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.
alo_h..."Four years after the killing, a breakthrough in DNA investigation methods meant police could isolate a new pool of 100 potential suspects.
Forensic scientists obtained a partial DNA profile of the murderer from items left at the scene of the crime.
Detectives have been using the national DNA database to try to track down possible suspects.
They hoped that by cross-checking with other information on the suspect's distinctive appearance they could narrow the list even further.
In the initial stages of the inquiry police investigated and ruled out 600 suspects."
Have we done it again?
Later,
W2P
For all the "voyeurists", they are NOT married to my knowledge and that is HIS daughter, not hers.
Secondly, his wife, her mother is sadly no longer with us.
His daughter is quite brilliant in her own right and has quite a spirit of adventure.
That's the last I will post on this subject, because anything else is irrelevant. You either want good people running this company or not. He has been VERY successful in his previous engagements. She is Summa Cum Laude graduate with extensive experience as a Controller and CFO. What more could any reasonable person ask for.
Later,
W2P
money4nothin...Those would be the remaining shares from the 144 filed on April 7, 2003. He filed a form 4 on 4/30/03 for 1,900,000 shares and one on 5/30/03 for 2,600,000 shares. This last one totals 499,158. Total of the three is 4,999,158. That's the amount of the April 7 144 filing.
Later,
W2P
cloud477...Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
Later,
W2P
Oops again, was it always Neogenomics.org? Probably.
Later,
W2P
Neogenomics domain name for sale:
http://www.neogenomics.com
Later,
W2P
Team...My post was a question...I noticed there were no trades. On a stock with several million shares daily volume that's unusual.
No trading on Neogenomics since Monday either...curious.
Later,
W2P
Another subtle change:
Nanogen, which signed a site development agreement with DNAP in October 2002 has undergone a subtle change in their "About Nanogen Statement". This one was used in 2002:
"Nanogen's goal is to become the leading provider of molecular diagnostic products. The Company is seeking to establish the NanoChip(R) System as the standard platform for the detection of genetic mutations and to develop applications for future clinical use. To date, the Company has developed two analyte specific reagents for the detection of Factor V Leiden and the CFTR gene for cystic fibrosis, and has internally validated five research protocols, four associated with cardiovascular disease and one associated with hereditary hemochromatosis, the most common form of iron overload disease. Nanogen markets its NanoChip(R) Molecular Biology Workstation to scientists and genomics laboratories. The NanoChip(R) System is intended for laboratory use only. For additional information please visit Nanogen's web site at www.nanogen.com."
Then starting with the April 10, 2003 PR they added something:
"Nanogen, Inc. develops and commercializes molecular diagnostic products for the gene-based testing market. The Company seeks to establish the NanoChip(R) Molecular Biology Workstation and NanoChip(R) Cartridge as the standard platform for the detection of genetic mutations and is also developing its technology for forensic and biowarfare applications. Nanogen offers Analyte Specific Reagents and related products to research laboratories and clinical reference labs for the detection of genetic mutations associated with a variety of diseases, including cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's disease, hereditary hemochromatosis, cardiovascular disease, beta thalassemia and Canavan disease. The unique, open-architecture design of its NanoChip(R) System provides laboratories with a flexible platform to develop and validate tests to quickly, accurately, and cost effectively detect mutations associated with the diagnoses, prediction, screening, treatment and monitoring of diseases. The NanoChip(R) System is intended for laboratory use only. For additional information please visit Nanogen's web site at www.nanogen.com."
Interesting...
Later,
W2P
stakddek...LOL The guy is just a shade transparent. And that's the best I can say about him. From our exchanges, it is plain that he is really not too bright. He is prone to knee-jerk reactions. I want to tell the guy, they've been treating cancer for over thirty years and are no further ahead today than they were then.
Diabetes is much more prevalent, asthma, cardiovascular disease, obesity, osteoperosis, many cancers, alzheimers, Parkinson's, MS, and the list goes on. To listen to him, you'd think they will all be solved in an instant and we'll be left holding the bag.
The fact remains, we are the ONLY company in the world that is marketing products derived from complex genomics solutions. And 99% of the disease solutions will involve complex genomics. I'd say we're doing just fine.
