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.
The best place to find news about Radient:
a ouija board.
There is No Reverse Merger involving Radient.
If there were, it would have happened before share registration was revoked.
It's that Simple.
Where are the Directors and Officers of Radient?
Nobody has heard from them in almost a year. I sent them emails a few times, but they did not respond.
If they are "restructuring" Radient, why don't they tell RXPC shareholders what is going on? Don't shareholders have a right to know?
These Officers and Directors allowed the Radient Corporation to be voided and they abandoned the last and only patent application for Radient's only asset, DR-70 (aka Onko-Sure). They disconnected all the phones and took down the websites so the only remaining Radient website today is a blank page.
Nobody knows the physical location, if any, of Radient Pharmaceuticals. Nobody even knows upon which continent to start looking for these men. Australia? China?
Mayo Clinic Denies Test Link to Radient Pharma
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11033340/1/mayo-clinic-denies-link-to-radient-pharma.html
This is what brought about the Rosen class action lawsuit. Nice Analysis! The truth wins in this case!
"The Mayo Clinic is denying statements made by Radient Pharmaceuticals (RPC) about the prestigious research hospital's involvement in a clinical study of Radient's cancer-screening test Onko-Sure.
"Mayo is not engaged in clinical studies with Radient and does not have a partnership agreement with Radient," Mayo Clinic spokesperson Kathy Anderson said in a statement emailed to TheStreet Friday.
Mayo Clinic's statement contradicts Radient's recent pronouncements regarding the pending release of results from a new clinical validation study of Onko-Sure, a blood-based cancer screening test. Questions about the exact nature of the relationship between Radient and Mayo come a week after similar doubts were raised about an Onko-Sure venture in India touted by Radient. "
India Government denies onko-sure rollout.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11141691/3/radient-outlook-on-india-partner-dims.html
"India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare "has no information about the Onko-Sure cancer screening test and the public cancer screening program conducted by Radient Pharmaceuticals in partnership with Gaur Diagno," said ministry official Dr. Alok Mathur, in an emailed response to questions.
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is in the midst of a long-range public health program to screen Indian citizens for cancer and other diseases. This government-funded initiative, known as the National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke, however, does not involve Gaur Diagno or Onko-Sure, Mathur adds.
Mathur's statement contradicts a video posted on Radient's Web site describing the India General Cancer Screening Initiative as "Radient's first government-backed screening project" and the "world's largest general cancer screening project in history."
The only analyst who ever got RXPC right:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11141691/1/radient-outlook-on-india-partner-dims.html
This was all 100% correct. Nice Analysis!
" Radient Pharmaceuticals (RPC) is backing away from claims made to investors about an ambitious cancer-screening program in India that was supposed to resurrect the financial performance of the struggling diagnostics company.
In regulatory filings made public last week, Radient disclosed its India joint venture partner lacks money and does not have the support of the Indian government to start a program in which as many as 2 million rural and poor residents of northern India were to be screened for cancer using Radient's blood-based cancer test Onko-Sure.
Last January, Radient told investors that this India cancer-screening venture would generate $10 million in sales in 2011, based on the planned purchase of 25,000 Onko-Sure tests kits by Radient's New Delhi-based partner, Gaur Diagno.
"Due to the inability of Jaiva Gaur Diagno to obtain adequate financing, obtain governmental as well as private support for the launch of Onko-Sure in India, Jaiva Gaur Diagno substantially reduced their purchase forecast for fiscal year 2011," Radient stated in its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Radient began referring to Gaur Diagno as Jaiva Gaur Diagno for the first time in its 10-K.
The Radient filing adds: "At this time, Jaiva Gaur Diagno is unable to forecast the timing or the number, if any, of Onko-Sure test kits that will be eventually purchased for the India market."
A spokesperson for Radient declined to answer questions about the new Onko- Sure disclosures until the company submits a 10-Q regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Radient desperately needs the India revenue source to save the struggling company from insolvency. In more than three years dating back to 2008, Radient has sold less than $500,000 worth of Onko-Sure test kits in the U.S. and Canada, where it is approved to monitor the progress of colon cancer and lung cancer, respectively. The inability to generate any significant revenue from Onko-Sure has saddled Radient with mounting losses and crushing amounts of debt, much of it now in default.
