Thank you, hongkongwalt, for making me laugh! You hit the mark twice with that post.

There's nothing more to discuss. I have little doubt that Verisante will make good on its obligations to the BCCA. I think that sales will pick up throughout 2013, removing any doubts about the company's continuing viability. If I'm wrong I'll probably lose money. If I'm right, I'll probably make money. Nothing is certain, especially with a start-up.

Okay, May. I'll be looking forward to reading it.

By the way, for somebody who boasts about knowing "the basics," you didn't know squat about the licensing agreement until I had to school you yesterday. Remember? You had been posting all sorts of rubbish about how we didn't know the terms of the licensing agreement, so I showed you where to look to learn the terms of that agreement. Don't go getting high and mighty now, when your ignorance has been on display for all to see.

If it's too frightening for you, stockmann 555, I suggest that you sell your shares and invest in something a little safer, maybe rice and beans for your cupboard?

As for me, I like the risk/reward scenario here, and I'm happy to ride this out. I don't know whether the sale of the first 9 units will be reported in the Feb. 28th filing or the May filing. Depends upon when the sale was booked, I guess.

It was announced as a sale, so there have to be proceeds. Hey, I have an idea: let's just wait and see what the filing says! It's due out in two weeks or so. I'm willing to wait. What about you?

They just sold 9 units. We don't know the price, which suggests that it was less than $60,000 a unit, but we will know soon, when the appropriate quarterly filing comes out. Why wouldn't they simply pay BCCA out of proceeds from their first sale?

Warrants is another possible revenue stream.

Start-ups are always a risky investment. I'm assuming most investors here know the risks and are willing to live with them.

For now, Verisante seems to be moving ahead with the correct blend of caution and self-promotion. You need both.

The technology is obviously a game-changer. Some awards are more prestigious than others, but they just keep coming in, one after the other.

The awards just keep coming, don't they?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/verisante-named-edison-awards-finalist-143000676.html

This technology is obviously a paradigm breaker.

Looks to me like Verisante drove a very good bargain with BCCA. They didn't have to pay much cash up front, but if the tech is successful the inventors are going to do very well. They get a licensing fee, royalties and 1.7M warrants at .66. Imagine what those warrants will bring the inventors if the stock price hits $2. Or $3. Or $4.

As for going broke, it all comes down to sales, doesn't it? If the Aura sells profitably, this company will do fine. And if the pps goes high enough for those warrants to get exercised, the cash will be flowing in that much faster.

By the way, the terms of the licensing agreement are laid out in the quarterly filing, item 11. The Licensing Agreement is between Verisante and BC Cancer Agency for the platform technology underlying Aura and Core. It is an exclusive world wide license for the life of the patents which gives Verisante the right to manufacture, distribute, sell and sublicense. In return the Company pays BCCA a licensing fee, royalties and 1,655,000 warrants were also issued to BCCA in 2010 in connection with the agreement.


I'll paste it below, but the formatting is all off. Just go to sedar.com and type in verisante. Then look up the Nov. quarterly report.
***

11 Commitments and contingent liabilities

[...]

Effective July 14, 2010, the Company entered into a Licensing Agreement with the BC Cancer Agency (“BCCA”). On September 30, 2010, the Company entered into a First Amendment to the Licensing Agreement with the BCCA (the “Amendment”). Pursuant to the Amendment, the minimum annual royalty was amended to equal the greater of $80,000 or the Earned Royalties during the first three years of the agreement, and to equal the greater of $160,000 or the Earned Royalties after the first three years. In addition to the original milestone payments, the Company must also pay $120,000 upon first jurisdictional regulatory approval for sale in third clinical application.
On June 1, 2011, the Company entered into a licensing agreement to license the exclusive world-wide rights for a novel rapid multi-spectral imaging cancer detection technology in consideration for $10,875 and 100,000 stock purchase warrants with a fair value of $48,995. Each full warrant entitles the holder to acquire a common share at a price of $0.66 for a period of five years from the date of issuance. The Company will also pay the inventors on an annual basis the lessor of a system royalty or a running royalty as follows:
Term
System Royalty
Running Royalty
Year 1 - 5
2% of net sales of the licensed products
$200 per system
Year 6 - 8
1.5% of net sales of the licensed products
$150 per system
Each year thereafter
1% of net sales of the licensed products
$100 per system
In addition, the Company has the right to grant sublicenses of its right under this licensing agreement. The Company will pay the inventors fifty percent (50%) of all sublicense income received by the Company. Any payments by the Company that are not paid on or before the date such payments are due under this Agreement shall bear interest, to the extent permitted by law, at two percentage points above the Prime Rate of interest as reported by the Bank of Canada on the date payment is due.
In connection with the licensing agreement, on June 6, 2011, the Company entered into a consulting service agreement for consulting services in relation to the design and development of the multi-spectral imaging technology related products. The consulting agreement has a term of 12 months for a consulting fee of $3,000 per month plus applicable taxes.
On May 26, 2011, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Perceptronix Medical Inc. (“PMI”), in which the Company purchased all rights to the ClearVu™ and ClearVu Elite™ endoscopy systems for early lung cancer detection developed by PMI in consideration for $200,000. If the Company is able to sell any of the ClearVu™ or ClearVu Elite™ systems within 24 months from the date of the Agreement, the Company must pay PMI $15,000 for each

