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.
"Pasaca/Innova to date have provided for more financial benefits to QMC then selling those 20 million shares at 2 cents ($40,000 value of the stock at time of the purchase)"
Your math is off. $400,000 not $40,000. Actually, the 19M shares were worth $650,000 on the open market when the purchase occurred in 2018.
On top of the 19M shares QMC paid, "As a part of the Capstan Purchase Agreement the Company paid $67,000 to settle existing debt to certain creditors held by Capstan." How much did QMC pay Jay over 2 years for development of a product that did not sell? How much did others get paid and how much did they pay in hosting and other services? Marketing?
What has QMC got from Pasaca? $7-$10 million in outstanding debt that needs to be paid back with interest?
"In short, 4 directors received approx 8K worth of stock on Friday, they could have turned and dumped those shares immediately."
The 4 officers were awarded a total of 182K options and 284K Stock Appreciation Rights. 25% of the options and SARs vested immediately, so they could have exercised their 45.5K vested options and received 45.5K shares by paying $156K (45.5K x $3.42). If they sold those shares on Friday the highest SP they could have gotten was $3.43 (the opening and high of the day).
Their greatest net profit could have been $455 ($0.01 x 45,500). But looking at Friday's chart, I would estimate that less than 10,000 shares could have possibly sold at $3.43 during the first half hour, so most of their sales would have been at a loss.
Had they tried to exercised their 71K vested SARs on Thursday or Friday, when the closing prices for those days were $3.40 and $3.10, respectively, then their SARs would have been worthless since the closing prices were below the exercise price of $3.42.
"what lead to the steep collapse of price on Friday....just normal trading..."
I don't think the officers would have "dumped" their 45,500 shares on Friday for a mere $100. Even if they had, I don't see them selling 45,500 shares being the cause of the supposed price "collapse" on Friday when the total volume was 339,000 shares. And a 10% price decline on below average volume is not a steep collapse of price for Sigma in my book.
Note: When SARs are exercised, shares are not issued to the holder. The holder is just paid in cash by company the difference between the share price on the date exercised and the exercise price ($3.42 in this case). So no shares to dump on the market, just a cash bonus paid based on share price appreciation.
And if the officers did exercise any options and sell any shares on Friday then they will be required to file new Form 4s this week.
No, no one got stock and dumped. They were awarded stock options and SARs, which 25% vested on Friday and the rest vest over the next 3 years. Based on Block 9, nothing got dumped, they still hold what they were awarded and that vested.
I have only found the Biotime antibody test on the ARTG site, nothing branded by Innova.
Supposedly if a test is approved elsewhere, like with CE Mark, it can be approved in AUS, but paper work needs to be submitted with documentation of the previous approval so it can be added to the ARTG list..
Note that that is their antibody test, not their rapid antigen test.
The sale of shares to Pasaca and some of Pasaca's investors was a private offering so the shares they would be buying would not be registered. Therefore QMC agree to file an S-1 as part of the agreement to register the Pasaca shares.
The new S-1 is to re-register the existing shares whose earlier registration was recently revoked. QMC could possibly include the Pasaca shares in the new S-1.
Actually a LUDP Volatility Trading Pause
Or you can just go to the source.
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1403570&owner=exclude
Actually the 404 page on the OTC web site is typical for companies that have had their registration revoked by the SEC, because FINRA deletes their stock symbol.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ELED/quote
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/OLCD/quote
Iron batteries weigh a lot, so only good for stationary use, not mobile like cars.
"I believe the next step after this hearing is the SEC filing QMC's revocation. Within that file, the SEC will highlight whether or not QMC attended, and any decisions thereafter:"
There was no hearing to attend. The Order to Show Cause required QMC to respond by July 16, there was no hearing scheduled. The Order included this:
"The, "This requires the complete support of our auditors and counsel with whom we are in constant contact," seems confusing to me. Requires? Why not say we have the support of... ?"
Well, "requires the complete support of" helps some to maintain their narrative that all the problems with the financial reporting can be blamed on the auditors and lawyers, and not management.
I would suspect that his Reg Affairs focus would have been with FDA and the like, not the SEC, based on Clinical R&D title.
Good news/bad news
Study Finds Serial Antigen Testing as Effective as PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance
Jul 01, 2021 | staff reporter
NEW YORK – A team led by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have evaluated the performance of rapid antigen and molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests over the course of mild and asymptomatic infections.
Their findings, published this week in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, indicate that when used in serial fashion, both rapid antigen and molecular assays are effective for COVID-19 screening, though certain advantages and disadvantages distinguish the two types of tests.
