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.
Living, longs here can cry, scream or dream about not losing their money but there are no large holders of this stock. We would see filings. The lenders certainly are not holding any of this trash. They sold as many shares as they could and if they had any shares right now, they would be selling them as quickly as they can before the stock goes dark.
If the lenders wanted this company, they would have bought it long ago or more easily, they would have forced bankruptcy and the judge would have given them the company in a chapter 7 liquidation. There is nothing here of value but the equipment Radient owns and the remaining antibody and I think that is all the Aussies want.
Jimtash, do you think retail is going to provide financing? There certainly is NOT any large holders in this stock. It is all gamblers.
Jim, who is going to continue to pay for the prosecution of the patent application?
UNI is supposed to but where is the motivation to continue with the patent application when they can just use DR70 for free in 4 more days?
Of the 5 billion authorized, the lenders were given up to 4.5 billion and the other 500,000,000 was for the employee stock plan. Some of that went to pay lawyers but if any were left, it would probably have been given to the Aussies as part of a compensation package if they really intended to maintain the current shares.
The fact that the Aussies have no stock does not bode well for the fate of the current shareholders. If the Aussies do that the company into chapter 11, they will most certainly void the current share issue.
I just don't see them taking the company into reorganization with the only product being a very poor selling DR70 test.
Fatcat, Radient is a US company but once they are deregistered, no more filings to the SEC are needed. IMO, that is why the Aussies asked Mac to send in a request to deregister the stock.
The Aussies have their own pvt company in Australia named AMDL Australia.
They just created a new website in Australia called Radient-diagnostics.com which in my opinion is meant to replace the amdlaustralia.com website their current pvt company has.
Living, I do not think the Aussies will pay for a chapter 11 filing nor will they be able to find anyone to provide DIP financing with the $25 million plus debt.
IMO, you will not hear anything more from these guys. Once they look into Radient in more detail, there is nothing to be salvaged other than the remaining antibody and equipment. If they want to attempt to transfer the above to Australia and attempt sales from their own company, that is about all there is left.
Let me ask you a question. Knowing what you do about the lack of sales of DR70, would you put up any financing? The last patent expires in 5 days and at that point, GCDX could make whatever they ever wanted to and not pay Radient a dime. Also, UNI can make and sell whatever they want and not pay Radient a dime.
Who would provide funding for a chapter filing?
The answer is NO ONE but if they ever do, you win and get all the points.
The Radient quarter 1 filing 2011 also stated that the first date the 2010 lenders were cleared to convert notes and warrants was Jan 3, 2011 and by the end of the quarter, 93% of the notes had been converted and sold. From that point on, the 2010 lenders would mostly have been converting warrants. Alpha and Whale were part of the 2010 lenders and sued Radient because they felt they did not get enough warrants in the process.
Living, you did force me to check the Radient financial reports for stock sales in the first quarter of 2011.
Sales from note conversions. 55,505,799 shares
Sales from warrant conversions 15,258,346 shares.
Considering that the total shares OS at the end of the quarter was 109,390,508, the 2010 lenders were selling TONS of stock and all of that would have shown of the SHO list that you referred to because that's how the lenders sell shares from converted notes and warrants.
The 2011 lenders had not even begun to sell at this point because they did not get the S-3 approved and had to wait until Jul to convert and sell under rule 144.
In those first 3 months of 2011, the 2010 lenders diluted the stock by more than 183%. that was absolutely MASSIVE dilution. That alone would have caused the stock to plummet let alone any hit piece from the street.com.
No one knows for sure what the Aussies intend to do with Radient.
We know several facts.
1. The new management owns no stock because they would have filed form 4 with the SEC.
2. There is no known connection between the Aussies and anyone else as imagined by some posters.
3. Both Brown and Charter have felony records.
4. Brown has multiple websites all under construction.
5. LinkedIn shows work history but those appear to be self employed.
6. It appears that a request was initiated by Radient to deregister the stock. There is no record of the SEC sending any notices to Radient when all notices sent to corporations are available on the SEC website.
