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.
USA Patent Office
I just checked DNAG's pendings, no new info to report.
Big Blue
Stockboy,
I read the whole thing (S-2) last night and you're right that was a rough read. Please tell me you are not paying any mind to the wretched prognosticators that plague this board.
Big Blue
Gandolf,
Well, DNAG management must have ascertained that the value of EPO is greater. The likely scenario was that in during the Bio deal (after the 8K), Beth-I came through with an agreement or at least a letter of intent. This prompted DNAG to pull out becasue of they realized they could not do 100% of both at that time. JMHO
Big Blue
Form 8-K for DNAPRINT GENOMICS INC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13-Jul-2005
Entry into Material Agreement, Change in Assets, Financial Obligation Matte
ITEM 1.01 ENTRY INTO A MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT
On July 8, 2005, the Registrant entered into an agreement to purchase, and simultaneously closed upon the purchase of, an 18% equity interest in Biofrontera AG ("Biofrontera"), a German company in the pharmaceutical business. The Registrant purchased the interest in Biofrontera from Technologie-Beteiligungs-Gesellschaft mbH, an instrumentality of the German government. The securities purchased were shares of Biofrontera's series A Preferred Stock, as well as certain debt instruments.
The Registrant paid (euro)1.5 million (approximately $1.84 million) for the interest in Biofrontera. In connection with the transaction, two of the members of the registrant's Board of Directors, Richard Gabriel and Hector Gomez, were retained on the Biofrontera board.
In addition, to induce the shareholders of Biofrontera to consent to the transaction, the Registrant entered into a put agreement with another Biofrontera shareholder, Heidelberg Innovation. Pursuant to this agreement, if by December 31, 2005 Biofrontera does not complete its current offering of debt securities for at least (euro)10 million, Heidelberg Innovation may require the Registrant to purchase Heidelberg Innovation's ownership interest in Biofrontera of approximately 49% for (euro)1.6 million (approximately $1.96 million).
ITEM 2.01 COMPLETION OF ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF ASSETS.
See the description of the purchase agreement with Technologie- Beteiligungs-Gesellschaft mbH, in Item 1.01 above.
ITEM 2.03 CREATION OF A DIRECT FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR AN OBLIGATION UNDER AN OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENT OF A REGISTRANT.
See the description of the put agreement with Heidelberg Innovation in Item 1.01 above.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Hi Bag,
The letter is in PDF format. You may have to update your adobe reader. Hope this helps.
Big Blue
FYI to all: There is a new letter from the CEO on the updated web site. Blue
Doug,
I think you are right on track and it makes sense for Beckman to PR their product with a company that will praise it. Hopefuly, they can both gain from the relationship.
Big Blue
I just got this emailed to me:
Hello, new information has been posted on the DNAPrint Genomics, Inc. website. To view, please go to www.dnaprint.com or click directly on the following links - http://www.dnaprint.com/2003/pressreleases/DNAP-UHTLETTER_07_12_05.pdf ; http://www.dnaprint.com/2003/pressreleases/DNAP-UPGRADE_07_12_05.pdf
Much of our Company information can be obtained online from our website http://www.dnaprint.com or for your convenience, you may click on the following link which will bring you directly to the Investor Relations section of our website http://www.dnaprint.com/investor.html .
Thank you again for your interest in DNAPrint Genomics, Inc.
Appreciatively,
Investors Relations
Investor Relations
DNAPrint Genomics, Inc.
941-366-3400
dnap@dnaprint.com
Bump: Dear Moderators,
Subject: House Cleaning
Since we(you ;}~) have to change the top introduction from DNAP to DNAG I was thinking what else needs to be changed and the first two things that came to mind were adding cosmiclifeform's pipeline info and changing the DNAP/DNAG info to the latest PR info:
DNAPrint genomics, Inc. ( http://www.dnaprint.com ) is a developer of genomics-based products and services focused on drug development, pharmacogenomic diagnostic tests, forensics technology and consumer genetic tests. The Company's first theranostic product (drug/test combination) is PT- 401, a "Super EPO" (erythropoietin) dimer protein drug for treatment of anemia in renal dialysis patients (end stage renal disease). Currently in pre- clinical development, PT-401 will be targeted to patients with a genetic profile indicating their propensity to have the best clinical response.
Just something to consider. Thanks in advance if you think its a good idea.
Big Blue
Subject: House Cleaning
Dear Moderators,
Since we(you ;}~) have to change the top introduction from DNAP to DNAG I was thinking what else needs to be changed and the first two things that came to mind were adding cosmiclifeform's pipeline info and changing the DNAP/DNAG info to the latest PR info:
DNAPrint genomics, Inc. ( http://www.dnaprint.com ) is a developer of genomics-based products and services focused on drug development, pharmacogenomic diagnostic tests, forensics technology and consumer genetic tests. The Company's first theranostic product (drug/test combination) is PT- 401, a "Super EPO" (erythropoietin) dimer protein drug for treatment of anemia in renal dialysis patients (end stage renal disease). Currently in pre- clinical development, PT-401 will be targeted to patients with a genetic profile indicating their propensity to have the best clinical response.
