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.
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.
I do remember some comments about the study in addition to comments about the study in Germany.
The Aussies used a very young "control" group so their false positive rate was very low and the resulting specificity was very high. That was even worse than what Radient did in there "control" group where they eliminated anyone with a condition that would have produced a higher than normal fibrin level.
LS, I do remember reading a study done in Australia. It was published on the amdlaustralia website which has now been removed. It was done years ago.
As for the patent application by Charter, it was made in 2011 and now abandoned. It was not a formal patent application but a "provisional". The authors had one year to complete a non provisional application and that was never done. You are not able to access a provisional application because very little info is included.
Big problem with that Living. The saliva test does not belong to Radient. It belongs to Charter and crew so if it will sell and make money, why on Earth would they share that with a bunch of foolish gambling penny stock investors or the lenders.
So explain again why Charter would give the saliva product to Radient.
IMO, it is unlikely that bankruptcy will be filed by Radient. It costs too much money. The most likely scenario is for absolutely nothing more being heard from Radient.
If Radient did file for chapter, what would be their plan to exit. You got to have a plan. Anyone? It must have financing and prospects of sales.
DC stated: "
Its much better to keep the maximum permitted shares and work with the Takeover Group to get their money back later. "
Dcspka, you have that entirely WRONG.
Answer this. Which is better in bankruptcy court. To have stock or to hold notes?
Anyone with investment savvy would answer "notes" because stock get cancelled in bankruptcy. Also, as part of the agreements, the lenders to preferred shares but if you actually read the agreement, you would have seen that at the end of November 2012, those shares were automatically redeemable back to notes.
The lenders own no shares, they just hold notes.
None of what you say makes any sense whatsoever. William Gartner would never get his hands dirty even touching Radient stock. As a matter of fact, any rumor about Gartner using investor money to buy Radient would absolutely kill any investor deal into GCDx. That was a very good point made by LS and I also agree with him that most of this stock is probably owned by etrade gamblers.
Living, good thing you gave up because the shares are NEVER going to survive and trade again.
Nothing more other than revocation is going to happen with Radient. No more 8k's, nothing. They certainly wont declare bankruptcy. That costs money and the judge would want to know where any remaining assets went.
Charter has all he wants, the equipment, antibody and technology.
Living establishing the website would go along with the change of name for the company.
IMO, Charter could have been planning this for quite a while and just waited for the patents to expire. He is free and clear to do as he wishes with DR70.
Living, I think this may indeed fill in all the blanks and explain what is going on.
The assets aren't on the way to Australia, they are off to Hong Kong.
Living, Charter is never going to do anything for the shareholders of Radient.
I was also reluctant to believe Charter would be sending the assets down under in order to manufacture DR70 since it had never be popular there.
Now, if in fact it was true that Charter is associated with Cancer Screen Technologies Limited and being based in Hong Kong, I could be persuaded to believe Charter is stealing the assets of Radient for that company to manufacture and market a DR70 saliva test. The reason for the wait would be for the patent to expire. Manufacturing cost would be LOW and it is in the geographic area where the only market for DR70 ever existed.
If the company does indeed belong to Charter, there would never be a need for him to make it a public trading company until it had a product and sales.
cancer screen technologies limited was first established on 11 11 2011 under the name, global Gaining Limited.
On Aug 28, 2012, the name was changed to Cancer Screen technologies Limited.
Living, The business records in hong kong give a date of establishment of the private company as 2011. It is not something new.
If anything, they were waiting for the patents to expire.
This does seem credible if you connect Charter to hong kong and what would be going on is Charter stealing the assets of Radient and sending them to hong kong.
Also, one site I saw was for a Chinese lady who serves as an interpreter for the CEO of that company.
This indeed could be Charter's plan for the whole deal. It would be a saliva test and if the website is correct, sell for $19.
http://www.hkcorporates.com/corp/29955.html
cancer screen technologies limited, Hong Kong
The owners of that website comes back to an address in HONG KONG.
http://whois.net/whois/cst.ac
I doubt that has anything to do with Charter.
Notice was not sent by the SEC.
If the SEC had notified Radient about delinquent filings and asked for a hearing, the notice would be contained in the below list of SEC notices.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.shtml
Therefore, you can conclude that the letter sent to the SEC by Radient was totally voluntary asking to revoke the stock.
Why did the Aussies ask for revocation? If the Aussies were working with some takeover group who was buying shares, wouldn't that be illegal manipulation that could put the Aussies back in jail?
