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 think the last time someone contacted the TA, the O/S was about 4.5 billion.
I think all the .0001 buyers want out at .0002. Unfortunately, I doubt they can even get back out at .0001.
I predict bankruptcy before Nov. 12th. In fact I predict the bankruptcy 8-K the week after Labor Day which means three weeks! I don't think MacLellan will wait until the last minute to file for BK, but who knows what last-minute deal he's trying to swing.
you should be asking yourself the same question when you post "soon" and "next week."
You know that, how?
Murky and Non-Existent are two different things.
What catalyst is coming, other than the jury trial?
You insisted that GCDX would start selling their LC test on August 1st. Didn't happen.
GCDx has not kept their corporate standing in Arizona up-to-date. They are two months late in filing. Why? Has Gartner given up?
"Soon." You longs keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
People have been using the words "soon" and "imminent" since 2011 to describe the Radient takeover/merger/buyout "rummer" [sic]. I am baffled as to why anyone would think the takeover entity is willing to drag this out so long while the O/S gets diluted at .0001 and interest/penalties accrue on the lender debt at usurious rates. That makes zero business sense.
I mean really. it's absurd to think the takeover entity is so ignorant about money that they are allowing this to happen. There cannot be a takeover or merger or buyout. It's fiscally impossible.
Radient will not merge into anything.
An entity wanting to manufacture and sell onko-sure can license it as UNI did. That entity has no reason to take on Radient's debt.
The only possible reason to merge with Radient is to use Radient as a tax loss.... but the IRS has cracked down on that little scheme. There are limits to the amount of losses the takeover entity can use, and it won't be enough to counter the lender debt.
Unfortunately, the problem with licensing onko-sure now is: UNI has Asia sales, and Asia was the only place onko-sure generated even modest revenues. This lack of future Asia revenues is just one more reason for an entity to NOT want to merge with Radient. Revenues outside Asia have always been negligible and there is no logical reason to assume revenues will ever be anything BUT negligible.
Onko-sure is a failure because the global medical community does not want to support it or prescribe it. It is that simple.
I predict a bankruptcy 8-K the week after Labor Day.
I don't think MacLellan will wait any longer because I think he will need to get that solidified well before the November court date. He doesn't want to have to tell the judge "the Radient Corporation is not here today because they filed for bankruptcy last week."
I think MacLellan will give Gartner that much time to get his funding. Five more weeks. Unlikely, but possible.
If GCDx tries to market the LC Screener online, the FDA will shut them down the same way they shut down the companies selling DNA tests online, IMO.
But I don't think it matters anyway -- even if Gartner sold the LC screener online, I am quite sure that revenues would be dismal.
Doctors won't prescribe it or support it. Insurance companies won't reimburse for it. If you walk into a doctors office and say "my LC screener test says I have lung cancer, but I have no symptoms," the doctor will give you a chest X-ray.... but Gartner claims a chest X-ray won't detect the early stages of lung cancer, so what have you accomplished?
Then the doctor will research onko-sure and try to convince you that the test was a waste of money.
a patent approval won't move this stock much, if at all.
They won't release a PR for it because this company does not operate and has no money for PR's.
And even if they do.... They have held patents for years. So what? A patent for a device that is unprofitable is worthless.
There will be no merger. That is just a silly rumor being spread on a yahoo message board.
licenses do not bring enough money into Radient's coffers to pay their overdue operational bills from 2011, let alone the lender debt of approximately $20 million.
Today is August 1st and Global Cancer Diagnostics is not offering a $99 test. GCDx needs to get funding before they can offer the test. Without an 8-K for a license agreement, they can't legally START to sell it or even manufacture it.
I think you ARE a rummer.
Radient does not operate.
Holding patents and trademarks does not constitute active operation. I own a couple of trademarks and one patent, for a company I don't even mention on my tax returns any more. I will maintain that intellectual property forever, because it's cheapo so why not... but that company will never operate again. That was a failed idea from my youth.
Pursuing licenses to find someone else to manufacture and market the product does not constitute operation. On the contrary, that partially DEFINES non-operation.
