly designing toxicity screening program can be used to
optimize lead compounds in an attempt to identify which should move
from discovery into development. Early toxicity screening is also
useful during pilot and dose range-finding studies or when
formulation decisions are needed. Early toxicity screening is also
helpful in identifying unusually toxic agents, target organs, and
estimating lethality. Selection of the proper animal model(s),
sample size, route of administration, and toxicological end points
is vital to the success of these early nonclinical programs.
In Silico Toxicology
Chair: Alan G. Wilson
2:15 PM – 2:45 PM
Predictive In Silico Technologies – Strategic Role in Drug Discovery
(Alan G.E. Wilson, Lexicon Genetics; The Woodlands, TX) ADME/PK and
toxicity issues remain significant hurdles to drug success and
productivity. Of increasing interest is the application of
predictive in silico ADME and toxicity modeling. Linkage of in
silico models with other emerging technologies, and biomarkers,
could substantially facilitate the reliability of PK/PD and safety
extrapolations. This presentation will discuss the current status
and opportunities of in silico ADME and toxicity modeling in drug
discovery.
2:45 PM – 3:15 PM
Predictive Toxicity Screening – Future Directions for In Silico
Applications (Dale E. Johnson, Chiron Corp.; Emeryville, CA)
Predicting potential human toxicity during the early phases of
pharmaceutical R&D continues to be only partially successful. The
application of new technologies such as toxicogenomics, proteomics
and metabonomics continue to be in the validation stage; whereas
high-content screening using human cell-based systems and transgenic
animal models may emerge as reasonable alternatives to current
approaches. Since In silico applications require the generation of
new data involving large sets of chem-tox correlations, cell-based
assays may become a preferred approach if reasonable validation
programs can be established.
3:30 PM – 4:00 PM
Toxicity Evaluation Using Statistical Analysis and Visualization
(Tom Downey, Partek Incorporated; St. Charles, MO) Statistical
analysis is useful for finding correlations and patterns in
screening data. After the patterns are identified, they can be
presented using informative interactive visualization of the data.
The result is that the data may be used to create in-silico models
to predict toxicity of new compounds prior to selecting which
compounds to test in-vitro. This talk will demonstrate the
application of statistical methods such as statistical tests,
principal components analysis of structure-activity relationships,
and identification of patterns and trends in high throughput
screening data.
Nosan
"Nosan entered an exclusive distributorship contract with US based XenoTech LLC to import and sell microsomes and hepatic cells as drug metabolism reagents"
Dr. Brassfield, mentioned in a previous posts states:
Xenotech is an affiliate of Nosan Group, a Japanese company formed in the 1930's, and it is they that have the financial muscle to make this royalties guarantee. They are Japan's largest animal feed manufacturer, they are a public company 20% owned by Mitsubishi, and had gross revenue of about $1 billion last year. With revenues slowly declining during the last 5 years, Nosan boldly adopted a strategy for the 21st century of becoming a world leader in biotech and have recently formed affilliations with three US biotechs, among them Xenotech, plus biotechs in Denmark, Scotland, and Germany.
Pricing options/evaluation period/email from Xenotech
as posted by a poster on RB
By: squiggstx
12 Nov 2003, 02:16 PM EST
Msg. 13566 of 17265
Jump to msg. #
Response from XenoTech
There is not a validation process for using the cells. There is an evaluation period where a new client can take a look at the cells and use them in a study to make sure they perform as expected. We have several pricing options including: 1, 3, 5 and 7 year use agreements, pricing per plate and vial and contract services. If you would like more information please send me your address and contact information and I will be happy to send you a packet.
Best wishes,
Jeff Shannon
Followers
|
5
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
141
|
Created
|
11/08/03
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |