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 you are confused about how the Delaware search engine works. Hemiwedge is file number 3517367 and the most recent name is HII TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
The Delaware database only has the most current name for a corporation. That is why you can't find Radient by searching for AMDL. You also can't find Hemiwedge by searching for Shumate Industries Inc, the name BEFORE Hemiwedge.
But more important: I think you are confused about the significant difference between Hemiwedge and Radient. Hemiwedge was a merger candidate while Radient is not. Comparing the two is not like comparing apples and oranges -- it's like comparing apples (Hemiwedge) to road apples (Radient). Here's why:
1. Radient is VOIDED. Hemiwedge was never a VOIDED corporation.
2. Hemiwedge never said in an 8k "we are insolvent." Radient said in their final 8k "we are insolvent."
3. Hemiwedge disclosed information to its shareholders after share revocation. Radient's officers resigned and the newly appointed officers disappeared and there has been NO disclosure since the final 8K announcing insolvency.
4a. Hemiwedge had $300,000 net cash in their final filing as Hemiwedge, no debt, and they reported net income of $8,376,615 for the six months ended June 30, 2011. That is net, not gross.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1085254/000114420411053134/v234510_10-12g.htm
In comparison, Radient has an undisclosed amount of lender debt (nobody knows how much they owe, but it must be over $12 million), they had very little net cash at last report and owed over $900,000 in unpaid operational costs on top of the lender debt, and they reported a net loss of $85,000,000 in each of the last two years for which they reported financials.
Yes, comparing Hemiwedge to Radient is like comparing Apples to Road Apples.
That Delaware database doesn't have an entry for every previous name of a company - just the most recent name.
This is not complicated. Searching for just AMDL on that search page should make this point sink home. Here's what you see:
FILE NUMBER ENTITY NAME
3435698 AMD LATIN AMERICA, LTD.
4627207 AMDL DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
3666555 AMD, LLC
2139062 A.M.D. LOUISIANA MARINE, INC.
Notice that AMDL INC does not come up. Neither does CALIFORNIA VENTURES INC, Radient's original corporation name when they sold check blanks before 1989.
Radient Pharmaceuticals only comes up under the name Radient Pharmaceuticals, the corporation's most recent name.
Hemiwedge is file number 3517367 and the most recent name is HII TECHNOLOGIES, INC. It won't come up under a search for Hemiwedge because that is not the most recent name.
I can't explain it any simpler.
Don't worry, Palma, we understand.
Radient appeared on that Search page in December. The people who could not find it were not typing the name correctly.
Furthermore, Livinginsv is correct when he says the name RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION is available in Delaware and anyone can reserve that name for $75. That is proof that Radient is not currently a corporation in good standing in Delaware.
The exact wording on that Delaware site is:
"The name 'RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION' is available.
The cost for this reservation is $ 75.00.
Do you want to reserve this name?"
If anyone was even THINKING about reinstating Radient as a corporation in good status in Delaware, they would pay that $75 to reserve their name.
You certainly have SOME of it straight.
1. You say there is zero proof that Radient is not reinstated? Anyone can spend $10 to get that proof.
2. Nobody said anything about MacLellan being President of AMDL Diagnostics. That discussion was about MacLellan being president of Radient, since Bloomberg said he was when we all knew he wasn't. But who cares about who is president of AMDL since AMDL doesn't operate and RXPC shares are worth $0 regardless?
3. Nobody said the Aussies are currently running Radient. NOBODY is currently running Radient. Radient is dead. The Aussies might be trying to do something with DR-70 somewhere on the other side of the globe but that would have no effect on RXPC shares which are worth $0.
4. You are correct, Gartner is not involved with Radient. Who knows or cares whether he is involved with Provista? That has no effect on RXPC shares, which I might add are worth $0.
5. You are correct, Provista is not merging with Radient. The main proof here is: (a) Provista is not using DR-70, (b) even if they were DR-70 is off patent, and (c) Radient does not currently exist so nobody can merge with it. These are all FACTS.
6. Nobody thinks Bloomberg is 100% right. Everyone thinks Bloomberg is a joke and a TERRIBLE source for DD. True, a couple of "Investigative Longs" tried to use Bloomberg as a source of DD before, but I suspect they have realized the error of that strategy.
Hope that clears up your misconceptions.
Read post 26804.
guardiangel found that Radient WAS in the Delaware database in December.