If you want to invest in onko-sure, buying RXPC stock is the worst way to accomplish that goal. Instead, you should invest in GCDx or UNI.
Well, UNI, maybe. I wouldn't give Gartner any money, myself.
Gartner says he needs $1.5 million to get started. Some here seem to think Gartner's LC Screener will be wildly profitable. Anyone who believes that should give Gartner money. If enough small investors pool together and give Gartner $1.5 million, he will try to sell the LC Screener online. I'd like to see that.
Today is August 1st. I want to buy the onko-sure LC Screener test from GCDx. Can I do that? No. Will I be able to do that in August 2013, or ever, for that matter? I strongly doubt that.
Gartner has no current licensing agreement to sell onko-sure. Even worse, if he DID get the funding and he starts selling the test online, I think the FDA will shut him down the way they shut down the companies selling DNA testing for ancestry websites.
there will be no takeoff.
there is no news coming. Unless you're talking about the bankruptcy 8-K which I expect the week after Labor Day, which is coming up FAST.
This company does not operate, does not file with the SEC, and does not manufacture anything. They licensed manufacturing and sales to UNI. The $100,000 per year they will receive won't come close to paying the $900,000 overdue operational bills, let alone the $20 million outstanding lender debt.
I traded this stock between 2004 and 2009. It was called AMDL then. The stock was manipulated on a regular basis - it was quite profitable.
I stopped trading AMDL when they lost Jade. I haven't owned it since 2009.
That means I missed two great PPS spikes, in April 2010 and January 2011. Each time, a certain stock "analyst" said some bullish things about Radient that turned out to be a different kind of bull. Even though his analysis was 100% wrong, he created a short squeeze each time because there was only 38 million shares out and the shorts had just hit it hard.
A short squeeze is not possible now, for obvious reasons.
Some claim this will go to a penny or a dime or a dollar. The proponents of the takeover rumor, for example.
Why aren't those people buying the 300 million shares on the ask for .0002?
This is the chance to turn $60,000 into $3 million in a matter of weeks? Who would turn down that opportunity if they believed it was real?
But no, they buy at .0001 only, and refuse to buy at .0002. I think that says it all.
You said "Hopefully that puts an end to the patent debate. "
I asked "what debate?"
Your answer: "I didn't mention anything about patents."
There has never been "plenty of overseas interest."
DR-70 had dismal sales globally since its inception. The excuse was always "as soon as they get FDA clearance, overseas sales will skyrocket." Unfortunately, that was proven wrong.
Radient did seem to have modest success selling onko-sure in Asia. Revenues were still only about 5% of operating costs, but what little they DID sell was mostly in Asia.
The bad news there is: Radient just gave away Asia sales to UNI, for a license fee of $100 per year.
So I fail to see the potential.
is there a patent debate?
Small-Howard submitted a patent application in 2009, it was rejected twice, Small-Hoaward submitted it again to the same examiner, it's under review.
Where is the debate in that?
Or are you saying the DR-70 test (aka onko-sure) is not currently patented?
GCDx is not partnered with Radient.
GCDx is trying to get $1.5 million funding. IF they get that funding, they will sign a license agreement with Radient.
Even then, signing a license agreement does not constitute partnership.
If the Onko Sure process is currently patented, GCDx cannot manufacture the test without that license agreement, which means they will not be selling the test on August 1st unless you see an 8-K for a GCDx license agreement before then.
And that 8-K, if it appears, is going to have a bankruptcy clause that wasn't in the 2012 license agreement.
But how can anyone make a significant number of the tests without a replacement for the anti-fibrinogen HRP? How can UNI do it, or GCDx, or anyone in China?
anti-fibrinogen HRP.
HERE'S A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE 2009 2nd Qtr 10-Q, filed in August 2009:
" Although the Company has obtained approval from the USFDA to market the then current formulation of the DR-70 test kit, it has been determined that one of the key components of the DR-70 test kit, the anti-fibrinogen-HRP is limited in supply and additional quantities cannot be purchased. There are currently enough DR-70 test kit components to perform approximately 1.2 million individual tests (31,000 test kits) over the next 12-18 months. Based on current and anticipated orders, this supply is adequate to fill all orders. The Company now anticipates that it will attempt to locate a substitute anti-fibrinogen-HRP and perform additional quality assurance testing in order to create a significant supply of the current version of the DR-70 test kit.