And I'll add this. Did you note the testimonials from Affymetrix's PR yesterday, and the astonishment of Novartis and the others about how they could isolate a disease locus in a WEEK. DNAP has had this platform for over a year, maybe a year and a half. What do you suppose they have been doing with it?
"The company has filed for other patents, as well, however they are being kept confidential at this time."
I think that says it all.
Later,
W2P
Oops, comment period CLOSED on July 21, 2003. Next step is revision and reissuance of draft.
Later,
W2P
FDA Draft Guidance on Genetic Testing Devices:
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03d0120gdl.DOC
The comment period is 60 days from July 21, 2003. We should probably look for comments from DNAP.
Later,
W2P
angelfund888...Excellent letter. That should be used as a template for anyone wishing to send DNAPrint information to a police agency.
Thanks,
W2P
DougS...You're on! I prefer the lighter beers. Honey Weiss would be just fine. lol
One more thing I found a little puzzling about the Affy product announcement yesterday. I have it on pretty good authority that Affy knows about what DNAP is up to and vice versa. They have been an Orchid collaborator since 1999, and in fact, renegotiated their deal in August 2001. Stephen Fodor, CEO of Affy, was a research fellow at Cal Berkeley in the late '80's when Tony would have been there.
First mention of the development of the 10K Mapping Array comes in their most recent 10K. Prior to that, no hint that they were working on anything like that. The Scanner was announced in early 2003, but didn't mention the mapping chip. But in the competition section of the respective 10K's, neither mentions the other. They both talk about other competitors.
Don't you think that if each was aware of the other, and they both had this unique mapping system, that a brief acknowledgement would be in order?
Ah, well, I am too prone to musing...heck, I think I'm really trying to convince myself, because although it looks very similar, I can't quite get myself to believe it's possible. lol The best part about it is that we'll know soon enough what's up at DNAP.
Have a great day,
W2P
DougS...LOL Home Brew, reminds me a little of the dilemma concerning fireworks. It's legal to sell them, you just can't fire them.
As to your earlier statement concerning the business plan, I don't know. I suppose we'll find out soon enough. I was just reacting to some very familiar looking information.
I just spent the past hour going through Affymetrix's last 10K. You know, they discuss the GeneChip 10K Array, and they discuss all of their various software offerings. I looked pretty closely, but I didn't see the GeneChip DNA Analysis Software 2.0 (GDAS 2.0 they call it, it's an automated genotype calling algorithm) anywhere in the document. And none of their other offerings use the "2.0" naming convention. Like they expect there to be a "3.0" at some point. And speaking of 3.0, the GeneChip Scanner 3000 (their new scanner) is designed to enable high-resolution scanning of "future" high-density SNP arrays.
Also thought the timing seemed right, and thought it would help explain the lack of ADMIXMAP partners. Obviously, the technology works according to the testimonials. And the number of makers and average heterozygosity seemed about right. It would certainly make sense to do MALD screens using genechip technology.
Just found it all very curious, what with DNAP going thru some sort of transition. Guess we'll know soon enough.
Later,
W2P
Some of this looks AWFULLY familiar:
http://www.affymetrix.com/support/technical/datasheets/10k_datasheet.pdf
"The GeneChip® DNA Analysis Software 2.0..."
From Affy 10K System Datasheet:
"Internal validation studies have shown >95% call rates over more than 200 individuals from Caucasian, African American, and
Asian populations..."
From DNAPrint Website:
"Whereas publicly available SNPs validate as Polymorphisms at a rate of about 50-60%. Our result is greater than 95%..."
From Affy 10K System Datasheet:
"SNP ANNOTATION AVAILABLE THROUGH THE NETAFFX™ ANALYSIS CENTER:
Extensive annotation for each SNP is provided both within GDAS 2.0 and on the NetAffx™ Analysis Center. Affymetrix combines data from multiple sources within the public domain to provide the data in a single place. Annotation includes TSC ID, db SNP ID, nearest microsatellite markers, nearest gene, physical map location, cytoband, genetic map location, and allele frequencies in multiple populations..."