Radient lacks the cash to pay its debt and has yet to reach an agreement with creditors to restructure its loans, according to regulatory filings. The company also faces delisting from the NYSE Amex...."
Radient is not being restructured.
Radient Pharmaceuticals, RXPC, is a dead stock. There is no restructuring, no reverse merger, NOTHING.
-> The company declared itself insolvent in May 2014.
-> The Directors and Officers all resigned, one at a time, over the course of three years. The last two resigned in May 2014 and appointed some unknowns from Australia as the new Directors and Officers.
-> these Australians promptly disconnected the phones, took down the websites, and disappeared.
-> RXPC Share registration was revoked in July 2014.
10 minutes of doing your own DD will prove that I am speaking the truth.
There is no reverse merger involving Radient.
Saying that share revocation and the voiding of the Radient coporation were "voluntary" is like saying that bankruptcy is "voluntary" or divorce is "voluntary." They are choices. They are "voluntary" only in the sense that in each case, there is more than one choice.
Regarding share revocation, Radient was given a choice: file the missing financials or revoke share revocation. Radient chose the easier and less expensive action. It would have been FAR better for RXPC shareholders if Radient had chosen to file the missing financials.
Regarding the voiding of the corporation, Radient made a choice: keep paying the fees to keep the corporation in good standing in Delaware, or just abandon the Corporation in Delaware. Radient chose the easier and less expensive action. It would have been FAR better for RXPC shareholders if Radient had kept their corporation status current in Delaware." Doesn't Radient plan to operate in the USA any more?
The Radient/Provista LOI expired.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000095012310064927/a56670exv10w1.htm
Dated July 6, 2010:
"Upon the earlier of (i) the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, or (ii) the waiver by both parties of their due diligence conditions, the Parties, hereby agree to negotiate in good faith the definitive documents related to the Merger upon terms and conditions that are standard and customary for and will use commercially reasonable efforts to close the Merger within ninety (90) days following the release of the due diligence contingencies (“Closing Period”)."
"Closing Period: In the event that RPC and PDI desire to move forward, the parties shall proceed in good faith during the following Ninety (90) day period to finalize the definitive documents relating to the Merger and to close the transaction.
The Closing Period shall be extended to the extent necessary to receive necessary approvals from RPC’s shareholders, including sufficient time to clear SEC staff and NYSE-Amex staff comments with regard to a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement. PDI understands that it will be required to provide U.S. GAAP audited financials prior to RPC filing such Proxy Statement and that preparation of such financials and RPC shareholder approval shall be conditions to closing of any definitive merger agreement."
There is absolutely no way the SEC would allow this merger to happen in 2015 under the terms of this 2010 LOI.
Radient restructuring would wipe out RXPC shares.
I thought we agreed that the Aussies were just placeholders and were not doing anything in regards to restructuring?
Whichever way we are spinning the Aussies now....... No news from Radient since May 2014 means any attempts at restructuring failed. It doesn't take this long.
But in the remote unlikely event that Radient ever DID restructure.... it would involve the cancellation of existing RXPC shares.
How else could Radient "restructure?" They have no employees to lay off, they have no offices to close, and they have no assets to sell. Their only potential asset is the 5 billion share A/S. And since those shares are all issued, that's not an asset currently... but if they wipe out the existing RXPC shares and start fresh with an empty 5 billion share A/S, they might be able to work out a debt-to-equity repayment plan with the debtors.
That would Not Be A Good Thing for anyone still clinging to the hope that their existing RXPC shares will someday trade again.
Is AvaRx charging money for this "research?"
Because if so, they owe their clients a refund. Their report about Radient may have been accurate in 2011 or earlier but it's shockingly inaccurate today.
"Onko-Sure is an immediate market opportunity for Radient?" No, Radient has no immediate opportunities of any kind because first they have to reinstate their corporation and then they have to solve the issue of insolvency.
"Radient is currently evaluating potential distributors in the Canadian market and aims for a full launch in the Canadian market?" No, Radient is currently MIA.
"The Company regularly participates in different national and international scientific conferences?" They have not done this for years.
News Flash for AvaRx: Radient Pharmaceuticals is an insolvent voided corporation that does not operate and cannot be found. They disappeared in May 2014. Radient is not currently doing anything.