Part of the Company’s research and development efforts through 2010 will include the testing and development of an enhanced and improved version of the DR-70 test kit. Pilot studies show that the new version could be superior to the current version. The Company has completed negotiations with a third party to take the lead on necessary clinical studies. It is anticipated that this version will be submitted to the USFDA in the latter half of 2010. "
THAT TEXT DID NOT CHANGE IN THE 10-K's AND 10-Q's until the 2010 3rd Qtr 10-Q filed in November 2010, when they added this, indicating they had found a possible replacement (substitute) ingredient:
"We will test and evaluate the performance of the substitute. If the substitute antibody has statistically better results than precedent antibody, we will need to submit to the USFDA for approval before replacement take place. If the test results show the same effectiveness as the current antibody, the new antibody is ready for use and no further USFDA approval will be required. "
WHEN THEY FILED THE 2010 10-K in May 2011, the text changed thusly:
"We have a limited supply of the horseradish peroxidase (“HRP”)-conjugated anti-fibrin and fibrinogen degradation (“FDP”) antibody component currently used for the approved Onko-Sure® test kit. Because of the limited supply of the current antibody, we have determined it is in our best interest to change to a HRP-conjugated anti-FDP antibody. We are currently screening six commercially available conjugated antibodies to substitute into the current Onko-Sure® test kit and one we produced and conjugated ourselves. The anti-FDP antibody we produced ourselves has performed well in pilot studies and will likely be used in our next generation Onko-Sure® test kit. If the antibody substitution significantly improves Onko-Sure® test kit performance, we will be required to change the reported sensitivity and specificity of the Onko-Sure® test kit. Because of these changes and modifications, we will likely have to submit a new 510(k) premarket notification application, but can continue to sell the existing kit until our current antibody supply is exhausted."
IN THE 2011 1ST QTR 10-Q filed in June 2011 the text changed to:
"We currently have two lots remaining which are estimated to produce approximately 21,000 test kits. Based on our current and anticipated orders, this supply is adequate to fill all orders in hand. Although we are investigating alternatives or outsourcing of this component so that we are in a position to have an unlimited supply of Onko-Sure® in the future, we cannot assure that this anti-fibrinogen-HRP replacement will be completed. "
THIS WAS REPEATED VERBATIM IN THE 2nd Qtr 10-Q filed in August 2011... but the 3rd Qtr 10-Q filed in November 2011 implies they had given up trying to find a replacement, and were now trying to mix the horseradish ingredient inhouse:
"Although we are investigating to produce this component in house so that we are in a position to have an unlimited supply of Onko-Sure® in the future, at this time we cannot give an estimate of time needed to complete this anti-fibrinogen-HRP replacement.”
FINALLY, IN THE 2011 10-K filed in June 2012, they said:
"In addition, our test kits require anti-fibrinogen HRP of which we have a limited quantity. Due to the lack of funds, we suspended the project of investigating alternatives or outsourcing of the anti-fibrinogen HRP to be used in our test kits. Currently, we have two lots remaining which are estimated to produce approximately 21,000 kits. In order to utilize in kits, we will need to purify and quality control the lots. We currently have enough purified and quality checked anti-fibrinogen-HRP to manufacture 200 kits. When funds are available, we will begin the quality control and purification process which will enable us to increase our raw material inventory. Based on our current and anticipated orders, this supply is not adequate to fill all such orders."
CONCLUSION: THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR THE ANTI-FIBRINOGEN HRP that's been tested and verified. So how can UNI, GCDx, and the China company make the test?
GCDx is not calling their test DR-70 or Onko-Sure. So the trademarks and names are moot.
The patent application was rejected twice. Now it's being reviewed again by the same examiner. Did Radient get their act together this time? Flip of the coin, IMO.
Except the expired patent is for the old anti-fibrinogen HRP ingredient, which is either in short supply or not available at all.