7. For whatever reason, the Aussies appear to have wanted the stock to be deregistered.
8. Both resumes of Charter and Brown appear to be self inflated with Charter having no patents.
9. There appears to be zero activity regarding Onko Sure or DR70 in Australia or New Zealand.
10. The phone and website for Radient-pharma was cancelled.
Darren Brown seems to have a "thing" for websites under construction.
This one is for his online capital consulting.
http://www.onlinecapital.com.au/author/admin/
His linkedin profile lists the above and amdlaustralia.
Neither company seems to be active. Maybe he is a car salesman?
Living, a lender can make a loan that is convertible into shares and 6 months later, under rule 144, he has effectively had the ability to have shares for over 6 months and they can be converted and registered for sale.
In this case, that is not the usual method lenders of this type sell shares. They sell shares short with a cooperative broker with the understanding that Radient will supply the selling broker with a certificate covering the same number of shares sold by the lender. This type of sale never shows up on the "true" bi monthly short list unless Radient failed to supply the shares.
Now, who would have been selling from Feb 11 to Jul 11? The 2010 lenders got convertible notes and warrants for their loans made in 2010. There was no "agreement from hell" with the 2010 lenders so they would have converted their notes under rule 144 whenever was the best time to sell them. Their notes had a fixed conversion price so when the fake news of the CIT deal in India was released, the 2010 lenders would have been converting their notes and warrant and selling.
Also, during that time, anyone with a broker allowing a stock of that price to be actually shorted could have been selling short.
I don't know who in particular was selling but they did not use a registration statement. The 2010 lenders converted the notes via rule 144 after 6 months of holding. I remember St George had a huge number of warrants they were selling and they gave Radient notice to convert just prior to the press release about CIT. I would have to go back into the filings to see when the rest of the 2010 lenders were selling but the 2010 lenders all made a ton of money from the loans, penalties, etc.
Living, Radient also defaulted on the notes to the 2010 lenders and that is what I pointed out to the SEC corportate group as the reason why Radient did not qualify for a quickie S-3 with the 2011 lenders.
I used that email address several time about Radient and many times about BIOCUREX. The CEO of BioCurex submitted an S-1 for a secondary placement claiming many things that were not true and omitting many details he did not want investors to know. I would list multiple questions for the SEC to ask him with the answers included in the email. In the next set of SEC communication about the S-1, each of my questions were asked. It took about 3 rounds of questions before the SEC got him to actually admit the sham agreement with Abbott and omit all the previous hype he had included. I was indeed his former shareholder from hell. The CEO began posting on the IHUB board for BioCurex telling everyone to sue me. He even sent me letters from his lawyer attempting to silence me.
When the dust all settled last year with his main lender seizing any of the remaining assets, a former employee contacted me telling me how he had hidden things from other board members and the fact that he had actually lost his cell line for the antibody they were using. He was faking data so the employee left. The employee referred to him as a "bully" which IMO, fit him quite well.
Yes Living, that was the lenders selling. They always sell that way. Remember, Radient got two sets of loans. The 2010 lenders and the 2011 lenders. Alpha and Whale were part of that 2010 lender group and they sued Radient over their warrants and were also later selling in 2011 along with the 2011 lenders.
Living, no one was shorting this stock. What you are looking at is the "unresolved trades". That happens when a lender sells a stock which he does not have in his possession and then gives notice to Radient to send stock certificates to the selling broker. That always shows up as an unresolved trade and that is just how the lenders sell shares and never have to actually own them.
The transfer agent for Radient ceased emailing the OS share count at about 4.5 billion.
Cashking, the OS share count is normally from the 10k and 10q. Radient hasn't filed one of those for years.
If a brokerage got the OS count from an 8k, that is possible also and the next guy who updated the info may have gone back to the 10k.