The above alone would prove there is no takeover group buying shares. All of that garbage was just fabricated by a few shareholders holding worthless shares.
DC stated: " As we have maintained, true ownership of the company is approx 34% lenders, 52% takeover group, 10% strong hand investors, and 3% tradeable retail flippers. This case has been made thru the required filings many times for investors to see. Your current post is just another example of who ownership is.
We have outlined William Gartner/Provista's role, SRL's role, and Uni-Pharma's role.
The Men down Under BOD has been appointed by the Real Majority Shareholders to manage the company thru out the current transition."
So the Aussies have been appointed by the real majority. The Aussies have just released an 8k saying the stock in going to have the registration revoked. Doesn't that sound like they would be manipulating the stock price for the benefit of the majority owners to finish their accumulation.
Sure sounds like the Aussies could be going back to the "gray bar hotel"
Run Coach, there is no patent submission from GCDX. That is just a figment of an active imagination. As for the GCDX lung cancer test, it is just a plain old test for fibrin degradation products called DR70 but according to Gartner, it would only be given to smokers and former smokers. No components have been added to the DR70 test.
I don't know why the Aussies even took over management but they did for some reason but it is NOT for a shell for some other company. None of the members of the BOD are known for having any additional products they could sell.
We know they had been unsuccessful in selling DR70 in Australia for the past many years. We know they had a website for their private company, amdlaustralia.com which has now been cancelled. I know I looked at it last year and it had a lot of information on studies they had done.
Now, the Darren Brown owns another website he recently created. radient-diagnostics.com.
The Aussies have never been authorized to manufacture kits so with the technology and equipment they now have access to, they could attempt to become a manufacturer and distributor of kits.
Living, the below site offers clean shells for sale.
Why would the Aussies want Radient as a shell when it has a ton of garbage in debts and shareholders that go with it?
That makes ZERO sense.
http://www.mergernetwork.com/public-shell-companies-for-sale/page-1
Do you think the Aussies might have had a problem with the UNI agreement.
"1.13 “Territory” means the following countries: Taiwan ROC, China PRC, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand. With RXPC approval, additional countries can be allocated on a country-by- country basis."
Looks like The UNI agreement had trumped the agreement the Aussies made in 2011. As long as the UNI agreement was in effect, the Aussies could not sell or distribute any tests in Australia and New Zealand.
From the 8k:
This Agreement shall continue in effect until the earlier to occur of:
(i) expiration of the last patent issued to RXPC for the Licensed Products.
The last patent issued for the licensed product expired TODAY.
From the 8k
UNI's agreement with Radient is cancelled.
I still have never heard authorized but unregistered future shares being referred as a shelf. The shares do not even exist yet so how could they be put on a shelf?
I have heard of a shelf registration where some of the authorization is actually registered for sale but not issued to anyone and those shares being placed on a "shelf".
Anyway, I did find a plausible reason why the new BOD would want the revocation prior to them taking over. It is apparently considered a bad mark for your bio if the sec ever sends a notice to those in charge of a company.
Even with that, it still does not explain why they would cut off all methods of communications with everyone including current shareholders. There is totally ZERO reason for that.
Also, one more question. Why do you think this company would ever have any value? You spoke of a shell. What purpose would they have for a shell which would cost up to a possible $25 million or more and it would just be a private company.
"permanent 5 billion shelf" ???
Someone is really mixed up on this one. I don't think he used the term "shelf" correctly. Radient has an authorized share limit of 5 billion but a shelf is usually for a type of registration where no buyers of the stock are listed and it is to be used in the future.
The facts are these:
Radient is a company with 5 billion or close to 5 billion shares outstanding and over $25 million in debt. It is a TERRIBLE candidate as a shell for a future company.
Radient article. It has some obvious errors. (sales mostly in the US...That was a hoot). Scroll down to find the Radient article.
http://dumps37.rssing.com/chan-14522482/all_p5.html
LS stated: "I've never owned or even watched a ticker that had its share registration revoked. This is a first. I know of several zombie pink companies that no longer exist but the shares are still registered -- this is a level of company failure that I have never seen before. I sort of pity those who feel the need to keep pretending this as if this were anything but a train wreck.
I don't think the Aussies paid anything for this company and I don't think they are compensated. "Why" they are now running Radient is a mystery. The only thing we know is: they must think they will profit somehow. Running a US company and reporting to the SEC when the only asset is an off-patent blood test that is no longer cleared by the FDA and is a proven failure globally? Slim to none chance. They would never find funding, just as Gartner cannot find funding."