Gartner can't make many test kits using the scarce anti-fibrinogen HRP, and if Gartner is making DR-70 using the new replacement ingredient, the new patent does have some importance. If what you say is true, MacLellan is now mad at Gartner and could find a lawyer to sue GCDx on a contingency basis.
But I think you're wrong. I think Gartner and MacLellan are still friends. I think Gartner wants $1.5 million so he can sign a new license agreement with MacLellan before Radient goes bankrupt. Gartner would give MacLellan $200,000 and the agreement would contain a bankruptcy clause like the UNI agreement. Without the $1.5 million and without the Radient license agreement, GCDx isn't going to sell anything. In other words, everything Gartner said GCDX is going to do is followed by the unspoken implied phrase "if I get funding."
Which means GCDx is probably never going to sell the test. I don't think Gartner will ever get his $1.5 million funding because nobody who does DD on onko-sure will invest in onko-sure. It's a failed product. It's never going to generate enough revenues to pay for operational and manufacturing costs, which means it's never going to be profitable, and biotech is not about saving the world or curing cancer -- biotech is about profit.
The only people who are saying that "onko-sure is worth billions" are RXPC shareholders who want to sell their stock. If they believed that Radient had a profitable future, they'd shut up and buy more. If they really believed the stock is going to a dime or a dollar or even a penny, they would be buying at .0002.
Mayo Clinic was in the gray area. The SEC filings clearly explained what Mayo was providing. People need to read SEC filings.
Question is, what will a jury say in November. Bad luck for Radient, to have to explain those PR's to a jury -- a judge might have let Radient off, but juries are comprised of Joe the Plumber, and Joe is suspicious of CEO fat cats. I would be worried if I were MacLellan.
Dead Ghandi was just a typo by MacLellan as he waxed poetic, and Mac never said the $10 million deal was a sale -- he said it was a distribution agreement. The Guar Diagno PR's were just Safe Harbor CEO Hype, like all of MacLellan's revenue guidance that everyone learned to ignore.
What I find fascinating is: Garza said that $10 million deal was a SALE, and he said there was a $4.50 per share buyout offer on the table, and nobody can sue him for fraud because he has a disclaimer that he can't be sued for his "opinions." Even when he states them as fact on his BMR website and on Seeking Alpha.
RXPC is not a scam or a fraud. It is just a failed company -- Mac is not representing the company as anything else. Garza, on the other hand.... He said "no delisting," he said the lenders were happy, he said the lenders wanted to own Radient shares, he said Jade was worth something, but the WORST was that $10 million India deal. $10 million in revenues would have saved Radient in 2011.
waterchaser, I have been studying this company since 2004, when I got in for the FDA play. It was called AMDL then.
I have not owned its stock since Jade mutinied in 2009. (That was the year they left, wasn't it?)
I find this to be the most fascinating story on Wall Street. I thought they were going bankrupt in 2010 after a dismal 2009 10-K showed that DR-70 was a failure and the CEO's guidance wasn't worth the cocktail nakpin it was written on.
But a certain stock "analyst" decided to promote the company right after that 10-K caused a lot of shorting.... and the ensuing short squeeze in April 2010 allowed the company to borrow money and keep going. This "analyst" did it again in January 2011 when he saw another chance for a short squeeze, and he was successful again, allowing Radient to refinance THOSE defaulted loans with NEW loans which they defaulted on within three months.
Longs held their breath and waited for that "analyst" to come to their rescue one more time, but Radient had diluted and the opportunity for a short squeeze was gone. That "analyst" disappeared in 2011, leaving some broken dreams and depleted brokerage accounts. Radient had to admit in 2011 that (a) there was no Mayo Study, (b) Jade was not an asset after all, and the company had a shareholder deficit, not shareholder equity, (c) the "$10 million India Sale" was not a sale after all but a failed distribution agreement, (d) onko-sure was a dud -- generating $300,000 gross revenues at an operational cost of $10 million.