One thing for sure, as the latest 8k states, Radient is insolvent and they certainly had no funds to buy back shares and even if they had funds to buy back shares, Mac would have continued paying his salary instead.
Just give it up. The source of your share count is wrong.
Jimtash, if the lenders wanted to own radient, they certainly would not be buying or converting notes into shares.
All they would do is force bankruptcy and take the assets....everything. It would all be theirs to do as they wish. They do not have to share with anyone, especially anyone who currently own common stock.
To even think the lenders are a part of a "takeover" group is just insanity.
Why haven't the lenders foreclosed? There is just nothing there and it would not be worth the legal costs they would incur.
Only two ways for the OS to go down. stock buy back or reverse split.
Living, I agree with you that the Aussies are on their own. They are not puppets for any "takeover" group or anything else.
If this were something larger and more planned as DC and Guard state, then I think we would have seen a much more organization, contracts, etc. This is just the Aussies on their own but what we don't know is how this is connected to amdlaustralia.
My theory is the Aussies just moving the assets down under but the creation of another website alters just the theft of assets.
That website could be for Radient as you are thinking or it may be just a name change for amdlaustralia.
Amdl Australia has been inactive for some time other than an agreement in 2011 with Radient. We do know that AMDL is out the door so they may be changing the name of their company to Radient diagnostics. Just some thoughts.
Living, in March of 2011, I posted the following:
"IMO, when Jade blew up, that was the end for RPC. They have nothing left of any value."
FWIW, if you were reading my posts at the time, what did you think about my postings? Did you believe I was wrong?
Half full, I certainly agree with that.
I have never spoken with Adam F. One thing I do know is that Garza is either an idiot or he was playing the other side of the market opposite to what he was stating in his blog.
Well Wolfie, I can certainly explain some of them for you that you have highlighted.
Feb 24, 2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 749,805,200
This was the day the lawyers dumped their shares given to them as payment for the legal services of the class action lawsuit.
May 7, 2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 266,275,000 0.00
May 6, 2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 479,327,300 0.00
The above two was naming a new BOD for those who could not figure out the stock was going to be revoked.
Mar 24, 2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 326,456,300 0.00
Mar 21, 2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 172,966,000 0.00
Mar 20, 2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 145,537,000 0.00
The above dates were the MJ rumor sales.
How about that. I explained them all.
OK, now everyone who believes Garza was accurate with his Biomed Reports, please take one step forward.
Whoa Wolfie, looks like you're the only one who stepped forward.
Guard, What a HOOT. You are now attempting to say that Garza and Biomed reports were the truth? Absolutely NOTHING could be further from the truth. Garza was the biggest DUNCE of all time.
HandyAndrew stated: "One question that I haven't had answered, is why or what was the reason for this being a large dollar amount trader years back Ty"
The spike in share price to over $2 was when a "fake" government program to sell onko sure in India was announced along with the total fabrication that CIT would be taken into clinical trials in India by a company owned by Umesh Bhatia.
All of the stuff about India and Radient was absolutely faked to fool the lenders and investors.
Guard stated: "The lenders were paid 750,000 dollars for two consecutive months and then the company didn't pay another single payment.."
Yes, Radient made the payments from the loan principal hoping to get a quick S-3 approved by the SEC. Initially, the SEC accepted the S-3 and when I saw that, I sent an email to the corporations division clearly showing how Radient was not qualified to use the quick S-3 and needed to file the extensive and more closely examined S-1. The SEC then sent Radient a letter retracting the acceptance of the S-3. Radient never even filed the S-1, stopped making payments and let the notes go into default.
The 2011 lenders made the investment because Mac lied to them. He was claiming a new version of Onko Sure was being tested by the Mayo clinic, sales of Onko Sure were going to go through the roof in India and that Umesh Bhatia was going to take CIT into clinical trials. Those were all lies and that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed by the lenders.
Again you need to READ THE FILINGS.