Perhaps someone like GCDx will try to market onko-sure in Canada. Since onko-sure is off patent, anyone can TRY. But without the support of the Medical Community and Government, onko-sure will be a commercial failure as it has been since it was introduced in 1995.
One thing we know for sure: if onko-sure is marketed in Canada, Radient Pharmaceuticals will not be involved.
Onko-Sure in Canada: done without Radient, if at all.
If AvaRx thought in December 2014 that "Radient is currently evaluating potential distributors in the Canadian market" then AvaRx is a poor excluse for a "research firm."
Does AvaRx charge money for this kind of "Research?"
Before Radient died, Radient tried selling DR-70 to a Canadian distributor to resell for Lung Cancer. It failed, just like every other plan to sell Onko-Sure.
Don't believe me? The last couple of 10-K's showed how much Onko-Sure was sold in different countries. SEC filings do not lie. Radient couldn't sell Onko-Sure anywhere in the world, including Canada. Will Gartner fare better? Doubt it. He can call it a "new proprietary test" but the Canadian Government will see right through that little marketing stretcher.
We could ALL see through that little stretcher if GCDx would just post the white paper they claim they've produced.
This analyst was 100% right about Radient.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12767319/1/radient-pharma-rip.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO
"Radient shares, which most recently traded for tiny fractions of a penny on the Pink Sheets, are now gone forever.
For those relatively new to biotech investing, Radient was once a momentum-driven cult stock fueled by wildly promotional (and absurdly unrealistic) claims about the company's cancer screening test Onko-Sure. I spent a good portion of 2011 writing extensively about Radient -- mainly detailing the myriad ways in which company executives were shading the truth and bamboozling investors. Who can forget Radient's business deals with a dead Indian prime minister or pseudo-partnership with the Mayo Clinic? Then there was Radient's massive loan default, the reluctant disclosure that its India joint venture was a bust and the delisting from Amex.
Radient eventually blew up and my fun ended, but the zombie stock continued to trade until last week when the SEC, mercifully and belatedly, put it down for good.
Farewell, Radient."
All part of Radient's supposed Merger plan:
Borrow $$$ millions and then default on every loan.
Claim a $20 million asset on your balance sheet that doesn't exist.
Lose $85 million per year while generating less than $400,000 in gross revenue per year.
Abandon your patent application so your IP is unprotected by patents.
Raise the A/S to 5 billion and issue all the shares.
Stop filing financial reports with the SEC. Eventually the SEC will force you to either file the missing reports or revoke your share registration -- and since revoking your share registration was part of the plan all along, that's what you do.
Have all the Officers and Directors resign until there are only two left... then when you revoke shares, have those two resign and appoint four men from a foreign country as Directors and Officers... and disconnect all phones, stop answering all emails, take down all websites, and remove any way for shareholders to communicate with the company.
Not only was this supposedly Radient's plan... but they found lenders, hedge funds, and/or private investors who said "Great plan, please allow me to lend you $$ millions that you don't intend to repay and sell me some of those shares that you plan to revoke!"
That sounds about as realistic to me as the existence of leprechauns. Yes, I have seen rainbows. Yes, I have seen gold. But to add that up and declare that a magical creature sits at the end of a rainbow with a pot of that gold?
Say.... does every rainbow have a leprechaun at each end? Nobody ever says "at the ENDS of the rainbow," they always use the singular END... so maybe that explains why you can never find a leprechaun -- everyone always goes to the WRONG END.
That must be why I find the Radient Reverse Creeping Backdoor Creative Triangular Merger theory to be so ludicrous. I am looking at the wrong end of the rainbow.
Radient is not being reorganized. Radient is dead.
If the Radient Corporation ever gets reinstated, I might believe that someone intends to resurrect or reorganize Radient. But right now Radient is a void corporation.
If Radient's Directors or Officers ever stated anything publicly about intending to ressurect or reorganize Radient, I might believe..... but nobody can find the Radient Officers or Directors. Nobody even know upon which CONTINENT they can be found.
If someone could prove that there are patents or FDA clearances for DR-70, I might believe. But those do not exist.