Fair enough. The next filing should be end of the month or so. Let's see what it says about R&D. One thing is for sure: we need revenues from new Aura customers. If we don't get that, the money will indeed run out, and then it will be dilution. Should this happen, I'll probably sell and move on.

The last quarterly filing for Verisante discusses operations up until Sept. 30, 2012:

http://www.verisante.com/docs/Verisante%20FS%20Sep12.pdf

The company's announcement that they would contribute $250,000 toward development and deployment of the Core and Aura is dated June 14, 2012:

http://www.verisante.com/news/82/verisante-technology-inc-extends-research-agreement-with-bc-cancer-agency/

We can conclude that during the 45 days between June 14 and Sept. 30, the company had not yet begun spending the announced $250,000 on R&D. I'm unfazed. When the next financial report is filed, and that should be soon, we may see evidence of that spending. If we don't, I will be surprised.

Verisante is indeed a spin-off company that derives its products from brilliant researchers at the BC Cancer Agency. I would love to look at the contract between Verisante and the BC Cancer Agency. Perhaps that will prove possible now that Verisante has hired a company to handle investor relations.

Note that in 2012 Verisante contributed $250,000 toward the testing of the beta model of the Aura and also toward the development of the Core.

http://www.verisante.com/news/82/verisante-technology-inc-extends-research-agreement-with-bc-cancer-agency/

This is not a one-way relationship, with Verisante always taking and the BC Cancer Agency always giving. The money that Verisante gives back to the research is obviously critical in the continued development of a growing product line.

Verisante has two products, not one. You fail to mention the Core. You need to hone your bashing skills.

http://www.verisante.com/products/core/

http://verisante.com/news/72/canadian-cancer-society-names-verisante-core-a-top-10-cancer-breakthrough-of-2011-/

Disagree with you, stockman555. Braun is an SEC lawyer and knows the importance of maintaining professional (and legal) relations with investors. The strike price on those warrants is $.75, which seems moderately optimistic. I like that, too.

Sure, get the product out there and stir up demand for it. I have no problem with that. What I always do have a problem with is a failure to report material information to shareholders.

Look, it will do you no good whatever to go easy on the company. This is your company. And mine, too. If you want this stock to perform well, you have to hold management to its promises. They've done well so far in sticking more or less to their timelines, so let's praise them for that. They earned it.

Now they have to stick to their revenue projections or else explain to their shareholders why they are not doing so.

I disagree with you completely when you say it's unimportant what kind of revenue the first ten sales have brought in. It's essential information.

Stockmann555 makes one valid point: VRS did NOT in fact release revenue figures on the first ten units sold. We know that the company intended to sell the units for $60,000 each, but since they failed to announce a pretty significant $600,000 sale (with recurring revenues starting up for tips and maintenance), I am assuming that we received considerably less. It may be the case that the company had to give the first customers some sort of concession or incentive. We just don't know. I'd prefer if our company--did you read that? OUR company--kept us apprised of crucial information like revenues received. Or NOT received, if that is the case.

Thanks, Lojiko! I enjoyed the clip. Yes, whatever else is true about him, Fifer knows the right people, and that's for sure. I like the golden tie--nice touch.