Delisting. Reverse split. Massive dilution. Debt conversion that didn't even keep up with interest, let alone pay off the defaulted loans. Threats of personal lawsuits by the lenders, met with threats of bankruptcy by Radient. Fast forward to today: 5 billion O/S at .0001.
Anyone bother to contact the T/A? that last 500 million in the A/S is gone, isn't it?
Oh, and the PATENTS. I question whether a patent for an unprofitable device is worth much, to anyone. I used to do patent searches at the library, before the internet.... Fascinating to see all the patents for products that never made it to market, or made it to market but were unprofitable. What is the value of a patent for a device that won't turn a profit for anyone?
RXPC is not a fraud.
Radient got a device cleared by the FDA. They tried to sell it. They failed.
That's not fraud. That's just a failed company.
Radient actually turned a profit one quarter because of Jade. However, Radient no longer has Jade as an asset. Therein lies the main reason for Radient's failure. The previous CEO Dreher was moving away from DR-70 and focusing on Jade, but the current CEO MacLellan did not maintain a good relationship with Jade and was forced to re-focus on DR-70 sales when Jade left in 2009.
Unfortunately, the global medical community did not embrace DR-70, and Radient could not repay their loans. Fast-forward to today: Defaulted loans, multi-million-dollar debt, dilution to 5 billion shares, brick-and-mortar doors closed, Officers all gone except for the CEO and one new guy from the CEO's failed past, and the only plum in the fruit basket, Asia Sales, given to UNI for $100,000 per year.
The only fraud lies in misrepresenting this company as having a future and/or perpetuating a false rumor that the company will be bought, taken over, or merged with. Radient officers are not doing that.
The "Mayo Study" PR's may or may not constitute fraud. A jury will decide that in November. I don't expect Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation to exist by that time. I expect bankruptcy before then because Radient does not have funds for trial lawyers. Even if they cashed out that last 500 million shares for legal fees, it would not come close to paying for trial lawyers.
Dirt on MacLellan:
He was CEO for three companies that went into bankruptcy. His fellow BOD member in the last two of those, Boswell, just quit. His CFO in the first company that went bankrupt was Christianson, the new BOD member.
After becoming CEO of Radient, Radient's one asset that had value, Jade Pharma in China, broke all ties with Radient. The loss of Jade is what caused Radient's balance sheet to go from shareholder equity to shareholder deficit, which caused delisting and loan defaults.
After becoming CEO of Radient, he never did a private equity placement for Radient -- instead, he borrowed money, at increasingly usurious rates. Radient defaulted on EVERY ONE of those loans.
He gave guidance for $$$ millions in revenues and generated only 5% of guidance. To reward himself and his fellow officers for this performance, he handed out bonuses at Christmas.
All this can be easily verified by a little DD. Contrast these statements to statements of mergers and creeping takeovers that cannot be verified. Then, buy as much RXPC as you see fit.
Yes, the cancer industry is worth billions.
Yes, onko-sure is a test marketed for cancer.
But to say that onko-sure is therefore worth billions is a false enthymeme.
Every biotech CEO says "the cancer industry is worth billions" in the PR's. It's hype.
Gartner's presentation was a sales pitch and nothing more. Gartner is on the BOD of AZBio -- if he weren't, I doubt they would have let him make that sales pitch at the conference.
Patents and trademarks and Euro Mark designations for devices that are as unprofitable as Onko-Sure are basically worthless. When Radient borrowed millions and focused on Onko-Sure sales, the best they could do was $300,000 gross revenues annually. They spent $10 million just on operating costs to accomplish that.
You can't sugar-coat that kind of under-performance.
No, the demand for onko sure was about $300,000 per year.
And Radient spent $10 million per year in operations.
That is why there is no takeover or merger. nobody wants to take over THAT kind of underperformance.
Every biotech CEO says the cancer industry is worth billions per year. Every intelligent investors knows it's just hype.
Radient, zero as of today.
your point?
I made mine.
509 million is huge? it's $51,000.
for any non-zombie OTC biotech company that reports financials and actually operates, $51,000 is a trade. For a pinksheet shell, $51,000 is a normal day. For a zombie stock like RXPC, $51,000 is huge and "attracts a lot of attention?" From whom?