If anyone could show evidence that Radient resolved their debt, I might believe. But the final words Radient uttered on their death bed: "We are insolvent." Their history of defaulting on every loan in the past five years and the fact that they have issued all 5 billion shares in their A/S and the fact that their IP is either off patent or declared worthless means they have no way to raise more money or attract new investors.
We might find examples of a stock that let their corporation void....
or a stock that declared "we are insolvent" that had no shares left in the A/S with whic to dilute and had a history of defaulting on every loan in the previous five years....
or a stock that reported a loss of $85 million for each of the last two years they reported and then stopped reporting for three years and then had their share registration revoked....
and each of those stocks, in a rare example, might have come back to life with its original shares intact....
BUT ALL OF THOSE? A STOCK THAT HAD ALL OF THOSE CATASTROPHIC EVENTS AND SYMPTOMS.... THAT CAME BACK TO TRADE WITH ITS ORIGINAL SHARES INTACT?
That is absurd.
Radient's only asset of value, DR-70, is off patent. This alone is proof enough for me that Radient is dead. Anyone who wanted to manufacture, market, sell, or use DR-70 can now do so without any involvement from Radient. Add everything else... I've never seen a stock THIS dead.
The Truth about the CIT lawsuits.
The plaintiffs did NOT want ownership of CIT. They did not "want CIT back." the 10K does a nice job of summarizing what they wanted.
Please turn to page 9.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000095012310035261/a55789e10vk.htm
AcuVector:
"AcuVector is seeking substantial damages and injunctive relief against Dr. Chang for the effectiveness of the agreement and CDN$20,000,000 in damages against us for alleged interference with the relationship between Dr. Chang and AcuVector."
University of Alberta:
"The University has not claimed that we are not the owner of the CIT technology, just that the University has an equitable interest therein or the revenues there from."
Are we clear on this? AcuVector and the University of Alberta did NOT want CIT back. They wanted money. AcuVector wanted damages and the Univ of Alberta wanted a percentage of future profits.
Why, again, did Mac get rid of Jade?
That was all supposedly part of the secret takeover plan, correct? Radient disposed of or dismissed Jade because that somehow helped the takeover group?
So wthe secret takeover plan dictated they get rid of their only profitable asset without getting anything in return?
That was a good idea?
Here's an interesting exercise in DD. Read the 10-K's from 2008 through 2011. Look how this company fell apart in just three fiscal years.
2008: Dreher was CEO for most of 2008. AMDL/Radient turned a profit. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000089256909000401/a51352b1e10vk.htm
2009: MacLellan at the helm, and according to some, a takeover plan was underway.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000095012310035261/a55789e10vk.htm
2010: lost HOW MUCH?
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420411032218/v218209_10k.htm
2011: lost HOW MUCH AGAIN?
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412037312/0001144204-12-037312-index.htm
Radient is dead.
If there were a merger plan in place since 2009, it would have happened by now. Nobody invests $$$ millions in a takeover and allows it to drag on for six years without seeing any return on the investment.
And nobody invests $$$ millions buying RPC and then RXPC stock in a creeping takeover plan and then allows the share registration to get revoked "as part of a secret plan." That is not how rich people get richer. There is NO WAY a "private company" allows their money to evaporate like that. There is no way the Lenders or any Hedge Funds acquire RXPC stock and hold it through share registration revocation.
Mac did not "voluntarily revoke the stock in 2014" as part of some merger plan. The SEC gave Mac two choices: file the missing financials for 2012 and 2013 and 2014, or revoke the registration of your stock. Mac chose the latter -- and then he resigned and left the company.
you say "It only takes around 30 days for this procedure." Do you mean it would only take 30 days to file financials for three missing years? Several times, Radient has been more than 30 days late on just ONE financial filing.... And how much do you think it would cost to file those missing financials? And who has all the records now?
Face it -- a stock does not get deader than this. A company that goes through bankruptcy has more life and more potential than this.
Any RXPC shareholder who doubts that Radient is dead need only look at their brokerage account. How much is your RXPC position worth?
We know that Chang was NOT "working on CIT at U of Florida, on his own volition."
We know this because a scientist at a University does not use University resources to do ANYTHING "on his or her own volition." That would be unethical and grounds for dismissal and would destroy the Scientist's career.