Here is proof: file number 4228292, Entertonement, a voided corporation. Look it up. Looks just like Radient, doesn't it?
https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller
GA is wrong.
Any corporation that was ever incorporated in Delaware will come up on that search page. Appearing on that page has nothing to do with a corporation's current status.
What you're saying is: instead of posting a hundred messages about Radient appearing or not appearing on a meaningless Delaware search engine, RXPC shareholders should INSTEAD pay $10 and find out the corporate status of Radient Pharmaceuticals.
I agree.
The corporation was NOT revoked. The corporation was voided because nobody cared enough to pay the fees to keep the corporation in good standing.
And the share registration revocation was NOT voluntary. The SEC gave Radient two choices: file the missing financials or we will revoke your share registration. Radient chose the latter. They didn't VOLUNTARILY do this -- of course they would have liked to keep their shares registered -- but the SEC did not allow it.
Radient's 8k states:
"On April 15, 2014, the Company executed an Offer of Settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, revoking the registration of the Company's securities."
I do not understand why some here can't grasp that this was not VOLUNTARY - it was a CHOICE between two evils. Perhaps this will clear up the misconception: Here is 12(j) in its entirety:
12(j) "The Commission is authorized, by order, as it deems necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors to deny, to suspend the effective date of, to suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to revoke the registration of a security, if the Commission finds, on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing, that the issuer of such security has failed to comply with any provision of this title or the rules and regulations thereunder. No member of a national securities exchange, broker, or dealer shall make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transaction in, or to induce the purchase or sale of, any security the registration of which has been and is suspended or revoked pursuant to the preceding sentence. "
"Pursuant to" means just that. Radient didn't voluntarily revoke share registration, they CHOSE to do this instead of file the missing financials.
That Delaware search engine does NOT tell you whether a corporation is in good standing. You have to pay $10 to find out the corporation standing.
"Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation" has ALWAYS come up on that site. Investigative Longs couldn't find it because they were entering the wrong name.
Regarding the TM.... I am saying it is UNETHICAL to indicate a name is trademarked after you apply for the name and it is rejected. That "Lung Cancer Test" trademark application was REJECTED just as Radient's patent application was rejected. The status of a patent or trademark application changes to ABANDONED after a defined time period has elapsed.
But anyone who thinks GCDx is ethically calling their test "trademarked" and is ethically stating the facts and nothing but the facts in their recent PR and on their website and on indiegogo should donate money to GCDx on indiegogo and select a test as a perk.
In fact you should give them $5000 and get 20 tests. It shouldn't bother you that if they don't reach their goal of $25,000 they will keep your $5000 and you won't get ANY tests.
Hurry, because this "opportunity" ends in five days.
As for the TM Symbol....
it's one thing to use TM when you plan to trademark a name but haven't applied yet..
it's an entirely different thing when you apply and are rejected. You can't still use TM after getting rejected.
Well obviously you CAN, since GCDx is doing it.. but that is unethical to say the least. It tells you all you need to know about the character of GCDX and its officers and it tells you all you need to know about the rest of their marketing hype.
Anyone who throws money at GCDX deserves to lose it all, which is what is going to happen. Ask the RXPC investors. They threw money at hype and look what happened to them.
I don't think Radient Pharmaceutical Corporation has always "popped up." I think the Investigative Longs just serached for the wrong name before.
I don't think Radient is re-instated or re-incorporated. I don't think ANYONE is going to spend another dime on Radient, ever.
I think the Delaware search function doesn't tell you whether a company is incorporated - it only tells you if a company was once incorporated. This reminds me of the Bloomberg nonsense.
"If you can find it on the internet, it must be true?"
Bottom line, how much are RXPC shares worth? zero. What else matters?
The Aussie temps are gone?
They never were officers and directors?
What does Bloomberg say about that? I thought Bloomberg was the definitive source for Radient Pharmaceuticals officers and directors. Bloomberg is never wrong, according to hundreds of posts on this message board by the Investigative Longs.
Hmmm, looks like Bloomberg says the Aussies are not gone. So that ends THAT discussion, yes?
Let's analyze this PR, shall we?
1. Notice how they keep placing TM after "The Lung Cancer Test?" That is a lie. That name is not trademarked. That's the kind of PR blunder that gets companies into Class Actions. Luckily, nobody cares about GCDX because nobody has invested any money in it.
2. "More information in the U.S. can be obtained at www.TheLungCancerTest.com.... The website provides information on .... how the test works." No it does NOT. GCDx refuses to publish any kind of science behind their test. I guess they are afraid to reveal that it's just DR-70.
