Just because we don't know any different at this time, there may be another reason they've split from ENZC: In short, the work's done, rewards are on the way via a pending deal on their IP and it's time to retire (or go it alone) and let ENZC (or SAGA if still alive) have the deal on those 3 patents. They get their royalties and have stock in both companies (assuming SAGA survives). There was probably an absence of cohesiveness between them and Harry anyway. JMHO.

ENZC hasn't said anything about the Cotropia's yet, only that ENZC wanted Chandra as their CEO, and that he didn't want it. The Cotropia's and Chandra either have something with their IP or they've got nothing. Based on the information you gathered, which I greatly appreciate, I think it bolsters the argument that they're on to something and have made a strong effort to research and patent their results. Has it failed in the end? Don't know. The suddenness of the move without any comments is disturbing. JMHO.

I'm wondering if the Cotropias' actions could be an indication that they know there's already a deal on the table that will commercialize those 3 patents when granted. They assigned those patent applications to Biogenysis in 2022 and 2023 and will receive a 15% royalty (5% each) on each patent. IMO, that is a substantial royalty. It's been very curious/suspicious to me why they've been very quiet about them (and additional research) for a year or so. They have also made recent amendments to the patent applications with comments that they believe those amendments answer all examiner issues. That is public information. They've either got something and it's close to paying off or they can't work with Harry any longer or they've got nothing. JMHO.

So, maybe they believe the patents will be granted and a pending deal IF THERE IS ONE, which should be between Biogenysis and a 3rd party, will be executed and that's enough for them to walk away and do something else. If this is the case, they could also continue with research and cut a deal with Harry (or a 3rd party) for more royalties on new patent applications or do contract research. JMHO.

Like everybody else, I want some thorough, honest information and explanations from ENZC, SAGA and the Cotropia's. They owe it to us.

Docsetc, did you get any explanation, such as why and when, and is there only the one picture? They took that Mab Tech picture in some lab. A year or so ago they were talking about moving to a larger lab in another building. Is that a possibility?
Thanks for going there!

Good to hear from you, Jim. Sounds like you did pretty well anyway. As disappointing as this split up is, at least we have communication from ENZC again and they SAY they have a plan to try to make something of it rather than ditch the shell. The bigger question now is how are we non-insider ENZC shareholders going to continue to participate in the potential of the IP? ENZC paid the bills. ENZC and its officers made representations. It can't simply slip away due to reorganization or changing of the guard without consequences. JMHO.

Can you post that tweet or a link to it? TIA.

You want to speculate who's buying, too?

DRHUMI, ENZC is an active Delaware corporation. Links attached. You're right about the others and the websites. This could be a temporary situation for BGEN and the websites. Maybe they are being updated to reflect more about what's going on. JMHO.

Often when a Texas corporation shows as inactive, it's because the franchise fee is delinquent. Payment of the fee is usually all it takes to reactivate it. That could the case with Biogenysis, Inc. If not, it could be a problem. JMHO.

Enzolytics, Inc. is an active Delaware corporation.
https://opencorporates.com/companies?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=enzolytics%2C+inc&commit=Go&jurisdiction_code=&controller=searches&action=search_companies&order=

Biogenysis, Inc. is an inactive Texas corporation, which usually means the franchise fee hasn't been paid.
https://opencorporates.com/companies?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=biogenysis%2C+inc&commit=Go&jurisdiction_code=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Go&controller=searches&action=search_companies&order=

Virogentics, Inc. is an active Texas corporation
https://opencorporates.com/companies?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=virogentics%2C+inc&commit=Go&jurisdiction_code=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Go&controller=searches&action=search_companies&order=

BioClonetics Immunotherapeutics, Inc. is an active Texas corporation
https://opencorporates.com/companies?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=BioClonetics+Immunotherapeutics%2C+Inc.&commit=Go&jurisdiction_code=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Go&controller=searches&action=search_companies&order=

Monoclonal Antibody Technologies, Inc. is an active Texas corporation. aka MabTech, which is not a part of ENZC as far as we know, but the Cotropia's were involved with it when it was incorporated in 2023. JMHO.
https://opencorporates.com/companies?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Monoclonal+Antibody+Technologies%2C+Inc.+&commit=Go&jurisdiction_code=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Go&controller=searches&action=search_companies&order=