"This is the highest volume traded stock on the OTC?" -- maybe in shares, but not in $$$. Closing leaders yesterday:
OTCQX: RHHBY, $37 million
OTCQB: FNMY, $34 million
OTC Pink: NSRGY, $152 million
OTC Other: PNCYL, $20 million
$51,000 looks pretty insignificant when compared to REAL stocks. If it attracts attention, I think it's from gamblers, not investors.
By Closure, I mean bankruptcy.
I don't think it's been under heavy anything.
In fact this stock is light in every way imaginable. The volume, news flow, and everything else is almost non-existent. The $$ amount traded on a "heavy volume" day amounts to peanuts.
But hopefully the O/S will reach 5 billion soon and we'll finally get closure on this company and this stock.
I am a big believer in reality.
I take things at face value. I do not read between the lines of 8-K's.
I speak the truth.
Go to AZ and give money to Gartner.
If you believe that Gartner will be successful selling onko-sure as an LC screener on the internet, you should give him money directly.
I'm sure he would accept $10,000 from 150 investors.
I'm quite sure that the new license agreement between GCDx and Radient will ensure that Bankruptcy by Radient will not stop Gartner's business plan. So it is a safe investment.
Assuming you believe that Gartner will be able to turn a profit selling onko-sure as a LC screener. Myself, I do not believe that. I believe Gartner will be successful only in paying himself a salary (and a few of his other friends from Provista).
But how long will $1.5 million last? The PMA alone for onko-sure as a LC screener will cost more than that.
The end result is a sales pitch from William Gartner.
Gartner is asking for $1.5 million. What do you think he will do with that $1.5 million? How will he spend it?
How much of that $1.5 million will go to Radient? I think it will be about $200,000. I think Gartner will sign a licensing deal with Radient similar to the cancelled agreement from 2012.
Will $200,000 in Radient's coffers make a difference to the PPS? How much of the $900,000 in unpaid bills from December 2011 do they still owe? Note that the $900,000 in unpaid bills is in ADDITION to the lender debt. That $900,000 was not defaulted loans -- that was unpaid operational costs, like suppliers, utilities, rent, etc.
One thing I think will be interesting -- IF Gartner gets the money, and IF he signs a new licensing agreement -- will the agreement have a bankruptcy clause like the UNI licensing agreement? I think it will.
Gartner can't market onko-sure without FDA clearance.
Anyone who thinks Gartner can market onko-sure without FDA clearance should do a little research into the FDA's complaints against companies selling DNA testing without FDA clearance.
Those 23 states might allow the sale of onko-sure without a prescription, but the FDA won't allow it. onko-sure is not cleared by the FDA for use as a screener and that kind of clearance would take a PMA, not a 510(k). We all know what a PMA costs and how long it takes.
The video/presentation is a sales pitch. Gartner does not have the money yet so he won't be selling anything on August 1st unless someone gives him $1.5 million.
Gartner has no current licensing agreement with Radient.
Those are the facts.
I found it interesting that Gartner says in his video "x-rays can't detect level 1 and level 2 lung cancer." If a patient gets a positive result from onko-sure, the doctor does not know where in the body to start looking for cancer. If it's level 1 or level 2 LC, and the doctor does chest x-rays, Gartner says the x-rays will be negative. What will the doctor do next, knowing that the test has 95% specificity, meaning that in 5% of the onko-sure positive cases, they could look forever for cancer in the entire body and not find it, because it's not there?
Does the doctor prescribe chemo? We all know someone who has done chemo. That's no fun.
Does the doctor bathe the patient in radiation? of course not.
This is why I think onko-sure will never be cleared by the FDA as a screener, why onko-sure was not accepted and used by the global medical community, and why SRL had to sell their remaining tests for half price.
Looks like Radient is trying to protect the patents after BK.
"RXPC hereby agrees that UNI shall be granted, by way of and under the protection of the March-In Rights of this Section 7, full and exclusive assignment and transfer of rights and entitlement to the two unissued patents as identified in Exhibit A hereto attached in the event RXPC is confronted with, served, and or interrupted by bankruptcy proceedings, "
Giving away the patents before filing for bankruptcy. Clever. Lenders will get NOTHING. This appears to be a ruse to prevent the lenders or Rosen from forcing Radient into bankruptcy -- there would be zero assets.