3. Radient gave Genway a license to sell DR-70 and Genway tried to sell the test in Canada as a Lung Cancer test. It was a dismal failure. Will Bertech have better success if they keep the science behind the test a secret?
4. Notice how GCDx is able to license DR-70 to another entity without asking Radient's permission?
5. "In additional news, the Company will be attending the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco, January 13 – 15." not presenting, not participating -- ATTENDING. Is that really news?
The crowdsourcing attempt is coming to an end in a few days. Still $505 raised with nobody but Roberton selecting the test as a "perk." To say that nobody wants this test is an understatement. But that aside.... after reading this PR, who here still thinks GCDx is a smokescreen or a diversion by the Radient Takeover Ensemble?
I stand corrected. MOU is worse!
I forgot about this little gem from 2006, before Mac was CEO:
24-02-2006: AMDL, Inc. announced that it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Vectorite Biomedica, Inc., a Taiwan based company, that could lead to the development of human and animal clinical trials in Taiwan of AMDL's Combination Immunogene Therapy (CIT), a therapeutic vaccine.
Let's put "LOI" into perspective.
LOI stands for "Letter of Intent." It's the weakest piece of hype you will ever see in penny biotech investing. Penny biotechs sign LOI's when they have nothing else to promote and they think they need to generate some buzz. It's not illegal but LOI's are never binding so they are kind of pointless exercises in hype.
If two legitimate companies really want to do something they sign an Agreement or a Contract, not a LOI that contemplates the signing of an Agreement or Contract. Even when they sign an actual Agreement or Contract, it often amounts to nothing -- look at all of Radient's "Agreements" that amounted to nothing. A penny biotech LOI that contemplates the intent to sign an agreement is a joke.
The so-called "Reverse Triangular Creeping BackDoor Merger" rumor tries to explain the lack of merger evidence by saying "it's a secret." Let's think about this.
* Radient released a flurry of PR's in 2010 and 2011 about India Deals and LOI's and Mayo Studies and the Valuation of Jade and the Monetization of Spinoffs, all of which was false, and filled Garza's head with shiny nonsense which he parroted in his blog, but they kept the merger with Provista a secret?
* Garza's "coverage" and all those hype PR's were intended to drive the PPS up but the merger was kept a secret because the hidden Takeover Group wanted to keep the PPS down?
That's Absurd with a Capital A in my opinion.
That old Letter of Intent was cancelled in 2010, over four years ago.
There can't be an upcoming reverse merger between Provista and Radient because Radient does not currently exist.
our local canis lupus is probably trying to figure out whether he can sue someone at Radient.
Fat chance. But, worth the Investigative Effort, I suppose.
Responsible for appearing as representatives of Radient, sure, but not for paying the debt. If the Aussies sell DR-70 as a spit test in China the lenders can't sue them for any profits they make.
Radient Corporation is liable for that debt but Radient Corporation has no assets so nobody is going to pursue it.
BK costs money and the aussies don't strike me as having money.
No, Radient Corporation is responsible for the debt. That's the beauty of incorporation.
If the Aussies never resurrect Radient Corporation, the lenders are out of luck, which they must have known back in 2011.
The 2011 lenders must have thought that the $20 million Jade valuation was enough collateral for $8 million in loans. When the SEC forced Radient to admit that Jade was actually worth nothing, the lenders must have realized they'd just made some VERY bad loans.
Radient made loan payments for just two months before defaulting. What followed was an interesting battle with Radient threatening to file for BK and the lenders threatening to sue for "breaches of fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and disclosure, self dealing and waste and spoliation of corporate assets."
FF to today. Tumbleweeds blow through this ghost town.
I think Mac just wanted OUT.
He probably felt the need to appoint someone - ANYONE - as Officers and Gentlemen, the same way the patent attorneys had to name someone as a contact with the USPTO. Mac probably couldn't find anyone in the USA to be an Officer for obvious reasons, so he found someone on a different continent.
The Aussies might develop the Spit Test version of DR-70 and they might not, but if they wanted to, there were probably some DR-70 kits on the shelves in Tustin -- available for free.
Seriously, I don't think those financials are going to be filed. I don't think anything more is going to happen with Radient, not in 2015, not in 2021, not EVER. I'm only saying that I WANT something to happen. I want to see the financials.
BK costs money. This method cost basically nothing. This was a shrewd way to dissolve the company without spending much money.