Check out the 1st picture on the site. The one Trader Joe is showing comes later in the video. Maybe an employee or an intern or grad student. Mutat's probably right about the feline mAb's, but that is one of the 3 patent applications that were assigned to BGEN. We still haven't seen anything about CC and Joe not being with BGEN. JMHO.
https://mab.tech/

Most likely it's a reflection of a long career (40 ? years) as a lawyer, including as a partner in a major law firm. Their shares in ENZC have been restricted until recently. JMHO.

It might be. Have you gone to the Mab tech website yet? Looks like Joe in the ENZC lab at TAMU. To my knowledge, nothing has been said about CC or Joe resigning from BGEN.

For clarification, the 3 PCT patent applications by joe Cotropia and Dr. Chandra previously recognized by ENZC are owned by BGEN by virtue of the assignments executed in 2022 and 2023 (before SAGA was ever mentioned) by those inventors. To my knowledge, ENZC did not share those assignments publicly until they were attached as an exhibit to the BCA with SAGA. Given those assignments, removing the IP from BGEN would be difficult, unless the assignments are defective, or Harry agrees. JMHO.

So, two questions are... Who owns BGEN...because that's where the IP should be? ENZC or SAGA? And are there any agreements between the Cotropia's and Harry? JMHO.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174251719

Maybe MaB Tech and/or BGEN. JMHO.

It's not unusual for any attorney to form a corporation for some anticipated function and not use it or change it's intended use at some point later. Looks like Adnexus Incorporation was active for a short time after incorporation in 2019, then inactive until reinstated in February 2023, which (maybe coincidentally) is right around the time when discussions with SAGA may have begun. JMHO. We posted about this corporation back in April last year as well.
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0803448762

The 3 PCT patent applications have been assigned to BGEN and copies of the executed licenses are attached to the BCA as exhibits. The HIV and Covid assignments appear to have been in effect since 2022 and 2023, in the case of the feline MaBs. Check it out.

How did you find that website? This is the company name on the website: Monoclonal Antibody Technologies, Inc.
This may be the one that was incorporated on 3/31/23 that some posters here thought was intended to house the AI technology, but it never showed up as being owned by ENZC.

Consequently, I thought of it (speculated) as possibly a sign that the Cotropia's were planning on retiring after wrapping up the SAGA deal and the corporation might be intended by the Cotropia's as a vehicle for future receipt of royalties from the patents (if granted) and possibly for making future scientific contributions for fees to SAGA or ENZC. JMHO at the time. Don't know what to make of it at this point.

We posted about this one last April. As I recall, the Texas Secy of State website listed CC, Joe and their former BioClonetics CFO (Paul Fellegy) as officers of this corporation but didn't mention Chandra as an officer and didn't indicate the identities of the stockholders.

That's a familiar face on the MaB Tech website.

O/S was 3,187,977,357 4/15/24. The increase went to unrestricted.

How about what they report as revenue or gain on the sale...or not? It should have shown up in the 3Q financials if in fact the deal was concluded in September as they claimed, and since it didn't, that added to the confusion. JMHO.

It's curious that we've heard practically nothing about either BGEN or VIRO's activity or their value since the rosy comments in the November PR, keeping in mind that Harry has indicated that ENZC owns the SAGA stock in exchange for them. JMHO.

Passing off the updating responsibility to SAGA, especially given its legal issues challenging it's right to continue to exist, seems all too convenient...JMHO. Insiders buying?

Here's the actual statement in the last paragraph of the 7/11/2023 Supplemental Information:

Looks like Harry is following through on that and is taking steps like he intends to make something of ENZC, separate and apart from VIRO, and to distribute the dividend of SAGA shares, which will give us some ownership of BGEN and VIRO. Let's hope he distributes the dividend before he buys something and that whatever he does with ENZC moves the P/S back up. There had been some speculation that he would bankrupt it, shut it down and turn all attention to VIRO under SAGA. Maybe he's putting that speculation to bed. JMHO.