As for "speculation intensifies over commercial potential of Onko-Sure cancer diagnostic test ...." really? Who is Jason Chew?
Too bad this Jason Chew didn't talk to someone at Radient before writing this "analysis" in January 2011.
"Radient has also begun rolling out a lung cancer screening kit called LC Sentinal in the US with partner, Provista Diagnostics."
No Radient did NOT do this.
"The companies will seek FDA approval for the kit in 2011;"
No they did NOT. No 510(k) or PMA was ever submitted.
"A partner has also been found to further the development of the CIT vaccine technology."
What partner was that? Jaiva? So was the story that Jaiva was going to develop CIT while NuVax was moving on to the U of F technology?
"In December 2010, a new subsidiary, NuVax Therapeutics was formed in collaboration with biotechnology company, Jaiva Technologies to develop the technology as well as additional immunotherapies."
And in December 2010, that new subsidiary, Nuvax Therapeutics, declared that CIT was worthless, and then in January 2011 they licensed Chang's newer work from the U of F. Guess Jason Chew did not interview anyone in January 2011 when he wrote all this.
So who is Jason Chew and what does he say about Radient and CIT today?
GCDx is apparently selling DR-70.
But nobody really knows for sure because GCDx has promised white papers and test results and FDA applications and patents while delivering none of these.
I don't believe anything GCDx says without proof. For example, they call their lung cancer test "new" but I don't think GCDx developed anything new. I think they are simply re-packaging DR-70. In fact I am quite sure of it.
If the Radient PR's taught us anything, it is: never believe a biotech PR without seeing some supporting evidence like SEC filings or journal publications.
And never believe any "analysis" written by a stock analyst whose "analysis" has been proven 100% wrong.
Evidently there are no CIT Results to withhold.
Evidently there were no CIT Phase II or Phase III studies.
Evidently there has been no activity by anyone regarding CIT since Radient declared it worthless on December 31, 2010.
This is all evident to me because there has been no published data or news articles regarding CIT. On the contrary, the Radient 2011 10K says very clearly that Radient stopped working on CIT and licensed its inventor's more recent work from the University of Florida.
To say "there were studies and there was activity but it's being kept a secret until a later time" does not strike me as a good argument. But, I did not hold RXPC stock after the company announced that shares were being revoked. I accept that I have different risk tolerance than others and would not invest in a company that promised revenues and success and future studies in PR's but delivered the opposite or failed to deliver PERIOD.
In summary, I would like to see people either back up statements like "There was a Phase II study that ended on June 5 2013" or "Patents exist" with evidence, or stop stating conjecture as fact. "We can't find it because it's being kept a secret" is what I consider to be a laughable argument.
There would be no way for Provista to keep the use of DR-70 secret and still get patents and/or FDA clearance.
Furthermore, Provista could be sued by its shareholders if they were using DR-70 secretly and spending money on DR-70 secretly and not disclosing this in their prospectus and annual reports.
RE: "William" and his patents: If you search for fibrin, fibrinogen, and FDP in the PAIR database and don't find "William's Lung Cancer Test" then "William" has no patents pending for his Lung Cancer Test. "William" said a lto of things in his video and on his website and on the crowdsourcing websites that are unproven and undocumented. Anyone investing in claims by a CEO without seeing the evidence is a fool, IMO.
"Now do a research in India for the CIT...Keep one thing in mind..It is not named CIT, it is a new version of the vaccine that includes Chang's technology.."
1. If it's not called CIT, what is it called?
2. Radient's license to use Chang's newer technology at the Univ of Florida terminated because of lack of payment by Radient. If what you say is true, that would be an easy way to find the secret CIT studies -- who in India has a license to use the Univ. of Florida's technology? (answer: nobody, because there are no CIT Studies in India.)
guardiangel, you also say: "..In a PR that you don't seem to take for credibility, it mentions that it was going to be researched and improved." You are correct, I don't think that PR has credibility. If we have learned ANYTHING about Radient, it is that their PR's do not have credibility, wouldn't you agree?
Anyone conducting CIT studies can and WOULD publish the results without revealing any information about Radient's "technology, business and production."
"the information regarding technology, business and production of the other Party to which that Party had access by executing and performing this Agreement" does not have ANYTHING to do with Phase II studies or Phase III studies.