If another stock of mine ripens, I'll be opening a position in this one. I expect junior miners to take off within the next year or so, and I'm looking for five or ten well managed, liquid operations so I can ride the trend.

No offense intended VBgood, but that hardly puts my worries to rest. I don't have a premium ihub membership. Would somebody do me the favor of searching this mb for the fifer thread? I don't want you to rehash this issue if you've already been there. Still, I'd like to know as much as possible about Fifer, since the company really seems to be his baby.

Thanks, VBgood, for correcting me about the spin-off shares.

Thanks for the link, Lojiko. PDI sounds intriguing, especially if there is significant housing/infrastructure development in the area. Unfortunately, I won't qualify for any spin-off shares.

I'm new here, and I'm new to the mining sector. I am thinking of taking a position in Petaquilla, but I'm worried about the business ethics of Richard Fifer. Does anybody have an opinion about this matter?

Sorry to be dense, Lojiko, but what does PDI stand for?

He's a member of Colorado Cleantech:

http://www.coloradocleantech.com/ccia_members.html

http://www.epiccapitalwm.com/

Charlie, I had that same thought and sent an email to his gmail address, but it was bounced back.

You might try bschramm@epiccapitalwm.com...

O well. Thanks for trying.

Thanks, Charlie. Good thinking. I doubt he'll respond with material information, but it sure would be nice!

Ah! TRCPA, now I understand. Thanks for explaining. It seems to me that the KDS is one of three milling technologies that Sundrop is considering for their process. I would conjecture that FASC is (or was) trying to court Sundrop through Bryan Schramm, which is why he is on the email list for FASC news releases. Does that seem like a reasonable assessment of the situation to you?

Hmm... Thanks, TRCPA, but what I'm after is the PR in which you found the email address,

bryan.schramm@sundropfuels.com

I'm just trying to satisfy myself that the Sundrop / FASC connection is solid. The patents you cited to me mention kinetic disintegration mills, and one of them actually named the KDS, but KDS is listed as one of three types of mill capable of grinding hay bales down into the powder that Sundrop needs for their process. It seems that any of the three mills would do the job, and we don't yet know whether KDS has been selected. If Bryan Schramm were connected to FASC, that would be some persuasive evidence that Sundrop has decided to go with (or buy out) FASC.

Sorry to eat up your time, and thanks again. Ic.

TRPCA, do you have the full text of this Feb. 18 2010 news release? It seems to have vanished from the FASC website. I'd be much obliged. Ic.

***

FASC news releaseThursday, February 18, 2010 1:16 PM
From: "Tanisha Kuva" <tanisha@fasc.net>Add sender to ContactsTo:

bob@zfuels.com, bdynes@silverado.com, brentv@akhurst.com, bryan.schramm@sundropfuels.com

The first one is to Bob at PacWestGlobal, the FASC sales arm (zfuels is one of their websites). The second is a guy at Silverado, a large mining company. Third is the Akhurst company that markets the KDS, that we have just discussed recently.

TRCPA, that really would be a grand slam! Thanks for the links. The connection seems real. This is the most compelling argument I have seen so far for buying FASC.

What is the connection between Sundrop Fuels and First Scientific American? I remember a couple of articles posted here recently, but never anything linking FASC to Sundrop.


Thanks in advance!

Charlie, I can't imagine what happened. Did it go up? What was the stock?

Okay, BC94. My mistake. Yes, the $3M is a one-time event. I've wondered myself what, if anything, that profitable quarter will do for the pps. Hopefully it pushes it up, and then licensing fees and further developments keep it up. Good luck.

BC94, when Neogenomics forked over $1M in cash and another $2M in stock as good faith money in view of milestone payments and licensing fees, they changed the picture. HDVY has received milestone payments before (from Quest), but never anything nearly so substantial. In my opinion, by putting down $3M, Neogenomics made future milestone payments ($5M of them) and then 6.5% licensing fees seem a distinct possibility. I find it hard to believe that an up-and-coming and nearly profitable outfit like Neogenomics would plunk down that much coin without conducting some serious DD. Did anybody besides Neogenomics bank on this agreement? I don't know for sure. Have you seen the accumulation/distribution chart for this stock? It's been rising steadily for the past year.