From DNAPrint 10K Report:
"DNAP's databases are fully annotated, and contain relevant LocusLink, Medline, UniGene, Entrez, and PubMed information. Another factor that distinguishes DNAP's database is that it contains a molecular address for each target SNP that enables rapid application to microchip based screening platforms. Most of the Company's data and annotation do not currently exist in any public database, and the Company enjoys their exclusive use.
Later,
W2P
ifida..."The Mapping 10K Array brings whole genome SNP analysis to the benchtop by combining an innovative, scalable assay with a proven information platform...
*smile*
Later,
W2P
dshade...I'm certain there were technical or strategic reasons for many to curtail in July. BTW, were you aware that there is a major Life Science research center in Austin?
Later,
W2P
Life Sciences has been busy:
http://www.fhcrc.org/pubs/center_news/2003/jun19/sart1.html
Later,
W2P
Looks like another one of our partners just signed on with IBM:
http://www-3.ibm.com/solutions/lifesciences/news/ny_hospitals.html
Later,
W2P
Reorganization:
Apparently as part of the "transition" some folks at DNAP have new titles, and one in particular seems to be unaccounted for. This from the recently filed 10K Annual Report:
"DNAPrint genomics is a consumer oriented genomics company, focused on developing products that enable consumers to utilize the information inherent in their genomes (DNA sequence). Our management team consists of Hector Gomez, MD, Chairman of the Board, Richard Gabriel, CEO/President, Tony Frudakis, Ph.D.,
CSO, K. Suresh Chandra, Ph.D., Director of Statistical Genomics, and K. Punniswamy, Ph.D., President of Statistical Genomics. The Company believes that these executives have the necessary expertise to make us a leader in the development of genetic tests and products for the consumer genomics marketplace.
Former Vice President, Kondragunta Venkateswarlu is not on the list of management personnel. In addition, Dr. Punniswamy has gone from Vice President of Biostatistics to President of Statistical Genomics. Dr. Chandra, former Director of Biostatistics is now Director of Statistical Genomics.
I wonder if there is significance in the change in terms to "Statistical Genomics" vs. "Biostatistics". And I wonder what Dr. Kondragunta is up to.
Interesting...
Later,
W2P
slopster..."Change in Control" is clearly defined in Tony's agreement. Here's the text:
The term "Change in Control" means (i) the acquisition of the power to direct, or cause the direction of, the management and policies of the Company by a person or entity not previously possessing such power, acting alone or in conjunction with others, whether through ownership of stock, by contract or otherwise, or (iii) the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of the power to vote twenty percent (20%) or more of the Company's outstanding common stock by a person, entity or group.
From this, I believe it has to be by contract or majority stock ownership, or by a purchase of a 20% interest in the company. But there's not much wiggle room concerning the definition of the terms "Change of Control".
And BTW, merely bringing in Gabriel to become CEO doesn't meet this definition, unless he or a group are also purchasing a major interest in the company.
Later,
W2P
cowboyd...Input appreciated. Let me respond to a couple of points.
You said:
I also think if such a change in control agreement had been executed it would certainly qualify as a " Material Event " and would have been disclosed under SEC guidelines. The side bar to the above is that discussions not finalized would, of course, not be subject to disclosure.
A valid point, however, my belief stems from the growing number of company actions described in my recent posts. They seem to point to the company preparing itself to execute just such an event. Whether the trigger has been pulled or not depends on the nature of the deal. If it involves a significant amount of the company's securities, it may undergo a "quiet period" for SEC review. Perhaps that would explain why the S-8 was not disclosed.
It is also very possible with Tony's loss of management involvement and return to Chief Scientific Officer status that this may mean there is no logical way for him to now effect such an economic alliance since others are now in charge of that development. He is now concentrating on R&D not marketing. If by chance this line of thought is correct then the " Change of control " text may not be relevant.
Also a possible explanation, but if it's not relevant, then why did they specifically include the "change of control" text in that 10K passage. I respectfully suggest that you can't draw a conclusion from that sentence without the other two because together they are all meant to address the central point, which is the change in the performance grant. Let me illustrate.