1. The SEC did not give a notice of revocation. It was requested by Mac, obviously wanted by the Aussies.
2. The revocation eliminates the need for SEC reporting by the Aussies and also eliminates any possibility of a future official notice of revocation from the SEC.
Mustang, I think there was just some confusion over the R/S that was authorized. Tons of people never read SEC filings at all.
You are being bold holding on to the end with this stock but that is up to you.
It is not going to be clear what the Aussies intend to do because they have no intention of communicating with current shareholders.
You can be assured that the Aussies asked Mac to request revocation of the registration. Mac's other companies that have gone broke have just been allowed to go zombie so he would have done the same with Radient.
Also, the Aussies have to know that DR70 is a poor selling product because Radient's last 10k stated that the Aussies private company did not meet the contractually required sales to maintain the contract so I don't think they intend to reorganize this company.
From the recently filed 8k, Radient is still selling some DR70 kits in SE Asia and the 2011 10k reported about $300,000 in kit sales. Maybe the Aussies think they can take the equipment and antibody to Australia and use their own private company to continue those sales
When Radient had the final shareholder meeting, a vote was approved to reverese split the stock 3 times in different multiples. They did one RS but the timeframe expired and neither of the other two were completed. Some posters apparently are not aware of the expiration of the final two reverse split authorizations.
As far as the revocation of the registration of the stock, the last 8k stated that a request to revoke had been submitted to the SEC on April 15th. The SEC usually acts upon that type of request in 90 days. The SEC has a listing of all notices sent to companies telling them they will be revoked if they do not submitted past due filings but no such letter exists to Radient. This was a voluntary submission to revoke and probably at the request of the new BOD.
Something to consider about the new management. There is no valid reason to revoke if they intend to reorganize the company and the is no reason to cut off all methods of communication if they intend to reorganize the company.
IMO, the Aussies are not being honest as to their intentions.
Living, no one would want this shell. Number 1, they want it to be trading so why would the Aussies want Mac to request revocation?
Next, no shell is worth anything that has $25 to $30 million in debt.
If the Aussies want a shell, they could get a clean one for around $100k or less.
Where are they going to find a new product? If there was a new product, why would Mac be running with it?
There is no need for GCDX or Provista to acquire Radient.
Anyway, take care and save some posts for tomorrow. I will be doing dog stuff and some machining metalwork.
Living, I can see that you are locked into a line of thinking and it will be difficult for you to see my point.
I will try one last time.
Who is management responsible to?
It is shareholders...right?
So how do you explain their cutting off all methods of communication between management and shareholders?
Don't try to tell me it is temporary because it is not. If you are going to change methods of communication, you create the new and toss out the old. Communication is never gone like it is now.
By that action alone, I can tell you that these guys are "up to no good" for shareholders.
Give me a valid explanation and not just a "out with the old" and then NOTHING. It has been 25 days since the 8k and NOTHING. Why a ban on communications?
Yes, two of these guys have felony records. Their bios are inflated. If anyone is attempting to hang a star on these guys, better watch your back.
No, the website belongs not to Radient but to David Brown. It is his personal website for their private company. He is just updating their company website from the amdlaustralia to radient-diagnostics.
Take note that amdlaustralia.com has now been cancelled.
Please tell me why you think the website belongs to Radient pharmaceuticals. It clearly does NOT.
You stated: "i totally disagree . . . mac said, " here, your turn, i'm done with this one for now" . . . someone DID buy the stock, 5 bil OS . . . lenders are SOL, and a judge will tell them as much . . . maybe .10 on the dollar ."
Yes, someone bought the stock the lenders and lawyers sold. It wasn't anyone attempting to get control of the company. This company has no money at all and cannot get any. It has nothing but debts. If you buy stock in a company that is worth nothing, you are buying nothing.
Lets say you buy a billion shares. What have you got? Nothing, because the lenders could foreclose at any time and take all the assets that are left.
Just face the facts. This company has no value or they could find operating cash. There is just nothing remaining.
speculators bought the stock. That's it in a nutshell and they speculated themselves out of their cash.
No, no, they would not need to do any of that UNLESS they wanted to cut off any communications to investors and creditors.
They have no email address now. no phone number. nothing.
The judge doesn't strong arm lenders, bankruptcy is a method of protecting lenders assets. That is its function.