Just something to consider. Thanks in advance if you think its a good idea.
Big Blue
Miss Scarlet,
Great post! He's promised me he'd stop and...well you see that that lasted about a day. Perhaps he'll listen to a lady.
Warmest regards,
Big Blue
Cosmic, I always like your Pipeline posts. Thanks,Blue
The last report was an improvement.
Amen.
Dear Frog,
The r/s makes perfect sense to me for more shares in order to continue operations, that was never the issue (today). The main issue that I raised today was the split ratio.
Big Blue
Dear Frog,
I understand that there is nefarious intent in the market. I know it could be here but as of right now I do not think it is. I just question the r/s and Trace. Prior to the split I wrote (last sentence):
I, like many, have voted No on the R/S. Current funding for this company is fine for the short term. Releasing more shares into the market place (as needed) is a MUCH better option due to the FACT that the pps is so low. The only time I will ever vote for a r/s for this company or any other company is to get on an exchange or to get to a level (~>5.00) where more institutional investors look at you. As I have said before, for DNAP to get on a major exchange the r/s would have to get the price to 3 or 4 (depending on the exchange) due to minimum bid requirements and as of right now the minimum income requirements are too high for DNAP (this is a fact). My reasons are sound and factual to oppose the r/s. For those that are considering voting yes, please do some DD and ask the question WHY does the company want a r/s when it can not get us on an exchange. Please review this matter closely.
…I did not like writing that because I do not want to be divisive concerning the board. I would like this board to be a step above RB. As I’ve stated before questioning does not equal disloyalty. ...I don't know why they selected a 20 for 1 and gave a range (or 10 for 1)....I just know I don't like it.
Big Blue
Dear Doug,
Concerning your statement: Again, we would have to get off the otc for those things to come into play anyway and there are a number or requirements that we simply don't meet yet.
I completely agree. In fact if you check my posts you will find that I was the first person to bring that fact to the boards attention (ref. post 25438).
Points of note:
You stated "that applies ONLY to larger, better established companies..." this is not a true statement.
You know what lets not do this I asked where is the wisdom in this move (20 for 1 r/s)....would you agree that a greater split would have been more appropriate or do think that a 20 to 1 is the perfect number?
Big Blue
Dear Gratli,
To answer your question of an example of a company that has done a 1000 for 1 r/s that (your words) personally haven't ever seen a 1000 to 1 that wasn't a scam or at least took all investors to basically nothing. I found 2 fairly quick. Of course this is not a complete list and who knows for sure if they will stay in business or if they are a scam but here they are just the same, msnc, whli (up 7% today). Hope this helps.
Big Blue
For Doug,
This illustrates what I have been preaching on this board for a couple of months.
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3011203?f=related
Big Blue
Gratli,
TNE rings a bell but I'm not 100% sure, so let me do some looking for you and we'll see what I can come up with. I promise to get back to you.
Big Blue
Thanks Frog,
You're right I didn't like it but thanks all the same for taking the time.
Big Blue
Dear Doug,
Your statement regarding >5 on the otc is true enough but off the otc it means a great deal. Most institutional investors will not even look at you if you are <5; plus, >5 can equal options.
Big Blue
Hi Gratli,
A split is a split except for the pps in the end. 1000 for 1 does not need to equal a scam. As you know a split is mearly a math process where the total value will not be change much at all (minus the anti-dilu). To answer your question directly regarding 1000 to 1 splits, admittedly there are not many and that's because a company is not normally in a good situation if you have to do a r/s in the first place. However, in this case it may have made a great deal of sense for the reasons that I have mentioned before.
Big Blue
20 for 1 or 1000 for 1?
One of the better choices that I alluded to in a previous post would have been a greater split. Why didn’t management consider a 1000 for 1 split? I have stated before the only time I would ever vote for a r/s is for a price above 5 so that we would have more institutional investor interest and possibly increase our buy side volume or to get on an exchange. So, why are we doing a 20 for 1 instead of a 1000 for 1? Where is the wisdom in this move? I clearly understand the dilution aspects of the 20 for 1 but why not do the 1000 instead? As it stands at a 20 for 1 at .0075 we will be moved to a .15pps and if we would have done a 1000 for 1 at .0075 we would have been moved to a 7.5pps. Can anyone help me understand the logic?
Big Blue
Long, Holding, Investor
The character of the board is really shining.
OT: The events in London will likely cause our market to open >100 points down.
God help all involved.