I'll use italics and bold to separate the three statements. Actually, the thoughts you suggest could have been conveyed using only the first and third statements. Yet they specifically chose to include the middle one:
Furthermore because it is not probable at this time that the shares will be issued, no stock based compensation has been recorded as a result of this agreement in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The agreement contains a change of control clause whereby these shares will be immediately vested and non-forfeitable if the agreement is not assumed or substituted at the time of such change. Subsequent to year end, our board of directors has resolved to revise the performance measures, however the terms of such revision have not yet been finalized.
Actually, I found the middle statement to be key, as opposed to the last, and it definitely directs us to the "change" clause in the agreement. It wasn't until I got there and saw that the remedy was to vest shares and issue them via S-8, then tied that to the Transfer Agent's statement that an S-8 had been filed, that I concluded that a "change" event had been invoked.
In my mind, the greater uncertainty lies in examining the meaning of "change of control". There are several definitions of events that would constitute a "change" according to the Performance Share Agreement. I would welcome any thoughts you might have along those lines as well.
BTW, between you me and the fence post, this is precisely the type of discussion I enjoy and I appreciate your participation.
Later,
W2P
A Change in Control:
This paragraph from the recently filed 10K has intriqued me since it was filed:
In addition to the above, we have an agreement to award 30,000,000 shares of our common stock to our Chief Science Officer when certain performance measures are met. At December 31, 2002 these performance measures have not yet been met, and as such the shares have not yet been issued. Furthermore because it is not probable at this time that the shares will be issued, no stock based compensation has been recorded as a result of this agreement in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The agreement contains a change of control clause whereby these shares will be immediately vested and non-forfeitable if the agreement is not assumed or substituted at the time of such change. Subsequent to year end, our board of directors has resolved to revise the performance measures, however the terms of such revision have not yet been finalized.
The statement in bold above is the key issue. I tried to imagine the reason for the change in the Performance Share Agreement, and what circumstances led the company to say, "Furthermore because it is not probable at this time that the shares will be issued...". They also made a point of including this statement in that paragraph, "The agreement contains a change of control clause whereby these shares will be immediately vested and non-forfeitable if the agreement is not assumed or substituted at the time of such change. Subsequent to year end, our board of directors has resolved to revise the performance measures, however the terms of such revision have not yet been finalized."
So I did a little digging, and put it together with some other, recently revealed information and the pieces suddenly seemed to fit together.
To understand what's happened, we need to know what event would have triggered the 30,000,000 share Performance Grant. This is from Tony's agreement:
Section 2.2 - Performance Condition
It shall be a condition to the vesting of the Performance Shares that the Company, through the efforts of the Grantee, secures a co-commercialization and or co-development partner for the Company's first genomics - based patient classification test. Upon completion of such condition, all performance legends shall be removed from grantee's stock.
So Tony was to receive his grant as soon as the company secured it's first partner or licensee for a drug classifier, but as of this year's annual report, they suddenly felt that that wasn't likely to happen. How could that be, I asked myself. Clearly the company would at some point secure a partner for it's drug classifiers. There must be an alternative explanation. And, in fact, there is and it resides in the section concerning "Change of Control" contained in the same agreement:
Section 2.6 - Change of Control
If the Company agrees to sell all or substantially all of its assets or agrees to any merger, reorganization, or other corporate transaction in which its common stock is converted into another security or into the right to receive securities or property, and such agreement does not provide for the assumption or substitution of the Performance Shares, all such Performance Shares will become fully vested and nonforfeitable. In the event of a Change in Control (as defined below), the Board of Directors has the right to take such action with respect to the unvested Performance Shares as the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances to protect the interest of the Company in maintaining the integrity of shares granted under the Plan while compensating the Grantee for successful economic performance. Furthermore, in the event of such a condition, the Company shall register all vested shares under Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The term "Change in Control" means (i) the acquisition of the power to direct, or cause the direction of, the management and policies of the Company by a person or entity not previously possessing such power, acting alone or in conjunction with others, whether through ownership of stock, by contract or otherwise, or (iii) the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of the power to vote twenty percent (20%) or more of the Company's outstanding common stock by a person, entity or group.
So from the above, it appears to me that what the company is doing is providing for "the assumption or substitution of the Performance Shares."
