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.
How much does Arrayit test cost and who gets billed for it?
I find it odd that the "news" had to be found by shareholders looking for changes on a terribly designed website
The website is a mess. The worst I have ever seen
O
Why are they making it so hard to find.
And they should issue a PR.
I'm looking at it on my phone and their website is a jumble of pages one on top of the others. Hard to find anything.
For some reason I don't see it on the arrayit.com home page
Arrayit patented VIP platform can test up to 100,000 samples for a disease at a time.
It's tailor made for pandemics
Roche's approved test can do 4,000 tests a day.
https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/-b-mark-schena-phd-b-positions-arrayit-corporation-to-enter-molecular-diagnostics-using-vip-technology-/
Thank you Sloan for sharing your email from Mark that the covid 19 test had been submitted for emergency approval
This one does say that it has been submitted for emergency approval.
Roche and Thermo Fischer had theirs approved in 24 hrs.
We'll see what happens with Arrayit's https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154332071
Many investors bought the trips and the double 00's in 2016 and later when they weren't current and made money when the sold much higher (or are still holding them at much higher price).
For bagholders it is a different story. They are sitting on a huge paper loss, or actual loss if they sold lower than they bought the shares for.
IMO yes, release the hold and give back the 72M shares. The jury will decide who's right.
The hold on the 1.4 B shares was part of the loan. Arrayit has asked Iconic to release the hold but Iconic has not done so.
The filings from the lawsuit talks about this kind of stuff.
Why Iconic asked for millions of shares in 2018 when Arrayit thought the AVDX shares collateral had satisfied the loan payment, and Iconic had dropped the first lawsuit is the reason Arrayit sued them in Aug 2018.
RRBB was forced on them by TCA not Iconic.
TCA is the lender that gave them the $5M line of credit and escrowed money to pay RRBB.
Iconic case is different. It presented an existential threat.
What would management do presented with this:
You borrow 541,000 with a convertible note from Iconic on Dec 2015 to pay old legal debt in order to get a $5M line of credit to revive the business. Note says you can convert the loan into shares at any time @ 65% of the market price. pps is trading in the trips in 2016.
possible conversion price 0.65 X 0.0005 = 0.0003
541,000 / 0.0003 = 1.8B shares or more if the pps keeps going down as they are converting and diluting. Iconic has a hold on 1.4B shares
In order for Iconic to sell converted shares the company has to be current.
Company stopped being current in April 2016.
The debt has a collateral 6.6M shares of AVDX.
Arrayit lets Iconic have and sell the AVDX shares and thinks that pays the debt.
Iconic sues in Aug 2016. Then unexpectedly drops the suit in Jan 2018 just before a scheduled trial.
Later in 2018 Iconic asks to convert into ARYC 72M shares. Iconic still has the hold on 1.4B shares
In Aug 2018 Arrayit sues Iconic. Iconic counter-sues Arrayit.
An here we are, waiting for an April 17,2020 trial.
The way I see it "each of the last 3 years" means every one of the last 3 years
Each first day of any subsequent fiscal year the qualification is re-tested
I'm not a lawyer at all LOL, but all IMO:
You are correct that to qualify for Rule 240.12h-3 according to paragraph (b) they would have to have had less than $10M on 12/31 of each the last 3 fiscal years. 2018, 2017, 2016 since they filed the form 15 in Aug 2019.
But if they don't meet that eligibility criteria anymore because one of the last 3 years is over $10M then the suspension to report is discontinued per paragraph (e)
The 3 year lookback as of 1/1/20 is 2019, 2018, 2017
Per the Rule 240.12h-3 that they checked on form 15, if they had assets over $10M on 12/31/19, they would be obligated to file a 10-K for 2019 within 120 days from 12/31/19 i.e April 30, 2020
That's the way I interpret the attached link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.12h-3
It was NOT a motion to dismiss. It was a motion for arbitration which was denied. Arrayit and Pinner appealed the decision on Jan 13
yes, if the have over $10M in assets as of 12/31/19 IMO
This is the option ARYC checked on the form 15.
Rule 240.12h-3- Suspension of duty to file reports under section 15(d).
§ 240.12h-3 Suspension of duty to file reports under section 15(d).
(a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the duty under section 15(d) to file reports required by section 13(a) of the Act with respect to a class of securities specified in paragraph (b) of this section shall be suspended for such class of securities immediately upon filing with the Commission a certification on Form 15 (17 CFR 249.323) if the issuer of such class has filed all reports required by section 13(a), without regard to Rule 12b-25 (17 CFR 249.322), for the shorter of its most recent three fiscal years and the portion of the current year preceding the date of filing Form 15, or the period since the issuer became subject to such reporting obligation. If the certification on Form 15 is subsequently withdrawn or denied, the issuer shall, within 60 days, file with the Commission all reports which would have been required if such certification had not been filed.
(b) The classes of securities eligible for the suspension provided in paragraph (a) of this section are:
(1) Any class of securities, other than any class of asset-backed securities, held of record by:
(i) Fewer than 300 persons, or in the case of a bank; a savings and loan holding company, as such term is defined in section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461); or a bank holding company, as such term is defined in section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841), 1,200 persons; or
(ii) Fewer than 500 persons, where the total assets of the issuer have not exceeded $10 million on the last day of each of the issuer's three most recent fiscal years; and
(2) Any class or securities deregistered pursuant to section 12(d) of the Act if such class would not thereupon be deemed registered under section 12(g) of the Act or the rules thereunder.
Note to paragraph (B):
The suspension of classes of asset-backed securities is addressed in § 240.15d-22.