Not considered in the PR is what's going on with BGEN and VIRO and the ultimate disposition of SAGA. We have to wait until SAGA reports unless CC decides to comment on behalf of BGEN. I hope he does! However, we know at least 3 of BGEN's patent applications are progressing toward final determination (that's independently verifiable), so I don't think the Cotropia's or Chandra would walk away from that. JMHO.

Over 27 million shares have traded so far today and we're about even on the day. Somebody is buying. We need to make sure none of our share of the value in BGEN and VIRO gets away from us. IMO, keep an eye on the bean under the cup (entity changes). JMHO.

I'm wondering the same, since Harry isn't involved with BGEN or responsible for reporting about them.

That question was for I-G*ow because he has said several times since June of last year that

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172141167
That sounds like he knows something...something factual..., and I've always been curious about what he knew way back there in June 2023 before the July 2023 Supplement (which explained the SAGA impact on ENZC shareholders) came out and before the BCA came out on 9/15/23. I want to see the proof that the SAGA deal was for "pumping purposes only". Truth or BS?

As for your response to me, 3 of the reasons you list are quite damaging to the SAGA deal, if they turn out to be true, but they're hindsight issues:

(1) We don't know what money, if any, they have in the PIPE, ie committed but not yet remitted, but for some reason they want to cling onto the SAGA deal when logic says to dump it.
(2) The announcement is not what caused the delisting. It was the passing of deadlines without required performance by SAGA. Whose fault was that? I have my opinion.
(3) "Dissolution of the agreement"-we still don't know the status of the agreement. "that never was"-There are at least 5 signatories to the agreement and 4 of them stood to gain a substantial windfall, so I don't think they intended it to be fake.
(4) There is no "dream team", IMO, but we don't yet know the status of the principals (except as described in the SAGA BCA) and we probably won't know that until Monday night at midnight.
All, JMHO.

Wrong. A patent can generate revenue without trials by blocking anyone else who may want to use the patented criteria to produce their own products. A patent holder can demand royalties by licensing or selling their rights or force damages and/or royalties from offenders by defending their patent. If you've got paper for something somebody else wants, the holder can generate revenues without ever producing or selling the actual product. A licensee can do the trials once they've got the rights or may have already done the trials and realized there is a patent blocking their way to market. JMHO.

BTW where's your proof for your claims that the SAGA deal was a fake deal?

I'm not a lawyer either, but when I read section 5.1 and 6.12 of the BCA one thing that stuck out to me is the language about the written waiver to close without satisfying all of the conditions of the close. The language allows the closing itself to be a written waiver of all conditions of the close. It's my understanding that a waiver is usually meant to cover minor issues that may not have been addressed prior to the close, so the waiver is usually used to nullify those minor deficiencies or conditions missed by considering them met after the close. Clearly SAGA did not meet the conditions necessary for the close and ENZC had some work to do as well, but they say they did close. So, I'm guessing they used that language to rush the closing and skip the conditions enumerated in Section 5. JMHO.

The question then, unless something gives in the meantime, is whether the closing will hold up in spite of the lawsuit brought by GLD, and apparently GLD itself wrote the proposed order for the process of the suit with an extended timeline. It's unknown if the judge set the schedule and GLD just wrote the order according to his instructions or GLD asked for the schedule. JMHO.

You've been pushing this theory as though it's a fact since you came on this board when the deal was announced. So, if you've got the proof that your claim is a fact, then post it right here. I think we'd all like to see that.

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that one. Thanks to KOP for following cases that could be relevant to us.

Are you referring to the one that CC brought against Savov in Texas, which I thought was dismissed months ago, or something else?