The event that would allow the Board to make the kind of change they made to the agreement was a "Change in Control". And what was to happen, "the Board of Directors has the right to take such action with respect to the unvested Performance Shares as the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances to protect the interest of the Company in maintaining the integrity of shares granted under the Plan while compensating the Grantee for successful economic performance." And how was he to be compensated, "Furthermore, in the event of such a condition, the Company shall register all vested shares under Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
I offer this as further evidence that this may, in fact, have occurred. When GoldenEagle contacted the Transfer Agent in June, he was told the total outstanding share count. But the Transfer Agent also reported that, "the Company had filed an S-8 for 5.9 million shares." An S-8, BTW, that has yet to see the light of day.
So what do we have:
- The company has stated in the 10K that it is unlikely that a classifier partnership or license will be accomplished and they intend to revise the Performance Share measures. Clearly they don't mean that a license will never happen, only that a license will be preceded by a "Change of Control". In that case, the agreement must either be "assumed" or "substituted". Looks like they're choosing to substitute.
- The company has stated that subsequent to the begining of the new fiscal year, they have resolved to change the Performance Measures. This is very much in line with the "Change of Control" clause of Tony's Performance Share Agreement.
- The company filed an S-8 to issue 5.9 million shares. Also an event described in the agreement under "Change of Control".
Considering this in context of my recent posts describing the apparent return of the TBF escrow shares to the treasury; the circumstantial evidence to suggest that Luchese has been paid for at least one of his milestones and will be paid additional shares for work in January and February. The fact that on April 30, 2003 there were 480 million shares issued and that the count now stands at 520 million. I contend that most were issued to settle accounts with the "Related Parties".
My conclusion:
There has been a "Change of Control" event, perhaps involving the purchase of 20% of the outstanding shares of the company, which in turn, triggered Luchese's incentives and the clauses in Tony's Performance Share agreement.
In order to complete such a deal, the company needed to secure an increase in the share authorization; complete the separation from TBF; issue shares to the Related Parties to complete any required reimbursement for loaned monies; deal with Tony's Performance Share Agreement (and perhaps some of the other outstanding "variable" share agreements such as Shriver's). Getting these measures completed accounts for the time that has passed since November/December 2002, when I believe that an agreement in principal may have been reached.
I state again for the record that this is my opinion, offered here for discussion purposes.
Later,
W2P
Miss Scarlet...Just what I have been posting from my own DD. Looks to me like they have been positioning since last November/December. Got additional shares authorized and got a number of old issues settled.
Also looks to me like they've closed out the Related Party funding as well. Just circumstantial evidence from the April 30 share count versus what's issued and outstanding now.
It's all opinion until the company speaks...and you know what they say about opinions! lol
Later,
W2P
Miss Scarlet...earsoup was an old time regular poster on the DNAP RB Board. He worked for IBM for a number of years. Claimed at one time that they would be hooking up with IBM, but it never happened. He was derided for that. He doesn't post much anymore but shows up on occasion.
That's all I know.
Later,
W2P
Tell me it's true...Link to the main board:
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAP&read=264335
Later,
W2P
Teamlasvegas...The easiest way to do it is to open a second internet window with explorer. In this new window, go to the site you want to link. Once there, just click on the address up in the address bar. That should highlight the address. Then, click on "Edit", "Copy". That will place a copy of the site address on the clipboard. Now activate your original window, go to your post and click "Edit", "Paste". That should do the trick.
Let me know if you still have problems.
Later,
W2P
Teamlasvegas...There NEVER was a DEAL with DNAP. DNAP was and will remain open to performing a screen for any party with the cash to get it done. But there's more to it than Scott realizes.
The samples need to be VERY precisely defined and carefully selected. Because of that, they are expensive to gather. The samples themselves would probably cost CMIH far in excess of $100,000. On top of that, DNAP is not even going to start the work until THEY get $100,000 up front. Bottom line is, I don't look for that work to ever go anywhere.
I think Scott was genuine in his efforts to swing this. From what I understand, his primary motivation is his own affliction with the disease. But I think he leaped before he looked, and unfortunately, a number of investors bought the stock believing there was more there than there actually was.