Living, I totally agree that the lender deal from hell was a killer for the company but the lenders didn't get as much money from the deal as they could have if the stupid lawyers hadn't just dumped their shares in huge numbers the market could not absorb. I'm sure the share price would have still made it to .0001 but the lenders could have prevented the rapid collapse by moderate selling.
Guard, you absolutely need to read the filings. You post things that are not true and even the tiniest bit of DD would prove you wrong.
Mac paid shares to lawyers multiple times. The company had no money. How else was Mac going to pay for legal services. Each time an agreement was made with the lenders, legal services were due. Below is the example of how they were paid.
"(a) The Company has advised the Investors that it is currently indebted to Hunter Taubman Weiss LLP (“HTW”), counsel to the Company, in the amount of approximately $300,000 for accrued and unpaid legal fees relating to corporate, securities and litigation services previously rendered. The Company also desires to continue to retain the services of such attorneys to handle certain corporate, securities and litigation matters for the Company which are or may be in addition to matters relating to the preparation and filing of its 2011 Form 10-K Annual Report, Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 and Form 8-K Interim Report.
The Company has requested and HTW has agreed to accept from the Company, as an account stated, a $300,000 unsecured convertible 4% Company note payable on April 30, 2015 (the “HTW Note”), which shall (i) accrue interest at the annual rate of 4% per annum,
(ii) be convertible into Company Common Stock at a fixed conversion price of $0.01 per share, (iii) be subject to prepayment at the option of the Company, (iv) contain full ratchet and other customary anti-dilution protection, and (v) not be subject to any mandatory installment or other mandatory prepayment provisions prior to the April 30, 2015 maturity date."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412030793/v313941_ex10-1.htm
The full ratchet means the .01 conversion is out the door and the notes convert at the bottom price the shares are selling at. The sale price does not matter for the lawyers because if they sell shares at a lower price, they just get more shares to convert and sell even lower, etc., etc.
A share price just cannot go downhill quicker than that.
DC stated: "Goldseeker's logic of the lenders converting as much debt into stock as they could and selling ALL of the stock to Retail at .0001 makes no sense at all.
By his estimate, they could only recover maybe $400,000 of the 17,000,000 owed them. Much better to work with the Takeover Groups and recover their money thru a new Radient-Diagnostic Corporation."
DC, it was certainly not the plan to sell all the stock at a few hundredths of a penny but plans don't always go as planned.
The problem was the lack of co-ordination between lenders themselves and between the lenders and the lawyers who were also paid in shares. The main culprits were the law firms who would absolutely DUMP shares on the market and take what they could get. Also one or more of the 5 lenders would sell more shares than the market would bear and soon the bottom just dropped out of the price.
When Radient did the reverse split and the lenders loaned them more money to get the filings up to date, I for one expected more discipline but the law firm was also paid in shares and they again just flooded the market.
If you want to blame someone for your shares having no value, point your finger at the lawyers.
You still do not understand the conversion process. According to the agreement with the lenders, the brokers would sell shares and notice would be given to Radient to forward the same number of certificates directly to the selling broker. The actual cost of the shares to be deducted from the notes would not be calculated until a month later from the average selling price AFTER the date of sale and even then, depending on the particular lender, they got up to 30% discount on that price.
If you understand the agreement above, you would clearly understand why NO lender ever held actual shares because they would just go down in value as the sales price dropped.
Of course, I don't expect you agree to understand the above because if you did, your fantasy of lender ownership would go away.
The following is from the SEC website and defines what should be reported on form 13.
"Q: What are "Section 13(f) securities"?
A:
These are securities that may be reported on Form 13F. A list of these securities - called the Official List of Section 13(f) Securities - is available shortly after the end of each calendar quarter on the SEC's website, at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13flists.htm. Section 13(f) securities are equity securities of a class described in Section 13(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act. See Section 13(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act.