This part I agree with because the delisting hasn't caused SAGA to dissolve as far as we know. However, IMO, the delisting could/should be enough of a detriment to the deal to either force or allow ENZC to terminate the deal, in which case the subs would go back to ENZC and the SAGA stock would go back to SAGA and we would be back to pre-SAGA status. So, the question is, did they opt out of the deal and if not, why not?:

I don't agree with this, though because it's incomplete and because there's been no distribution of a dividend of the SAGA stock. With no dividend either (1) ENZC still holds the SAGA stock or (2) the SAGA deal was terminated and BGEN and VIRO have been returned to ENZC, JMHO. Here's the actual statement in the last paragraph of the 7/11/2023 Supplemental Information:
So, in regard to their new officer slate and comments about future ENZC operations, on one hand I was glad to see that Harry wanted Chandra as CEO because that could mean that there really is a business plan and ENZC will continue to have value, but on the other hand, with Harry in control, it could mean that they still believe the SAGA deal is still in effect. That would also mean ENZC still has the SAGA stock. Otherwise, Cotropia, et al would have control, and maybe they will again, but then the question is whether these 2 groups can continue to work together. I tend to think they each want to run their own show. JMHO.

Yes, and that would have gone a long way toward removing the ambiguity of his response. We could use a lot of clarity right now! JMHO.

Yep, the exclamation point after "no" says to me that he vehemently disagrees with the post, JMHO.

So, let's have timely transparency about the SAGA deal, post-SAGA operations and organization, the status of research and of products and what the future looks like for ENZC shareholders.

I think they are going to rely on the annual report due by 4/15 to serve as their communication, but I suspect it will not cover enough of what we want to know about. Personally, I think the accusations toward CC and Chandra are often misdirected and the person(s) to blame is likely the person(s) without the title in both SAGA and ENZC. JMHO.

Hard to tell if that response was a denial of

or agreement with

I absolutely agree that patents must be defended. CC's presence tended to give some comfort that ENZC would do that, but if Harry thinks he can split hairs with different formulations and different licensees that could be a source of a problem within management as well as with stockholders.

As I recall, the IPF with vitamin C has been mentioned for years now but was finally mentioned as a potential ENZC product in one of their PR's months ago.

BTW, I was only responding about the "other OTC ticker" you mentioned. Agree with you about Rosetta.

FWIW If that is the same claim that came up on Twitter about a year ago, I tracked that to a different and earlier formulation that as I recall contained cannabis. It is not the same product as ENZC's IPF. Zimbler was associated with a company that claimed to have rights to it, but apparently hadn't done anything with it. JMHO.

Per the early PR's, wasn't that part of the ITV-1 license through ENZC via VIRO with a 50/50 sharing agreement in certain territories outside the US? Rosetta doesn't have a license to sell IPF in the US.

Glad to hear that you are in contact with Harry. Can you tell us what he says is going on and what he intends to do? TIA.
IMO, Harry is not only in control of ENZC, as was revealed in the PR, but is very likely also behind the SAGA deal. JMHO.

I agree and IMO he needs to explain this comment ASAP, as well as update us as to what is going on with BGEN and ENZC.

I certainly don't have the scientific vocabulary knowledge to evaluate whether these amendments are watering the claims down or tightening them up, but I have been through the patent app process before and know that it is basically a negotiation before getting to the final decision. The reviewers tend to throw every negative they can think of at the invention and applicant, who then can come back with responses defending the invention and/or amending in order to comply with the objections in order to get an approval. This is what the amendments look like to me, and in the conclusion, they say they believe they have "corrected all alleged deficiencies". We'll see.

Thanks for the post. I like the conclusion in the amendment explanation.

I don't think the Preferred B's were included in the trade for management's 20% of the 45 mill SAGA shares.

Wick, I'd be curious if your research falls along the lines of my recollection about that penalty:
FWIW and JMHO, I don't recall a financial penalty between SAGA and ENZC. However, GLD, or some entity related to it, has claimed that SAGA owes them a $1 million penalty for the failed deal between SAGA and its 1st target. Then SAGA claimed they could avoid that penalty by providing a substitute merger target, and that substitute turned out to be ENZC. I believe the entity that has claimed it's due the penalty has disputed SAGA's rationale. SAGA has also claimed it's a moot issue because of some circular reasoning that it's GLD that would be responsible for paying the penalty to its related entity. I suppose it's a litigable issue to determine whose position is right, but if my understanding of the situation is correct, it has nothing to do with ENZC.

OK. I don't know any Spanish slang. LOL. Thinking it's a new ID for a poster from the past?

I'm glad you asked the question. They did announce the move months ago to the Allen, Tx address. The new office is supposed to be located in a medical center.