Instead of talking about what you WISH was in the 8-K....
I find it curious that people are avoiding discussion of what ACTUALLY IS in the 8-K.
Namely, the clause about bankruptcy.
Pretty clear to me that MacLellan and UNI expect a bankruptcy filing or some other interruption.
Yes, something different, but not ambiguous.
EXHIBIT B comparison: They are what they are. Cut in stone, no interpretation necessary:
GCDX DEAL:
Royalty Payments.
1.1 Royalty Rate . GCDx will pay a royalty equal to $400 per DR-70 kit made, used or sold by GCDx in the Territory.
1.2 Minimum Royalties. GCDx shall pay RCPC an annual minimum royalty according to the following schedule:
Calendar Year 2013 $100,000
Calendar Year 2014 $300,000
Each Calendar Year thereafter $400,000
1.3 Minimum royalties for each Calendar Year will be paid on a quarterly basis beginning in Calendar Year 2014, and become due 35 days after the last day of each Calendar Quarter for that year.
UNI DEAL:
License Royalty Payments
1.1 License Royalty Fee
UNI shall pay a license royalty fee of one hundred thousand ($100,000) USD per year up to a total of five hundred thousand ($500,000) USD for the duration of the 5 year License Agreement.
1.2 License Royalty Payments Schedule
UNI shall pay RXPC an annual minimum license royalty fee according to the following schedule:
June 6th 2013 to June 6th 2014: $100,000
($20,000 upfront and $80,000 following tech transfer training and commercial-scale trial-run production )
June 6th 2014 to June 6th 2015: $100,000
June 6th 2015 to June 6th 2016: $100,000
June 6th 2016 to June 6th 2017: $100,000
June 6th 2017 to June 6th 2018: $100,000
Total five year licensing fee: $500,000
1.3 Licensing fees for each year shall be paid annually beginning in Calendar Year 2013, and become due June 1st each year of the duration of the agreement.
The 8-K for the GCDx agreement specifically mentioned royalty payments for sales:
"GCDx shall pay us royalties, which shall be earned only upon actual receipt of payment of revenue or sublicense license fees and sublicense royalty fees by GCDx, as set forth in the Agreement."
MacLellan would not "forget" to mention royalty payments in the UNI 8-K and 8-K/A because that would be passing up an opportunity to promote his stock by forecasting future revenues.
GCDx Deal: $200,000 upfront and sales royalties afterwards.
UNI Deal: $100,000 upfront and $100,000 per year for five years.
The GCDx deal was interpreted as proof that GCDx/Provista was taking over Radient. Why is the UNI deal not interpreted the same way? All the Creeping Takeover theorists have to do is switch buyers. Why is that difficult? UNI seems much more likely to be a Takeover candidate than GCDx/Provista.
Of course, I think the Creeping Takeover theory is ludicrous, but UNI is less ludicrous than GCDx/Provista.
If the 8-K omitted royalties for sales.....
That would mean MacLellan failed to grasp an opportunity to pump his stock in an 8-K by neglecting to describe $$$ coming into the Radient coffers. Not just ONCE, but AGAIN in the amended 8-K.
Are we talking about the same MacLellan? Because that does not sound like the Doug McLellan that is CEO of Radient Pharmaceuticals.
MacLellan adds immaterial fluff to his 8-K's to try and pump his stock the way he used to pump the stock in press releases. But in this case, the theory is that he left out something not merely MATERIAL but potentially more profitable than the $500,000 licensing royalties.
Pinksheet "investing" is gambling, pure and simple. Betting your money on MacLellan making that kind of omission in the 8-K and again in the 8-K/A seems like a poor bet to me.
Reading between the lines of a press release is often necessary. Reading between the lines of an 8-K is folly.
$500,000 total over 5 years is IT.
EXHIBIT B in the 8-K is quite specific about that. EXHIBIT B is legally binding.