The study looked at samples collected from 43 individuals at the University of Illinois, where on-campus students and staff are required to undergo saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing every two to four days. A subset of individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 based on this testing were enrolled in the study and submitted daily saliva and nasal swab samples for 14 days. Using those samples, the researchers ran saliva- and swab-based PCR testing as well as swab-based rapid antigen testing using Quidel's Sofia SARS Antigen FIA test and the Sofia 2 device.
The researchers also performed viral culture of the nasal samples to determine at what points throughout the 14 days of testing patients were likely infectious.
The study found that while PCR testing had higher sensitivity than antigen testing (roughly 98 percent for both saliva- and swab-based PCR tests versus 80 percent for antigen testing), more frequent testing with antigen assays compensated for this difference. Testing using antigen tests every three days raised antigen assay sensitivity to better than 98 percent, the equivalent sensitivity of weekly testing using the molecular assays.
These findings bolster the argument for using frequent antigen testing to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Prominent epidemiologists and others have argued for such an approach since the early days of the pandemic but there has been little real world data (as opposed to modeling experiments) evaluating the effectiveness of such a strategy.
The researchers also found that PCR testing continued to flag samples as positive even after the viral cultures were no longer positive, suggesting that they may be returning positive test results for patients who are no longer infectious. Proponents of antigen testing have often argued that PCR's high sensitivity is a downside in this respect as it is picking up people who are not a threat to spread the disease, whereas antigen testing is better targeted to the period of time when a person is actually infectious. The JID findings are consistent with that argument.
"In general, serial antigen screening will be as effective as PCR in catching and assessing infectiousness," said Bruce Tromberg, director of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and leader of the NIH Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics Tech program, which provided funding for the study. He noted that the minimum cadence for effective antigen testing should be two times per week, with three times a week best for regular screening of people in high-prevalence areas or engaged in higher-risk activities.
Tromberg added, though, that antigen tests are not likely to be effective for detecting breakthrough infections in vaccinated people, given that peak viral loads in such patients may never reach the levels of detection of most antigen tests.
He suggested that in this population serial antigen tests are perhaps better than nothing, but that PCR is recommended "for vaccinated people to assess breakthrough infections."
https://www.360dx.com/covid-19/study-finds-serial-antigen-testing-effective-pcr-sars-cov-2-surveillance?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=360DN%20Thurs%202021-07-01&utm_term=360Dx%20Daily%20News#.YN77N-hKiUk
https://www.360dx.com/clinical-lab-management/liverpool-study-suggests-role-covid-19-rapid-antigen-tests-also-indicates#.YN78YOhKiUl
"... will never have the strength of a cast part."
That is just nonsense.
"Really? Then why is it still trading?"
Because the SEC has not completed the paperwork yet.
SEC Form REVOKED for QTMM has not been published yet.
https://sec.report/Form/REVOKED
New warning added to QTMM on OTC website.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/QTMM/overview
"maintenance" Call it what you want, but to me website maintenance is something that companies do in the background (updating pages, adding info) without affecting the use of the website, or something they do for a couple of hours in the middle of the night on weekends, which makes some or all of the website unavailable for those few hours.
Website "under construction" for 10 days is in a different category to me. Especially when you have a Federal Regulator breathing down your neck for regulatory non-compliance.
"Innova's main website (prior to it going down for maintenance)."
The website has been down for a week, probably not maintenance. More likely related to this from the FDA Warning Letter.
Mologic Sues UK Government Over SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Validation
Jun 16, 2021 | Leo O'Connor
NEW YORK - Diagnostic test developer Mologic is suing the UK government over the validation of its rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2.
The Bedford, UK-based company said its COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test has performed well in independent studies, but the UK government's facility, where newly developed rapid SARS-CoV-2 tests are validated, has reported 30 to 60 percent failure rates.
Mologic has seen failure rates of less than 2 percent in clinical studies, Joe Fitchett, its medical director, said in an interview. As a result, it wants the UK government to permit an independent observer with diagnostic testing experience to monitor the government's validation process for its test, or for the UK government to greenlight its procurement in the UK.
Mologic has developed a nasal swab test that detects the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in 20 minutes or less. A person without medical training can run the test at the point of need, including in the home, workplace, education settings, and travel settings, the firm said.
The test has demonstrated high performance in independent clinical studies, including in a recent evaluation for the World Health Organization by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Geneva-based Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.
Last December, the company received the CE mark for the test, enabling its use in the European Union and other regions that accept the designation. In preliminary findings in 28 symptomatic patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, the test diagnosed infection with a sensitivity of 92 percent and specificity of 100 percent, the firm has said.
However, the UK government's validation reports have restricted its procurement in the UK, Fitchett said.
The UK government's validation for SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen is conducted at Public Health England's Porton Down site, where investigators and academic collaborators at Oxford University evaluate lateral flow devices referred by the UK Department for Health and Social Care.