Radient declared CIT worthless on December 31, 2011 and listed reasons why it was not worth developing.
There is nothing "abbreviated" about that truth.
No entity - not Radient, not Guar Diagno, not Jaiva, not SRL - developed, studied, or worked on CIT after that.
I am talking about cold hard facts here, not abstract ideas or metaphysics or symbolism in American film. I am saying that if an entity did anything with CIT after Dec 31, 2011, there would be evidence. There is none.
A 2010 PR takes precedent over NOTHING that came later.
Radient released a lot of PR's about things that never happened. The CIT Phase II and Phase III studies never happened, not in India, not anywhere in the world. Nobody developed, worked on, tested, or studied CIT after Radient declared CIT worthless on December 31, 2011.
The PPS of Radient spiked because of a certain "analyst" saying positive things about Radient in April and December 2010, causding a short squeeze each time. The hype PR's about CIT studies and Mayo Studies and Monetization of Jade and Monetization of NuVax might have helped a little, but the catalyst for the price spikes in April and December 2011 was the short squeeze caused by "analysis" written by a certain "analyst."
It is that simple. Unfortunately, everything that "analyst" said about Radient proved to be 100% wrong, which means the PPS eventually returned to the level at which it belonged.
Guardiangel, you say this "analyst" is your "friend?" Have you asked him whether he wants us to discuss and debate his 2010 and 2011 "analysis" on a message board? I bet he does not want any of that "analysis" discussed or debated today. I think it makes that "analyst" look like a criminal or an idiot, but that is just my opinion of course.
'No results found for Dharamshila Hospital "Combination Immunogene Therapy".' I guess Google disagrees.
And CIT is not mentioned anywhere on the website to which you posted the link.
Guardiangel, you say "Just the Phase II..It was completed in India..June 5, 2013."
If a Phase II study was completed on June 5, 2013,
1. Who was the lead researcher?
2. What were the results? Where is the data?
3. Where did you get this specific date of June 5, 2013? Cite your evidence.
4. Where specifically was it done? If it was done at the Dharamshila Hospital And Research Centre, why can't Google find it and why is there nothing on this hosiptal's website (the link you posted) about CIT?
"Immunogene Therapy" is a generic term. We want evidence that anyone worked on, tested, or tried to develop Radient's "Combination Immunogene Therapy" after Radient declared CIT worthless on December 31, 2011.
Thanks in advance, you understand.
Proof that there never was a Phase II and Phase III for CIT in India?
Proof that there is no reverse triangular creative backdoor creeping Radient merger?
Proof that Provista is not using DR-70?
Proof that Bigfoot does not exist?
The proof of these is the lack of evidence to the contrary.
The proof that there was no Phase II or Phase II for CIT in India or anywhere else is: if there were Phase xx Studies, there would have been some news about those studies. Scientists and researchers do NOT keep their studies secret. On the contrary - they shout from rooftops about their studies.
Proof that there is no reverse merger? If there was a reverse merger you'd have some evidence. Saying "it's a secret" would get you an F in debate class and Dr. Fang would set you in the corner with a dunce cap.
Proof that Provista is using DR-70? If they were, you'd see evidence in their white papers and presentations. Provista revealed all the markers and assays and ingredients of their tests in their ASCO poster and their white papers and DR-70 is not included.
Wolfie, you misread a PR in 2010 -- Provista was never trying to combine DR-70 with anything else. DR-70 is a standalone test that does one thing: it measures FDP's.
Provista was thinking about using DR-70 as a companion to their other tests, and then they thought about selling DR-70 by another name. They might try either of these in the future, unlikely but possible -- but if they do, they can do so without resurrecting or merging with or involving RADIENT because DR-70 is off patent.
What, by the way, are you trying to say when you type:
"Keep in mind, that both companies have signed Non-disclosure and non-compete clauses to share any and all information with you and myself you understand.."
What does that even mean? Are you saying that if Provista develops a test using DR-70 they must keep it a secret because of a non-disclosure or non-compete clause?
guardiangel, you are not sure "where I am coming from?"
First of all, let me suggest that you read the SEC filings and see what the Canadians wanted from Radient in their lawsuits. I think that alone explains "where I am coming from."