The Official List of Section 13(f) Securities primarily includes U.S. exchange-traded stocks (e.g., NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ), shares of closed-end investment companies, and shares of exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Certain convertible debt securities, equity options, and warrants are on the Official List and may be reported. But see Section 13(f)(4) (referring to equity securities of a class referred to in Exchange Act section 13(d)(1)) and exemptive rules 12a-4 and 12a-9 under the Exchange Act. "
The form 13's filed were reporting the amount of shares if the warrants and notes were converted.
Guard, you are deficient in reading and understanding sec filings. The agreements with the lenders clearly state the process of converting and selling shares.
The lenders never ever held even one share in the process of selling. They would have their broker sell shares and then give notice to Radient to convert notes or warrants and submit the certificates DIRECTLY to the selling broker.
The lenders never touched any shares.
READ THE FILINGS.
The lenders did not want Mac to declare bankruptcy because they wanted to continue selling shares. As a matter of fact, if you had ever read the last agreement Mac signed with the lenders, he had to promise not to file bankruptcy before August 2012.
" Covenant with Respect to Voluntary Bankruptcy. By its execution of this Agreement, the Company hereby covenants and agrees with each of the Investors that, subject only to the continuation of their forbearance agreements and the Forbearance Period remaining in force, as set forth in Section 5 below, following the date of this Agreement and through and including 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on August 31, 2012, the Company shall not file in any U.S. Bankruptcy Court a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Act”) or seek to liquidate under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Act. The Company shall deliver to each of the Investors the unanimous written consent of the board of directors of the Company to this Agreement, which shall also include an express affirmation of the covenant contained in this Section 4."
The lenders have absolutely ZERO control as to Radient filing bankruptcy. The lenders converted and sold the 4.5 billion shares and currently just hold notes. NO STOCK. You are absolutely dreaming if you think they own stock.
IMO, the bottom line on revocation is that it is unknown why Mac submitted the settlement, whether the SEC gave him some sort of notice, or the date the SEC will actually act on the revocation.
One thing is sure though, revocation will happen unless the SEC filing are brought up to date and a revised settlement is submitted.
It is also highly possible that Charter wanted the settlement submitted prior to his appointment as management. I was not able to find any notice from the SEC prompting a settlement and all notices are listed on the SEC website. This certainly appears to be voluntary and most likely at the request of Charter.
IMO, he did not want to inherit an obligation to submit delinquent filings.
One thing that tells you for certain is that the stock is NOT going to be coming back as is. The only way to bring back Radient and not have to submit past filings is through the bankruptcy process and the formation of a new company.
Since I could find no notice from the SEC for revocation, it is probable that Mac filed voluntarily. If so, he would have probably used a form 25.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hemiwedge-industries-announces-sec-order-revoking-section-12j-common-stock-registration-116227674.html
If you look at the rules for a form 25 submission, it takes 90 days for the SEC to act.
http://media.mofo.com/files/Uploads/Images/FAQ-Suspending-Reporting-Obligations.pdf
Page 2 spells out the 90 days.
under Section 12(b) to occur once a Form 25 is filed?
In general, once a Form 25 is filed, delisting occurs automatically within 10 days. However, deregistration under Section 12(b) does not occur for another 80 days. According to General Instruction 5 to Form 25 and Rule 12d2-2(d)(2), delisting/deregistration occurs 90 days after filing the Form 25.
It looks like Radient may be trading for a while longer. I've now seen a couple issues where 90 days elapsed.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hemiwedge-industries-announces-sec-order-revoking-section-12j-common-stock-registration-116227674.html
DC, the insurance already paid the money and it is in an account supposedly drawing interest. It has not yet been signed off by Judge Carter because there were two objections to the amount the lawyers were to be paid.
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/i1c9lmqq/california-central-district-court/vinh-nguyen-v-radient-pharmaceuticals-corportion-et-al/
No Twinkie defense here.
Just did some looking at SEC notices and it would appear that Radient did NOT get a notice of delinquent filings. That being the case, it would appear that Mac just decided to submit the settlement offer to revoke the registration or there was some other reason why the SEC wanted to revoke.