A UK Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson told 360Dx that it does not comment on legal proceedings, but that lateral flow testing continues to be a central part of the government's strategy to combat COVID-19. Any lateral flow device it uses to test for COVID-19 must pass a rigorous validation process to make sure it is sufficiently accurate and reliable, the spokesperson said, adding, "Collaboration between industry and government continues to play a central role in our response to this pandemic, and we are hugely grateful to all manufacturers and suppliers who have come forward to offer their assistance in producing lateral flow tests during this unprecedented time."
News of Mologic's lawsuit broke on Monday when The Telegraph reported that the firm sent letters and emails to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, James Bethell, a health minister, and UK members of Parliament, questioning the Porton Down evaluation. Mologic also sent a letter to Public Health England and the UK Department for Health and Social Care asking for their cooperation as an alternative to legal action, but to no avail. As a result, the diagnostic company served court papers on the UK government on Monday.
In contrast to the government testing conducted using contrived samples, other studies to validate its SARS-CoV-2 antigen test used clinical samples, according to Mologic. "We've conducted our own analysis of the results obtained through government testing and other independent clinical studies to validate the test and found that the probability of high failure rates is similar to the chance of being struck by lightning," Fitchett said.
The UK government's testing facility has approved the use of a lateral flow antigen test developed by Innova Medical Group, which has reportedly supplied the UK government with more than 1 billion rapid tests under contracts worth more than £3 billion ($4.23 billion).
The US Food and Drug Administration last week requested that the company stop sales of its Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test and warned the public against using the test, citing concerns about its performance.
"Because other tests have passed the government's validation, it doesn't mean they are good or that they work," Fitchett said. A case in point is the FDA's decision about Innova's kits, which "are the backbone of the UK's rapid antigen testing strategy," he said.
A BMJ opinion article in January warned that the "UK government is widening the rollout of the Innova lateral flow test without supporting evidence" and called on the government to change its course.
Mologic is also pushing ahead with validation for its antigen test elsewhere. In April, the company announced that the test has been selected for the second phase of the US National Institutes of Health Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics initiative, involving manufacturing scale-up. The company said it is also seeking US Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization.
Though the test is being sold throughout Europe, its use has been restricted in the UK as a result of the UK government lab's actions, which is "a waste of taxpayer money," Fitchett said. Mologic developed its SARS-CoV-2 antigen test with almost £1 million in UK government funding.
The UK governments' effort to validate its test has not only been flawed, but may also be redundant, Fitchett said. "My preferred option would be that at this stage in the pandemic, the government's validation of our test using contrived samples in a lab is not needed," he said. "The next best option would be to actually try and understand what went wrong here, because at the moment, what is implied is that it's a problem with the kit, and clearly that's not the problem."
https://www.360dx.com/business-news/mologic-sues-uk-government-over-sars-cov-2-antigen-test-validation?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=360DN%20Wed%202021-06-16&utm_term=360Dx%20Daily%20News#.YMowlPlKiUl
"conscience attempt to falsify one credentials to his peers"
So you agree that he has not worked for QMC for over 3 years.
Make people say dumb things and make them look foolish, seems to be working.
I think he is just trying to make people say dumb things and make them look foolish.
Stott worked for QMC from Jan. 2016 to Jan. 2017. That is not four years.
Summary of the issues and some new info.
FDA Warns Against Use of Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test
Jun 10, 2021 | staff reporter
This article has been updated to include comments sent by Innova to 360Dx on Friday.
NEW YORK — The US Food and Drug Administration on Thursday requested that Innova Medical Group stop sales of its Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test and warned the public against using the test, citing concerns about its performance.
Innova promotes the lateral flow immunochromatographic assay, which is designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein antigens in nasal swab specimens, as having demonstrated 97.0 percent sensitivity and 99.9 percent specificity for detecting infectious patients.
In its announcement, however, the FDA said that it has significant concerns about the performance of the test and the potential for false-negative or false-positive results.
In a warning letter sent to Pasadena, California-based Innova on Thursday, the FDA wrote that an inspection of the company's facility confirmed that Innova was distributing the test in the US despite never having received marketing approval, clearance, or authorization. The agency also said that certain configurations of the test were labeled with false or misleading performance data.
The FDA requested that Innova immediately cease the sale and distribution of the test and said that all test users, healthcare providers, and testing program operators should either destroy or return Innova tests they have.
In April, Innova issued a voluntary recall of certain lots of the test that had been distributed for non-investigational use only.
Innova noted in a statement this week that the FDA acknowledged a number of corrective actions taken by the company. "Some of the corrective actions have been completed, while some are still underway," it said, further noting that "none of the inspectional observations concern the performance of the test."