If you're a REAL gambler, as your name implies, then by all means take your shot. But I'd say the odds on that one are VERY long.
Later,
W2P
Has Anyone Stopped to Consider:
According to the 10K filing, they signed a "consulting contract" with Luchese in November that was to run 4 months, paying him $25K/month. In January they compensated him in shares for his work in November and December - a total of 2,780,868 shares. At that time they didn't anticipate compensating him in January and February:
In addition to the consulting agreement discussed above, we engaged this director to provide us with consulting services valued at $25,000 per month (payable in shares of our common stock) for a period of four months. At December 31, 2002 we had recognized $50,000 of consulting expenses under this arrangement, and do not anticipate that any additional expense and/or liability will occur as services have not been provided in 2003. In January 2003, we issued 2,780,868 shares of our common stock as consideration for the liability existing at December 31, 2002.
Two things about that: 1) Why did they need to sign a consulting agreement with him if he already HAD a consulting agreement 2) 2,780,868 is AWFULLY close to 2.8 million if you ask me, the number of shares he would get if he achieved his milestones.
Things changed again in the 10Q filed in May. Looks like they got some work out of him in January and February:
In November 2002, we engaged a former director to provide us with consulting services valued at $25,000 per month (payable in shares of our common stock) for a period of four months. As of December 31, 2002, we had recognized $50,000 of consulting expenses under this arrangement, and in January 2003, we issued 2,780,868 shares of our common stock as consideration for such liability (as noted above, because the shares were issued at a price less than the fair market value of our stock on the date of issuance, we recorded additional consulting expenses in 2003). As consideration for services provided in 2003, we also anticipate that we will issue shares to this person at a price less than the fair value of our common stock; accordingly we have estimated and recorded our first quarter expense to be approximately $100,000 under this arrangement.
Personally, I think he succeeded in achieving one or more of his milestones. I think they have presented it this way in order to get time to get the share authorization in place (prevented a takeover and provided shares to complete a deal), and to get time to clear the decks with TBF and the escrow shares, as well as the rest of the related parties.
Of course this is pure speculation on my part, but I present it here for discussion purposes.
Later,
W2P
stak...You're right. I have no clue what deferred revenues will show, but that may be the most interesting number in the filing. LOL
I think top-line revs of $250-350K would be exciting as well. 300-400% revenue growth should open some eyes as to what the potential is here.
Later,
W2P
angelfund888..."Note that pre-audit revenues for Q1 mentioned were $215,000; $75,000 was recognized; add the $90,000 deferred revenues and that leaves $35,000. Does it make sense that the pre-audit numbers were off by 16%?"
By my math, the difference is $50,000...not $35,000. I understand that the difference was a $50,000 contract that the company had received. Don't know whether those revenues will be recognized this quarter or not.
DNAP also had accounts receivable of about $25,000. That amount should also flow to the revenue column for the next filing. All told, revenues had a head start of about $165,000 this quarter, including the contract.
Just a guess, but I'm looking for revenues between $250K & $350K this quarter, not counting deferred revenue. Anything more will be a pleasant surprise.
Later,
W2P
Miss Scarlet:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Don't know, but would guess initiated by DNAP
4) ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, WITHOUT A DOUBT, YES!!!!!!
LOL
Later,
W2P
bag8ger...It's really very simple. The shares were issued by DNAP and placed in escrow in February 2002. TBF had a three year option on those shares @ $0.05. They were ALREADY part of the outstanding share count since they HAD BEEN ISSUED by the company, they were just in limbo.
Because of that, EVERY 10Q Report carried this statement:
In June 2001, Tampa Bay Financial, Inc., a related party ("TBFI"), agreed to purchase up to a maximum of 40,000,000 shares of our common stock (restricted) during the period July 2001 - July 2002. This agreement was terminated in 2002,
at which time TBFI was relieved of its obligation to make advances to us under this agreement, and simultaneously received the option to purchase the stock it would have otherwise obtained under this agreement for a price of $.05 per
share. This option expires in February 2005. In accordance with the terms of this agreement, we have placed 19,549,680 shares of our common stock in escrow (which shares represent the maximum number of shares TBFI may purchase under
this option).