I would love to see the missing Radient financials. I wish the Creeping Takeover Group would hurry up and file those financials and get RXPC shares registered again.
I think Radient still owes $$$ millions to the lenders. The financials would settle that debate.
Will the winter of your discontent be made glorious summer by the settlement of Rosen?
Personally I think RXPC shareholders are going to get a mere pittance from the Rosen settlement. I think you're going to get about 1/10 penny per share that you had in January 2011 before the reverse split.
If you had 10,000 shares worth $10,000 in January 2011 you're going to get $10 IMO. That's how class actions go. By the time the money trickles down to the ordinary bagholders, there isn't much left to pass around.
It's all Retail. No institutions or funds (hedge or otherwise) would ever own a garbage stock like RXPC and the Lenders don't own any. The lack of Schedule 13's is proof.
yes someone owns a large amount.... Or I should say, a PACK of someones, and that "large amount" is a billion shares. But that PACK is still Retail.
A shell with all the shares issued isn't worth much though.
So you're suggesting they R/S 1,000:1 and keep the 5 billion share A/S, correct? that means existing RXPC shares will be worth 0.0000001
Why bother holding those shares for THAT, I ask?
Bankruptcy would be expensive but if anyone wanted to resurrect Radient it would be done through bankruptcy with the current RXPC shares getting negated. Then a restructuring might occur and Radient could issue some of the 5 billion shares to the new financiers.
I'm quite sure the Lenders do not own any RXPC. They're not stupid. When Radient was forced in 2011 to admit that the Jade $20M equity was actually worth $0, the Lenders knew they'd been cheated, IMO. They knew there was no reason to hold RXPC shares.
To buy off the Lenders now, Radient would have to wipe out the current RXPC shares and re-issue some of that 5 billion A/S to the Lenders and sell some of that A/S for new financing. I think they might have pulled that off through NuVax when Chang was on board but I think it's too late now.
Even if that plan came to fruition -- if ANY plan comes to fruition -- the current RXPC shares have to go. Nobody important owns those -- only eBabies and disgruntled old bagholders, and they have no power remaining whatsoever. RXPC ex-shareholders got kicked to the curb, no matter what happens now, if anything. I think NOTHING MORE HAPPENS, ever, but I'll watch for awhile.
The Merger Rumor needs to replace Provista and find some other White Knight Savior because we now have proof that it's not Provista.
In December 2014 Provista disclosed the science behind their new technology. Nothing in Provista's pipeline involves or includes Radient's DR70. We know this because Provista's abstracts and descriptions do not mention fibrin or fibrinogen. That's all DR-70 did: measure degradation products of fibrin and fibrinogen.
Furthermore: if Provista or GCDx or anyone else was pursuing a new patent application for DR-70 either standalone or combined with something else, we would find that in a patent application search by looking for the words "fibrin" and "fibrinogen." The USPTO doesn't allow applicants to keep patent applications hidden.
Conclusion: There's no reason for anyone to re-incorporate Radient. Radient is dead. RXPC shares are not going to trade again. If anyone were interested in keeping Radient alive they would not have allowed everything (US patent application, incorporation, share registration, FDA clearance, Australian patent application, European patent application) to die from neglect.
Why has it been drawn out? It seems that "drawing out the process" is detrimental to everyone involved. The lenders CANNOT be happy seeing no activity on the payback of the $$$ millions they lost.
And how do we know "the stage that has been set for a turnaround?" I see no evidence of a stage being set. I see no evidence that there is even a stage. This all looks shut down to me.
dcspka you said:
"All the while the real people pulling the strings can be allowed cover in the background without inquiry."
Why? I do not understand the point of secrecy and subterfuge. According to the CBRTM (Creeping Backdoor Reverse Triangular Merger) Rumor, doesn't the "Secret Takeover Group" supposedly own 80 or 90% of the shares already?
Than why continue operating in hiding? Why would they care whether the last few "Retail Strong Hands" surrender their RXPC shares to their brokers or not? If the Secret Takeover Group wants those shares at a future date, Why do they care whether eTrade owns them instead of eBabies? The shares wouldn't cost less or be easier to get from the brokers.
The supposed Creeping Takeover Group stretched the "takeover" out over four years, allowing dilution that CRUSHED the PPS, and then they allowed share registration to be revoked. This cost them $$$ millions. Obviously, money is no object to the Creeping Takeover Group. So why keep this CBRTM a secret? What do they gain? This is fascinating.