"We are confident that we are on the pathway to fully comply with FDA requirements," Innova added.
In March, Innova CEO Daniel Elliott said that the FDA had rejected two Emergency Use Authorization submissions for an over-the-counter version of the test and that the company was preparing an EUA submission for point-of-care use.
https://www.360dx.com/infectious-disease/fda-warns-against-use-innova-medical-group-sars-cov-2-antigen-test?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=360DN%20Fri%202021-06-11&utm_term=360Dx%20Daily%20News#.YMODCflKiUk
Another point that is missing from the "it's the auditor's fault" is that the 10-Qs do not need to be audited. Only the annual 10-K is required to be audited. If QMC has the FQ 12/31/19 and FQ 03/30/20 ready, then they don't have to give them to the auditor, just have Steve sign them off and file them.
The 09/30/19 10-Q was not audited, search for "unaudited", 40 hits.
SEC - SEC Adopts Amendments to Enhance Retail Investor Protections and Modernize the Rule Governing Quotations for Over-the-Counter Securities
OTC -Transforming The OTC Markets
SEC Proposes Rule 15c2-11 Changes – Form 211 Attorneys
OTC - Understanding The Expert Market
Federal Register - Notice of Proposed Conditional Exemptive Order Granting a Conditional Exemption From the Information Review Requirement and the Recordkeeping Requirement Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Certain Publications or Submissions of Broker-Dealer Quotations on an Expert Market
SEC - Notice of Proposed Conditional Exemptive Order Granting a Conditional Exemption from the Information Review Requirement of Amended Rule 15c2-11(a)(1)(i) and the Recordkeeping Requirement of Amended Rule 15c2-11(d)(1)(i)(A) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Certain Publications or Submissions of Broker-Dealer Quotations on an Expert Market
As of the end of April, Pasaca has only loaned QMC about $7 million.
The two senior secured notes from Pasaca are due on June 8 & 9.
Quantum Mentions Corporation (QMC)
"Has the value of QMC's technology and products been cut in half?" What products? the last thing we heard about the technology it was used as collateral for the 2 million with the formation of QMVT, giving them first rights to the technology.
QMVT did not get “first rights to the technology.” They were assigned a security interest in 2 of the Bayer QD synthesis patents. That’s all.
https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/resultAssignor?assignorName=QUANTUM%20MATERIALS%20CORP.
Per the 8-K in Feb., “David Vinson and Gerald Lindenmuth have requested conversions of their Convertible Note to shares, as have Cindi Brooks and I.”
Per the 10-K in March, “The company and QMVT have agreed to dissolve the QMVT relationship and are currently in the process of negotiating the terms to do so.”
So QMVT may have converted their Notes into shares or QMC may have paid off the $2M in Notes. Maybe that’s why Pasaca loaned QMC another $2.75 million in March. So QMC could pay off QMVT and get the rights back to the two patents.
“If Pasaca thinks the risks of the original deal have been resolved. If not then Pasaca declares QMC in default on the Notes and takes all the valuable assets and leaves the shell of the company to the existing shareholders" Again what assets? the blockchain technology?
Blockchain, app software, anti-counterfeiting, QD’s, microreactors, etc. Pasaca gets their pick.
"To add to that one has to believe Pasaca did a deep dive into the company before signing an agreement to buy 51% of the company."
Yes I'll bet Pasaca did a deep dive and saw potential value in QMC's technology and products, but they also saw a lot of risk. That risk is why Pasaca did not immediately buy in with the $15M. They got their foot in the door with the secured Senior Notes and put contingencies in the Agreement that have to be met before they will convert the Notes into shares and buy the additional shares to end up with 51% ownership.
"Assuming Pasaca will exercises its convertible debt of 249,661,287 shares. this suspension is costing Pasaca over 12 million dollars."
No the SP drop is not costing Pasaca $12M because they currently do not own those 250 million shares. They hold the $7M secured convertible Senior Notes, which means QMC still owes Pasaca $7M even though QTMM shares are worth half of what they were 2 weeks ago. Has the value of QMC's technology and products been cut in half? No just its stock price.
Pasaca will not convert the Notes into those 250M shares unless QMC becomes current in its filings, which should help the share price recover so they can buy $0.10+ shares for $0.02, if Pasaca thinks the risks of the original deal have been resolved. If not then Pasaca declares QMC in default on the Notes and takes all the valuable assets and leaves the shell of the company to the existing shareholders. Pasaca is not suffering loses due to the SP drop.
Caveat Emptor Restricted Securities
As of May 25, 2021, TD Ameritrade will restrict orders in Caveat Emptor designated OTC securities to liquidating trades only.
https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/cesecuritylist.pdf
If you register you can get to the recoding on the Sequire website.