Big Blue
Dear Jever,
I am going to make another attempt to educate you on some of your posts (specifically the one I am replying to). Your post strongly implies that you have inside nonpublic information about DNAP. It is illegal to disseminate for profit nonpublic company information in almost every case. If someone were to report you to DNAP or the SEC and they actually act on it you could be in some trouble. Investing history is littered with cases were insiders, fraudulent scam artists, and cybersmear campaigners have gone to jail and or had to pay heavy fines. You have lied once already to me and the board about stopping your predictions. Perhaps if you are educated to know that you could be reported to others besides our ihub moderators and those reports could have personal consequences, just perhaps you will stop trying to manipulate the stock price. We know your word is not good enough (ref. post: 28573) so show the board with your actions.
Big Blue
We are on the brink of possible mass dilution for the next several years and there are those that predict MAJOR new. We’ve been down this road before and most know how I feel about that. Look, we had major news today that was good and bad. The bad part is that we may/likely have to destroy the value of our common stock to keep the company alive (one of the safer choices would have been to increase shares proportionally to a two year need. With products in the pipeline the need could change if pps increase along with earnings but too late to discuss that). The good news is that the company could be around long enough to see S-EPO come to market. …but there are so many questions to ask that I have not heard answers for nor have I heard anyone at the meeting address them. Such as Trace…At the meeting did anyone ask serious questions about Trace? We bought a company that generated ~250K in rev. in 04 but were the earnings negative? We have not heard about Trace’s earnings. This begs the question, where the earnings negative? ..and if so, there is NO good reason to buy a company that is losing money other than patents or proprietary tech and I have not heard about that either. It’s simple, now that we have a r/s coming the 10 news points that I want to hear about are: 1) A major deal with big pharma; 2) Major progress reports on EPO; 3) The m&a of a company that MAKES a profit; 4) A patent getting approved and appeals on the final rejections; 5) Major cost reductions to become profitable; 6) Any development of new science within the company; 7) The reduction of available shares to go outstanding; 8) Getting on one of the major exchanges; 9) FINALLY get one of the tests to market; 10) and a pr that states that they have their first profitable qtr.. Perfidiousness? No. Questions do not equal disloyalty and all of us should have serious questions.
Big Blue
There are a few other possible explanations to Tony’s statement regarding patent rejections. One of which would have Tony too busy in preparing for the meeting; therefore, he did not read his mail. Take into account that Tony’s roll at the meeting increased when the President could not attend and this fact increases the likelihood that he was too busy. I state read his mail because the mailing of the two rejections in question 10/120,804 & 09/964,059 were sent on 6/21 and 6/15. We can all agree that the 6/15 would certainly be in his in box prior to the meeting and perhaps he was too busy to read his mail....it happens...I do not like this possibility but it could have happened. Tony knows that the people that attended these meetings are informed owners. So, it stands to reason that Tony would not lie to people that would know about the rejections regardless if he is a person inclined to lie or not (I do not know him and have never met him to make a judgment). The likely conclusion here is that he did not know or he is not using the term final rejection the way the USPO uses it. I was not at the meeting therefore I am basing this scenario on some of the information presented on this board. I do not believe there was intent to mislead and it seems likely that DNAP will appeal. I am concerned but still holding.
Big Blue
Grateful,
Nice read. Thank you for posting.
Big Blue
Thanks WAHummer2.
R/S
Does anyone know the exact date that this will hit?
Thanks in advance.
Big Blue
Ann,
Great work. Its too bad that DNAPrint isn't on the list (unless you see it on the other 2 pages). It would be nice to have some good news that would directly impact rev.
Big Blue
Chris & Ann,
Chris, I completely agree with you. Doing just a little bit of DD before posting something new doesn't take to long. You can see where someone would have made the mistake here but..again, it doesn't take long to verify something.
Ann, thanks for clearing the issue up.
Big Blue
Gratli,
Thanks for posting this information.
Big Blue
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the support. Stock manipulation is considered fraud whether it be insider trading or not. I was hopeful that IHub could take a stronger stance because of the laws against stock manipulation but I understand that the company just supplies the vehicle to communicate and does not want to get involved with that aspect / level of censorship.
Thanks again,
Big Blue
Dr. Frudaky,
Thank you for the compliment.
(At least I cannot be acused of cajoling people into buying this stock. LOL!) You are too funny!
Big Blue
Easyman,
I understand that you must work within the framework of the IHub system. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Big Blue
Dear Board Moderator and Assistants,
I request that all future posts containing emphatic statements of forthcoming news and stock price be deleted. There is a clear and significant difference between, “I hope that we get news next week” and “next week!!! the big one comes.....hold on tight...”. Or how about the more egregious, “the next pr by this friday will get us to .02..or better...”. Most of us on this board know better than to listen to such garbage or may dismiss it as someone having fun; however, for the new investor coming to this board for research statements like this could have sway. At the root of the issue is the intent. Insider trading law aside, when someone spouts opinion as fact there is a problem and you have to question, are they being magnanimous or are they being self serving at someone else’s expense? I think the answer is clear. For those that have read my posts, you know that I find this type of rhetoric abhorrent. Some may say lighten up (and I expect at least one to say it now), but these statements are most profane. It is my hope that you agree and will take appropriate action on such posts.
Respectfully,
Big Blue