I say the Aussies took the Radient job because Charter was thinking about pitching his DR-70 saliva test to investors in China and/or Australia.
Before, Charter's business plan involved buying DR-70 from someone and then re-packaging it as a saliva test. The business plan would be much more profitable if the company could manufacture DR-70 in-house. Charter wanted the IP and any remaining lab equipment because that makes his sales pitch to investors more attractive.
RXPC shareholders were just an annoyance to Charter. You'd think he would at least give them closure but he chose to simply ignore them.
Thanks for that explanation of California law, by the way, living! 2021 isn't that far away, really.
dcspka you said:
"The actual remaining debts are completely manageable "
Why do you say that? I see no evidence of the debt being repaid in any manner other than stock shares issued at around .0001 per share.
You also say "those obligations are being met." Why do you say that? I see no evidence that those obligations are being met.
Any past debt repayment and/or current debt repayment would be material events and would therefore require SEC disclosure. There was no SEC disclosure.
However, if the debt collectors obtain a judgement, there is no statute of limitations on that.
I know of a person who tried to buy a house and the bank denied the loan based on a 20-year-old small-claims-court judgement that the borrower forgot even existed. They never go away. He had to pay that old judgement before he could get another loan.
Ask them, not me.
As the new Officers and Directors of Your Company, they should be eager to answer your questions and address your concerns.
One thing you're entitled to as shareholders is a list of all shareholders. If you had that list you'd know that the Lenders don't own any shares. That would be an Important Clue as to the veracity of the takeover rumor.
Personally, I wouldn't want to own stock in a company that didn't provide full disclosure and was supposedly orchestrating some kind of super merger without telling the shareholders. But since I only own 10 shares of RXPC I'm not too upset about Radient dissolving. I wish the Aussies would provide closure but it's not going to happen. We've seen the last communication from Radient.
Mac had every right to elect the Aussies.
"(h) If a sufficient number of the last acting officers of any corporation desiring to renew or revive its certificate of incorporation are not available by reason of death, unknown address or refusal or neglect to act, the directors of the corporation or those remaining on the board, even if only 1, may elect successors to such officers."
That's it, end of discussion. Thank you, Livinginsv.
So you think these are all Good Things for RXPC shareholders:
* Voided Corporation
* Revoked Share Registration
* No financials since 2011
* Company states in an 8K that it is insolvent
* Officers resigned and illegally tried to appoint new Officers and Directors
Well Congratulations are in order then. Will there be any more of these Good Things coming in 2015?
In This Skeptic's interpretation of events, there is no lock, there is no stock, and there is no barrel.
The Aussies can't plunder Radient because there is nothing to plunder.
There are no plans of ANY kind in the works. Mac abandoned this sinking ship and nobody else is going to resurrect or even THINK about Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation. It is dead and buried.
There has been no news of a merger since Provista and Radient terminated their LOI in 2010. Has it occurred to the Investigative Longs that there has been no news of a merger because there is no merger?
The most obvious explanation for the lack of Radient news is: nothing is happening. To say "there's no news because it's all being kept a secret" is rather silly.
How do you know the Aussies have done nothing?
Every time someone says "Radient is dead, there is no activity," the Investigative Longs say "there is plenty of activity, it's just all secret."
Why doesn't that same logic apply to the Aussies?
Then Bloomberg is incorrect about Radient?
How is that possible? Hundreds of posts by the Investigative Longs have attested to the accuracy of Bloomberg. Now you are saying that Bloomberg is wrong?
Yes!
I agree with every line! That's no fun, nothing to debate, oh well.
I'll add this: no DR-70 patent activity, not by Radient or anyone else.
Also I think UNI gives up trying to sell onko-bonko-sure by the end of 2015.
Provista might not IPO in 2015 but they will IPO before the end of 2016.
What about the Aussies? Will we hear from the Aussies? Are they going to market oinko-boinko-sure somewhere in the world?
Who cares who the Radient Directors are?
There's nothing to Direct.
Radient Pharma owns AMDI stock. You do not.
No matter what happens to AMDI, the value of RXPC shares do not change - RXPC shares have a value of nothing.
Dr-70 is not an asset unless the IP is protected, which it is not.
I like the way AMDI switches back and forth between being a "Division" and a "Subsidiary" on a whim. That fits the merger rumor perfectly. Whatever is convenient at the moment, that's the ticket, and tomorrow it can change 180 degrees depending on the "Stretcher Du Jour."