But if that doesn't do it, try this approach:
Yes the Canadians appealed in September 2011, before NuVax was formed. In September 2011 they still thought CIT might someday generate profits. But what did the Canadians do AFTER the 2011 10-K was released and we all learned that Radient was abandoning CIT and CIT would therefore never generate profits?
Do you see "where I am coming from" now?
And if you're going to cite some Phase II and Phase III Indian studies of CIT, cite the results of those studies. Where were they done? Who was the lead scientist? What were the results?
I think that all hype, and those CIT studies were never even started, based on the lack of news and evidence. Radient announced a lot of things that never came true and those CIT studies in India are a prime example. But please, prove me wrong, cite some facts about those Phase II and Phase III studies other than a PR promising that they were coming in the future.
"Impair the remaining balance" means FULLY IMPAIRED.
The Canadians abandoned the lawsuits because they realized CIT was dead. They were suing for a percentage of future profits and they realized there never would be profits.
Radient said CIT was not worth developing further for these reasons:
"Lack of any potential future revenue;
Lack of future cash flows;
High cost of future clinical studies; and
Limited time remaining on the patent."
That is no ambiguous or difficult to understand, you understand. Read and interpret that literally. CIT was not worth anything so they fully impaired the asset.
Radient said in no uncertain terms all of the following - it was up to the shareholders to read and comprehend:
-> CIT was worthless.
-> NuVax was dormant.
-> The company could not pay vendors or suppliers.
-> The company could not pay back any of their loans, resulting in penalties and interest.
-> The company was insolvent.
-> The company was going to revoke share registration.
It's hard to "stay tuned" to a station that hasn't broadcast anything for three years.
NuVax was created first. They worked with CIT for three weeks and then declared CIT worthless on December 31st.
Here is Radient's 2011 10-K. Read pages 10 and 11.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412037312/v316641_10k.htm
Yes, they said in June 2012 that "All further development and commercialization of CIT and other to-be licensed novel cancer fighting technologies will be made at NuVax." They also said
"On August 29, 2011, due to lack of funding and activity, Umesh Batia resigned as CEO and Director of NuVax. As of the date of this report, we have not generated any revenues and incurred license termination fees expenses for NuVax. Until we can complete funding for NuVax, we will continue to have minimal activity in NuVax."
That was June 29, 2012. If anyone is stating that Radient found funding for NuVax after June 29, 2012 and resurrected NuVax, they need to show evidence. I see none and I don't believe that this lack of evidence proves it happened and is being hidden because it is some kind of "trade secret."
They were NOT "fighting for the rights to own CIT."
The Canadians suing over CIT just wanted a cut of future profits, if any. They did NOT want CIT back. That was NEVER a battle over ownership of CIT. Read the filings -- it's all there in black and white.
We will not "find out soon who is right." Nothing more is ever going to happen with CIT. That means we already KNOW who is right.
Radient Pharmaceuticals brings NuVax to a Halt
Your quote is from December 7, 2010. Let's look at some subsequent truth from July 2011 and August 2011:
"In January 2011, NuVax signed four exclusive license agreements with the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (“UFRF”), for the development and marketing of a cancer therapeutic product developed by the UFRF. In July 2011, the UFRF terminated the agreements due to lack of funding."
"On August 29, 2011, due to lack of funding and activity, Umesh Batia resigned as CEO and Director of NuVax. As of the date of this report, we have not generated any revenues and incurred license termination fees expenses for NuVax. Until we can complete funding for NuVax, we will continue to have minimal activity in NuVax."
These are not Trade Secrets I understand. It is public information filed with the SEC. If you want to read the facts instead of reading old PR's, here is the link. I respectfully suggest you read pages 10 and 11.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412037312/v316641_10k.htm
No connection to Radient.
As for this "13 million" number being tossed around... $13 million was not the full extent of Radient's debt. It was just the amount of the Notes that went into default because of delisting.
There's no way of knowing how much debt Radient had when it died. Does it matter? $25 million or $25,000, does it matter? There is no reason for any entity to pay it now.
As for CIT -- if its inventor Dr. Chang abandoned it after two weeks at NuVax, why would anyone else want it? Isn't it obvious that if anyone wanted to develop Chang's work they would do exactly what NuVax did -- hire Dr. Chang and license his newer work from the University of Florida?