> the revenue from Neogemonics, although a one time deal

It's not at all a one-time deal. It's a licensing arrangement. Have you read the terms of the deal?

from the annual report

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=8517649-974-341307&type=sect&dcn=0001188112-12-000918

Subsequent Events – NeoGenomics License

On January 6, 2012, we entered into a Master License Agreement (the “NeoGenomics License”) with NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (“NeoGenomics Laboratories”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of NeoGenomics, Inc. (“NeoGenomics”). Pursuant to the terms of the NeoGenomics License, we granted to NeoGenomics Laboratories and its affiliates an exclusive worldwide license to certain of our patents and know-how to use, develop and sell products in the fields of laboratory testing, molecular diagnostics, clinical pathology, anatomic pathology and digital image analysis (excluding non-pathology-related radiologic and photographic image analysis) relating to the development, marketing production or sale of any “Laboratory Developed Tests” or LDTs or other products used for diagnosing, ruling out, predicting a response to treatment, and/or monitoring treatment of any or all hematopoietic and solid tumor cancers excluding cancers affecting the retina and breast cancer. Our pre-existing licenses, including with Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and Smart Personalized Medicine, LLC relating to breast cancer, and with Retinalyze, LLC relating to cancer of the retina, remain in effect. Moreover, we retain all rights to in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) test kit development.

Upon execution of the NeoGenomics License, NeoGenomics Laboratories paid us $1,000,000 in cash and NeoGenomics issued to us 1,360,000 shares of NeoGenomic’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, which had a market value of $1,945,000 using the closing price of $1.43 per share for NeoGenomic’s common stock on the OTC Bulletin Board on January 6, 2012. In addition, the NeoGenomics License provides for milestone payments in cash or stock, based on sublicensing revenue and revenue generated from products and services developed as a result of the NeoGenomics License. Milestone payments would be in increments of $500,000 for every $2,000,000 in GAAP revenue recognized by NeoGenomics Laboratories up to a total of $5,000,000 in potential milestone payments. After $20,000,000 in cumulative GAAP revenue has been recognized by NeoGenomics Laboratories, we will receive a royalty of (i) 6.5% (subject to adjustment under certain circumstances) on net revenue generated from all Licensed Uses except for the Cytogenetics Interpretation System and the Flow Cytometry Interpretation System and (ii) a royalty of 50% of net revenue (after the recoupment of certain development and commercialization costs) that NeoGenomics Laboratories derives from any sublicensing arrangements it may put in place for the Cytogenetics Interpretation System and the Flow Cytometry Interpretation System.


2


NeoGenomics Laboratories has agreed to use it best efforts to commercialize certain products within one year of the date of the license, subject to two one-year extensions per product if needed, including a “Plasma Prostate Cancer Test”, a “Pancreatic Cancer Test”, a “Colon Cancer Test”, a “Cytogenetics Interpretation System”, and a “Flow Cytometry Interpretation System.” If NeoGenomics Laboratories has not generated $5.0 million of net revenue from products, services and sublicensing arrangements within five years, we may, at our option, revoke the exclusivity with respect to any one or more of the initial licensed products, subject to certain conditions.

Has anybody run numbers for various kinds of business to see what sort of application might be profitable using the Micronex?

Thanks, gents! I appreciate the information.

I've asked this question before, but forgotten the answer. How much does the KDS Micronex cost, according to this board's best information? Was it in the neighborhood of $200,000?

And here's a new question: on the company website, I learn that "In many cases, it is possible to replace liquid fuels such as natural gas or oil with a powder burning system." I'm wondering, then, if there are cases where natural gas / oil could be replaced as the fuel running the Micronex? In other words, could a wood pellet miler use his own "product" to fuel his Micronex?

TIA for any information you can provide.

This is the one to follow:

http://www.stockhouse.com/Bullboards/SymbolList.aspx?s=VRS&t=LIST

Okay, King, you're right, I admit it. HDVY, which barely has cash sufficient to get through the year, should go after everybody at once--especially the big firms with huge, experienced legal departments. That strategy should really pay off for them.

> They need to start going after the companies already making a profit off HDVY technology. What are they waiting for?

I'm glad I could facilitate this conversation you are having with yourself, King. They need to start going after these companies, according to you. According to you also, they HAVE started to go after them.

Now that they have petitioned the US Patent Office, they must wait for a result. Even you will probably admit that HDVY has no control over the procedures and timing of the Patent Office.

Has HDVY not begun the process with Intel?