(c) This section shall not be available for any class of securities for a fiscal year in which a registration statement relating to that class becomes effective under the Securities Act of 1933, or is required to be updated pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the Act, and, in the case of paragraph (b)(1)(ii), the two succeeding fiscal years; Provided, however, That this paragraph shall not apply to the duty to file reports which arises solely from a registration statement filed by an issuer with no significant assets, for the reorganization of a non-reporting issuer into a one subsidiary holding company in which equity security holders receive the same proportional interest in the holding company as they held in the non-reporting issuer, except for changes resulting from the exercise of dissenting shareholder rights under state law.
(d) The suspension provided by this rule relates only to the reporting obligation under section 15(d) with respect to a class of securities, does not affect any other duties imposed on that class of securities, and shall continue as long as either criteria (i) or (ii) of paragraph (b)(1) is met on the first day of any subsequent fiscal year; Provided, however, That such criteria need not be met if the duty to file reports arises solely from a registration statement filed by an issuer with no significant assets in a reorganization of a non-reporting company into a one subsidiary holding company in which equity security holders receive the same proportional interest in the holding company as they held in the non-reporting issuer except for changes resulting from the exercise of dissenting shareholder rights under state law.
(e) If the suspension provided by this section is discontinued because a class of securities does not meet the eligibility criteria of paragraph (b) of this section on the first day of an issuer's fiscal year, then the issuer shall resume periodic reporting pursuant to section 15(d) of the Act by filing an annual report on Form 10-K for its preceding fiscal year, not later than 120 days after the end of such fiscal year.
[49 FR 12689, Mar. 30, 1984, as amended at 51 FR 25362, July 14, 1986; 61 FR 21356, May 9, 1996; 72 FR 16956, Apr. 5, 2007; 73 FR 975, Jan. 4, 2008; 76 FR 52555, Aug. 23, 2011; 81 FR 28706, May 10, 2016]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.12h-3
unless they settle before the trial
I'm no lawyer, but the way I read it is whether Iconic should be stopped from claiming the shares rather than any damages Iconic may have suffered with a delay of two years from getting the loan fully paid
I may be wrong.
You can search historical share price here:
Simply select your date range.
https://www.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/ARYC/historical/more-historical-data
Their loans in 2015 were convertible loans, converting into ARYC shares. They did not use ARYC shares as collateral.
The toxic lenders were happy to sell the shares for a profit. They converted them at a 25 or 35% discount and then sold them at a higher price.
As I said before they filed an 8K in Dec 2016...3 years ago... about the TCA financing. Also an 8K about RRBB last year.
The fact that the number of outstanding shares has not gone up since December 2015 (except for the 72M shares in the Iconic dispute) is proof that there have not been any more toxic convertible loans.
Also they are still responsible to file an 8K for an event like new financing.
They filed one in Dec 2016 when they got the second tranche of the TCA $5M line of credit, although they had not filed fins since Nov 2015.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1084507/000165495416004585/aryc_8k.htm
Not fair to say "It is just an idea on a paper napkin..."
The food safety test was in development when they needed the funds to commercialize it from Taub and Zalcberg.
Arrayit had spent hundreds of thousands $ in the development process.
Here is the convertible exchange note:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1084507/000135448815005718/aryc_ex41.htm
When Iconic made the convertible loan in 2015, ARYC was trading in the 000's and 00's.
If Iconic converted the loan into shares it would have been for over 1 billion shares. That's why Iconic put a hold on 1.4 billion shares.
But Arrayit transferred the 6.6M AVDX shares collateral to them instead and no conversions were done. Arrayit thought the loan was paid, but Iconic asked for the 72M shares in 2018, and Arrayit sued
Iconic, to the best of my knowledge, has not released the earlier hold.
Consider that Iconic is counter claiming damages of over $3M. If they win and they get paid in shares that's a lot of shares. And they still have a hold on 1.4 billion shares
IMO release of fins hinges on the Iconic case.
Iconic still has a hold on 1.4 billion shares of ARYC. Arrayit has tried to get them to release it but they haven't.
Arrayit believes that the initial loan was paid when they transferred to Iconic the 6.6M AVDX shares collateral in 2017. At the time of the transfer AVDX was trading at 0.35, more than enough to pay the loan.
Iconic dropped the initial lawsuit in January 2018.
Later in 2018 Iconic improperly acquired 72M ARYC shares from the TA. Arrayit sued them because of that. A temporary injunction prohibits Iconic from selling them. The future of those shares depends on the outcome of the case.
The initial demand in 2016 was for something like 750K (initial loan plus interest and penalties). The current demand from Iconic is more than triple that amount.
Iconic motion for summary judgment is being heard on 1/31/20. Arrayit opposes that motion.
If the motion fails, the jury trial is scheduled for 4/17/20.
The moving party for summary judgment is Iconic. Arrayit opposes the motion. Arrayit says the claims are triable. It seems that ARRAYIT is confident that they will win.
Iconic case next hearing FRI 1/31/20
We won't know until they release those fins. They could be reinvesting the cash into the business, paying their debts, legal fees, clinical trials for FDA application, etc.
Sales are not assets.
"Sales are captured at a Profit & Loss reporting level and the Assets are captured at a Balance Sheet reporting level"
If I remember correctly, I think that Rene's family also have invested heavily in the company to keep it afloat during turbulent times.
Things may be financial better now that their first commercially successful diagnostic test, the allergy test has finally taken off.
They initially hoped that OvaDx was going to be the first money maker, and then the food safety test but they both got derailed by bad partnerships.