I agree that Mac's trademark is to leave a zombie stock. So why did he file to revoke? It certainly was not his idea and the SEC did not initiate it.
So why cancel website?
why cancel phone?
Why revoke the stock?
You do not need to do any of that to reorganize via chapter.
You stated: "they would need to revoke and attempt restructuring before filing chapter 11,"
That is a false statement. No need to revoke, just file chapter.
You owe me another point for the false statement.
Living, the new name is not for Radient, it is a replacement name for amdlaustrailia.com which is now gone. That used to be a live website. The new website is THEIR website, not Radients.
Look who owns it. David Brown.
The term amdl has not been used for almost 5 years so the Aussies are just updating their website. Yes, it was done on May 6 because that is when they got control of the assets.
Give it up, give me the point.
The resident longs here claim there are large holders of the stock.
Does that make sense?
Answer: NO
The lenders do not own any stock of any significance at all. There are no current filings indicating that and if they did, it would be STUPID on their part. Would they be buying stock or even owning stock to take over the company?
Answer: Definitely NOT.
If they wanted to own Radient, they just foreclose and it is theirs, lock, stock and barrel.
Would any other organizations be buying the stock when the threat of foreclosure is HUGE?
Answer: Absolutely NOT.
Anyone could buy all the stock they want and it does not give them any ownership unless the debts are paid off. So would
ANYONE ever buy stock in Radient in an attempt to "takeover"?
Answer: NO
You approach Mac and say, "we would like to takeover Radient". "We will provide DIP financing and purchase stock in the "new" company to exit chapter 11. We will negotiate with the lenders to also take stock for their notes. In exchange, we will pay you some severance pay and you name us as the new BOD.
Response, If Mac thought the company had any value to anyone else, he would not just have walked away. He would have wanted some money.
No one is taking over this company because:
1. Mac just walked away.
2. The product has NEVER had significant sales.
3. The patents are almost gone. (two days to go)
4. You would never buy any stock in this company because it would just be cheaper to take the money and flush it down the toilet. If you indeed flushed the money, at least it wouldn't cost you more money down the road.
Now, look at those websites again.
radient-pharma.com
http://www.whois.com/whois/radient-pharma.com
That website is still registered until Aug 2014 and it is owned by AMDL, Tustin Ca.
Now look at radient-diagnostics.com
http://www.whois.com/whois/radient-diagnostics.com
Who is it owned by? Not Radient Parmaceuticals nor AMDL, it is owned by DARIN BROWN and the address is HIS address.
Do you still think the Aussies are going to do some sort of reorganization?
Why cancel Radients website?
Why cancel the phone?
Why revoke the registration?
None of that makes sense if they intended to reorganize.
The SEC was NOT "after" them pressing for financial reports. If they really just wanted to reorganize, have Mac give them control and they could file the bankruptcy proceedings. Of course, they would need legal services, DIP financing and some sort of plan or the filing would just become a chapter 7 liquidation and the lenders would get everything.
More comments.
3. The submission of the settlement to the SEC was done by Mac and not the Aussies.
Answer: We know it was requested and not as a result of a notification from the SEC. Reason: There is no notification on file of any notice having been sent by the SEC and there are indeed TONS of other notices sent to other companies with threats of revocation.
So, why would Mac, just out of the blue, request revocation?
Answer: It was not Mac's idea. It was the Aussies asking Mac to submit the settlement form. They did not want any obligation to submit past financial reports nor future ones. They could ship all of the assets to Australia and not have to report it.
Are the lenders going to fight for the assets? They could get them if they wanted but it would cost them legal fees to do so. IMO, the legal fees would cost more than the assets are worth.
Living, my computer will not let me post on the other board but maybe that is good. Anyway, I want to answer some of your comments.
1. You said that if the Aussies just want the equipment, then why not just have Mac sell it to them for a buck.
answer: Mac just got done with a lawsuit and I doubt he would want to invite another. If indeed the Aussies asked about the equipment, he could have said, "no, but I will transfer management to you and you can do as you wish."
2. The website. You stated that was important to the future of Radient.
Answer: How do you know it is for Radient? The Aussies had a website named amdlaustralia.com. I had looked it up before and it just had a title page and nothing else. Now, that website is GONE.
Below is PROOF that amdlaustralia was indeed previously the name of their website.
http://www.tuugo.biz/Companies/amdl-australia/0050003922848
So, what do I think the Aussies have done? They have given themselves a new name for THEIR website, not Radient's.
Now, doesn't my thought make more sense? I think you can give me another point.