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.
Links were in the post (blue underlined numbers). Maybe not visible from phone app.
Here you go:
https://ted.europa.eu/TED/search/search.do
Type in "Innova Medical" for results.
This also works:
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/?q=innova+medical
Antibody, not antigen. But a public company (GTXO:OTC) whose price has gone from ~$0.015 to ~$0.079 in four weeks. Historically, <$2M in sales but sounds like 100% demand growth recently. Jump in market cap from ~$1M to $10M also according to Yahoo.
Been there before today, not sure how long. I just haven't been posting them monthly.
Surprised by the mid month increase and reporting. That seems new and different. Maybe I just never noticed it before.
LOL, opened the Google translator, thought it was French!
IDK. You'd think there would be a quick resolution to that one.
This is different. The O/S increased 2,133,333 from the February 2 number-
Outstanding Shares
691,286,925
02/17/2021
Restricted
233,886,554
02/17/2021
Unrestricted
457,400,371
02/17/2021
Held at DTC
405,909,779
02/17/2021
(Source: OTCMarkets)
BTW, have you seen any financial conflict of interest disclosures from Mina, The Heritage Foundation, et al? Too many dollars involved in this opportunity. Pasaca/Innova have got to be spending beaucoup lobbying and promotional dollars.
The list is all supported by information in the public domain- Williams LinkedIn account, QMC only admitting to half of the upfront license fee, the Kansas trial transcript where Squires admits it but makes an excuse, and the extremely late SEC filing on Edgar revealing the Squires' stock shenanigans.
LOL! You know what is missing? An apology for being wrong and making a false accusation. Nevermind the change of subject!
BTW, all of those things are objectively fair:
- Williams displayed on LinkedIn that he worked for multiple entities.
- The disclosed contract for India was obsoleted almost immediately and if I remember correctly, said to have been replaced.
- And "scumbag" is one way to describe someone who hasn't fulfilled their SEC obligations to shareholders, failing to comply with his commitments to L2, and hiding the sales of shares by his family.
Wrong again.
My post does not leave out the words highlighted in bold. Read it again.
And, what the heck would be the false narrative, that these two opinions are in conflict? {SMH}
Here is one example of a timeline for a proxy/shareholder meeting.
https://www.colonialstock.com/proxy-meeting-preparation.htm
The clock is ticking; 41 days until March 31. (And, the uplisting process has a whole separate timeline.)
Obviously, there were inappropriate trades on February 1st. Based on the action on the 16th, I was expecting news to drop on the 17th, and having a little talk with the SEC, LOL.
This drama is just building up to the big reveal. Regardless of whodunit, it's going to be entertaining. Let's see if IMDB calls the next episode, "The Trading Cabal: Rocket Man Coming!"
I'm not reading it that way. The agreement doesn't say:
(k) blah, blah, blah March 31, 2021,
followed by:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
It says:
(k) The Company shall use its best efforts to:
(i) blah, blah, blah March 31, 2021
(ii) blah, blah, blah "to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange or on the NASDAQ"
(iii)
I read this as the date specifically referring to the "Initial Public Date" which as defined in the agreement "means the first date after the date of this Agreement on with the Company is current in its filings..."
Maybe direct this question to someone who said it was a "bad thing" so I am not forced to call that response a "Strawman!" LOL!
Yes, they will essentially be getting paid to take over the 51%.
This probably isn't a great reference because their products are different and an app is just one feature of their system but the EV/Rev multiple will make people happy, LOL.
OptimizeRx
OPRX
NasdaqGS
Slanted math is what one would get by pulling $100M out of thin air. Straight up math is relying on the facts. Pasaca is only guaranteeing $15M and has an "ouch clause" to spread it out past 2021 if necessary.
Price x Reported O/S = Market Cap
$0.10 x 689,153,592 = $68.9M
Price x Fully Dilute O/S = Market Cap
$0.10 x 883,783,532 = $88.4M
Price x Post Acquisition O/S = Market Cap
$0.10 x 1,803,639,861 = $180.3M
Market Cap / Revenue = Sales Multiple
$180.3M / $15M = 12.0
What multiple is supportable?
Largest Life Science Companies:
Merck 4.1
AbbVie 5.6
Eli Lilly 8.9
Amgen 6.0
Biogen 2.9
Abbott 6.9
BD 4.4
Stryker 6.1
Baxter 3.5
Boston 5.1
(I'll work on getting small public life science software companies, if there are any.)
Innova does not own 51% of QMC. The private equity firm, Pasaca Capital, that owns Innova has an agreement to purchase 51% of QMC that is pending approval by shareholders.
Might? Maybe? Could? Regardless of any future sales between the two Pasaca entities, there is currently no evidence that the UK contracts for Innova include any QMC products.
These links are exactly why I said-
And wouldn't trading on the non-public knowledge of "an amicable resolution" present some legal liability? Seems like it could be considered a material event.
ME{Opens visual investor book}: Um, charting relies on historical data. History is in the past, amirite?
I'm assuming it is a glitch and not a real Ask quote.
Hard to say. It appears to have been invisible for a number of executed transactions.
A nice thought on Q2 filing day.
Here's the simple logic... A+B
A.) It's been cited numerous times that the Innova rapid LFT (antigen) provide ~30% false negatives when performed by a professionals and ~50% when done by individuals.
B.) Dr. Mina has repeatedly said that they, the Innova tests, are surveillance tools to lower the R, i.e., reduce the spread or transmission rate. And in this specific tweet, which is in response to a story about how testing did not keep a "bubble" Covid-19 free, he says that these (rapid antigen) tests are "not for 'entrance screening.'"
(The only legitimate gripe here could be that I didn't take the time to look up the exact false negative numbers and used approximations.)
Please stop with the misinformation. He never says "limited." And let's keep it in context. As I made clear in my original sharing of his tweet, it was in response to this article/blog post:
A False Sense Of Security…
Pete Cona
Chief Operating Officer
Let's shift away from your pivot to pump for a moment and return to the essence of my original post.
It is probably not a bummer that the UK is helping three local test manufacturers get in the game because Innova's billion something worth of test contracts with the UK government (or NHS) don't appear to include the QMC app anyway. Somewhere down the line, Innova might be successful selling additional test kits to non-government entities for green light or entrance tests, even if Dr. Mina and his opponents are in agreement those are not the appropriate applications for the current 30-50% false negative Covid-19 surveillance products.
Do they really need explaining? OK.
Yes, apples and oranges and that is why yours is a straw man. Mine was about the "what" and your response is about the "why" (which I did not comment on).
Based on page 15 where home testers are told how to report their results it says:
Probably not. Based on the evidence that we have seen, e.g., #97294, it doesn't appear that they were selling the app in the UK anyway.
Government and PA select three rapid Covid-19 test producers
https://www.consultancy.uk/news/26949/government-and-pa-select-three-rapid-covid-19-test-producers
I get that it was to be an experiment, but even staunch Innova rapid testing advocate Dr. Michael Mina recently tweeted that these test should be used to reduce the R<<1 and not for the purpose of "entrance screening."