Now, the 2002 Annual Report, as of February 3, 2003 - 499 million odd shares outstanding. Then the first quarterly report, as of April 30, 2003 - 480 some odd shares. The point is that the reduction is the EXACT share count, 19,549,680 of the escrowed shares. THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE SHARES HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THE TREASURY OF DNAP. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN EXCERCISED, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED TO TBF. DNAP DID NOT COLLECT $0.05 PER SHARE, BUT THEY GOT THE SHARES BACK!
Further evidence that this is true is that the abovementioned paragraph, which was in EVERY SEC filing starting with LAST YEAR's 10K, disappeared in this year's most recently filed 10Q.
Now, since that time, 33,000,000 NEW shares have been issued to someone for something. And I REALLY wish I knew what for...LOL
Hope this clarifies my point.
Later,
W2P
joe63...No, but here are the posts that refer to contacts with the Transfer Agent:
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1203418
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1203746
Whe you say it isn't subject to review, then shouldn't it have been made public by now? And would it's publication depend on whether it was related to a transaction that was subject to a "Quiet Period"?
TIA,
W2P
Does anyone else find it odd that the Transer Agent told GoldEagle that the company had filed an S-8 for 5.9 million shares, yet that notice has not been published by the SEC?
Later,
W2P
GoldEagle...And thanks to you too for your initiative in calling the Agent.
Later,
W2P
Niels48...OK, and what does it list the share count at in the first quarter 10Q in May? Then, take those two numbers, subtract them, and what you get is the precise number of TBF escrow shares.
Then look for the paragraph explaining the disposition of those shares that has been a apart of previous 10Q's since February 2002. It's not there.
Later,
W2P
Is TBF COMPLETELY out of the picture?
The annual report gave the issued and outstanding share count as 499,915, 893. Everyone was surprised in May when the 10Q listed the count as 480,366,213, or a drop of nearly twenty million shares.
Guess what, the difference between those two numbers is 19,549,680, the exact total of the TBF escrow shares.
Not only that, but this paragraph that has been a part of the "Note C - Equity Transactions" portion of previous quarterly reports is absent from the May quarterly:
"In June 2001, Tampa Bay Financial, Inc., a related party ("TBFI"), agreed to purchase up to a maximum of 40,000,000 shares of our common stock (restricted) during the period July 2001 - July 2002. This agreement was terminated in 2002, at which time TBFI was relieved of its obligation to make advances to us under this agreement, and simultaneously received the option to purchase the stock it would have otherwise obtained under this agreement for a price of $.05 per share. This option expires in February 2005. In accordance with the terms of this agreement, we have placed 19,549,680 shares of our common stock in escrow (which shares represent the maximum number of shares TBFI may purchase under this option)."
Just check the 10Q from November 15, 2002 versus the one from May 20, 2003. You'll see it, or you won't see it. LOL
It appears that the TBF shares were returned to the treasury during the first quarter. Of course, that means that additional shares have been issued to someone during the second quarter, because someone contacted the Transfer agent a while back and was told that 513 million and some odd number of shares were issued (wish I knew the poster or the exact amount). That would be about 33 million higher than at the time of the last 10Q.
Ah, the plot thickens.
Later,
W2P
Slasher...He or She?
Yes...doing what? Don't know.
Later,
W2P
I wonder if this isn't another reason that we developed a relationship with GeneLink:
Obesity Susceptibility Profile
Obesity is a condition that affects over 70 million Americans, more than one-third of all adults and one in five children. It is considered an important risk factor that can lead to the development of diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Obesity also increases one's risk of developing conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, gall bladder disease and cancer of the breast, prostate and colon. - some people are more susceptible to obesity than others.
GeneLink's genetics based obesity test (Patent Pending) is designed to measure single-nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs (pronounced "snips"), which are small variations in DNA. The test looks for SNPs in several key genes that are associated with obesity. The test provides a score that can be used as a guide to determine what level of intervention or therapy would be helpful to combat or prevent the problems associated with obesity.
http://www.bankdna.com/breakthrough_profiling.html#a3
Later,
W2P