If DR-70 is "the catalyst for the 2010LOI provista Diagnostics and radient reverse merger" then the merger is definitely dead.
Because DR-70 is off patent. If Provista wants to use DR-70 the can do so without any involvement with Radient.
Remember that Radient declared itself insolvent. That word "insolvent" is not an ambiguous word. It means Radient had debts and obligations it was unable to repay.
To resurrect Radient, an entity would have to pay off that debt and also pay a few hundred thousand more to have auditors create and file the missing SEC financial filings. There is no reason for any entity - Provista or otherwise - to do that when they can get DR-70 much cheaper from UNI or GCDx or the Aussies.
GCDx already has DR-70. If Provista wanted DR-70 they could easily get it from GCDx - aren't they in the same town? Don't they share lab space? It is absurd to suggest that Provista would spend ANY money resurrecting Radient to get DR-70.
Dr. Chang is at the University of Florida. He never worked on CIT at the University of Florida - at Florida he worked on "a cancer therapeutic product developed by the UFRF."
from the Radient 10-K:
"In January 2011, NuVax signed four exclusive license agreements with the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (“UFRF”), for the development and marketing of a cancer therapeutic product developed by the UFRF."
That is what Chang worked on at Florida, not CIT. That is fact.
Here is the 10-K if you'd like to read it. Read pages 10 and 11.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412037312/v316641_10k.htm
Wrong, the spikes had nothing to do with the LOI or someone named John Fife acquiring shares.
The spikes were caused by a certain "analyst" writing positive articles about Radient in April and December 2010. These articles caused a short squeeze each time.
Unfortunately, everything in those articles proved to be 100% false. Reality set in and caused the PPS to sink to 0.0001 and then disappear completely when share registration was revoked.
Also, Whale and Alpha did not "step aside." Read the filings.
And if Mac "threw Jade overboard" then Mac single-handedly killed this company.
runncoach, Your post should go on Radient's tombstone.
R.I.P.
1995 - 2014
Here lies Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
DR-70 never sold in commercially viable quantities. Never earned a profit.
Debt ballooned. Share count ballooned. One CEO left...and then the other.
Patents expired. Leases expired. Telephones unplugged.
CIT declared worthless...before SEC filings stopped.
Lawsuits appeared and were lost. Company became insolvent and void.
Ticker revoked.
Patents cannot hide.
I used to do patent searches before the USPTO put its databases online and was only accessible in certain libraries.
The whole point of the patent database is: anyone can see what has been patented. It's in the public domain.
The PAIR system showing patent applications did not exist back when I was doing patent searches. I love the PAIR database. Wish it were available back then.
All you have to do is search the USPTO databases for fibrin. fibrinogen, and FDP's. If there are any patents or patent applications for DR-70 or any combination of DR-70 and something else, they will show up.
* Patent applications have application numbers.
* Patents have patent numbers.
Anyone claiming there are patents or patent applications protecting DR-70 need only post those numbers here so we can all share in the knowledge.
The lack of such posts proves there are no patents or patent applications protecting DR-70. We don't care about Trademarks or copyrights or "Trade Secrets." We care about patents.
We know where to look for patents and FDA decisions.
-> All patent applications are in the USPTO's PAIR database.
-> All approved patents are in the USPTO database.
-> All FDA clearances and approvals are on the FDA website.
Patents, patent applications, and FDA decisions are NOT "trade secrets." They are in the public domain. If Radient or anyone else had a patent or patent application for DR-70 or any variation of DR-70, we could find it. If Radient or anyone else had FDA clearance for a test involving DR-70, we could find it.
None of this exists. DR-70 is unprotected IP.
By all means, please "speak IP fluently" now and support your claim that patents or patent applications and/or FDA clearances or 510(k) applications exist to protect the DR-70 IP.
We are not talking about Trademarks or Trade Secrets or the justia website. We are talking about the fact that DR-70 is unprotected IP - it is off patent which means that anyone can manufacture, sell, and/or market it without involving Radient.
CIT is not part of ANYONE's plan.
Read Radient's 2011 10K, pages 10 and 11.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412037312/v316641_10k.htm