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.
It was ready to take off (and did) over a year ago—but then crashed shortly after liftoff. There must be an accounting for this...
Again, I MUST ask this question until it gets answered: whose interest is advanced by having the PPS of a company with revenues and now roughly break even on earns/share THIS DAMN LOW? What is the logic?
Call me crazy, but I feel taken advantage of. We need clear and compelling PROOF that there’s a “there there”: everything they’ve done to this point has done precious little to boost shareholder equity.
But again, I MUST ask this same question until it gets answered: whose interest is advanced by having the PPS of a company with revenues and now roughly break even on EPS THIS DAMN LOW? What is the logic?
“How low can ya go”? And how many years can we wait for signs of life?
Color me SHOCKED: (eye roll followed by face palm)
On 8/28 it will be one year since the trial concluded. However, the most recent 10-Q has a VERY interesting sentence, which to my mind requires SERIOUS exploration: page 18 (bottom): "We intend to fund our business through sales of disposable kits along with continuing to seek investments to meet our cash flow requirements, including both operating expenses and the balance of funding required to fund our sales efforts and complete our ED clinical trial." WHICH clinical trial for ED? We have long been awaiting the results and publication of the one that ended in 8/28–but this last sentence is presumably referring to another. Is the one from 8/28 based on CaverStem 1.0 and now they’re doing another focused on CaverStem 2.0? We need CLEAR guidance on who is doing what when and for what purpose!
I looked at that for the first time this past weekend—can’t say I’m terribly impressed (or surprised): where’s the BEEF?
CMTH has been moving GLACIALLY for about a year and a half. This
Is what you get when you employ the carrier pigeon approach to marketing in the 21st century...
Meantime the underlying PPS (which without the company would be useless to the docs) TANKS.
2, 3, 5 years later...
I would like to think so (and have believed this for a year and a half). Only one problem/question: whose interest is advanced by this “goldmine stock” trading at 1/10 of one penny?
About a year ago, several here determined that the kits likely cost $400 each and sold for $1600. If correct, they sold 48 kits in the Q ended 6/30: $19,200 (most recently reported COGS) / $400= 48.
Another interesting tidbit (from Note 3, p. 7):
“NOTE 3 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The Company has incurred a monetary obligation to a related corporation to reimburse the cost of services provided to the Company (management and consulting) through March 31, 2020. Each of the Company’s executive officers is employed by the parent company, CMH, and will continue to receive his or her salary or compensation from CMH. The Company has an agreement with CMH which obligates the Company to reimburse CMH $45,000 per month for such services. The compensation paid by CMH will include an allocation of services performed for CMH and for the Company. The amounts are presented as a “management fee payable - related party” on the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The liability is non-interest bearing, unsecured, and will be due upon the Company successfully raising at least $1,000,000 through the sale of equity. At the option of CMH, the reimbursable amounts set forth in the Agreement may be paid from time to time in shares of common stock of the Company at a price equal to a 30% discount to the lowest closing price during the 20 trading days prior to time the notice is given. The Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days’ prior written notice. As of June 30, 2019, amounts due to CMH under the arrangement were $18,082.”
How likely is it that the principals would agree to work under these terms if they didn’t believe strongly in the legitimacy and future value of CELZ? Doesn’t seem likely AT ALL.
Thanks—I found it: had been looking for a PR...
When are the quarterly fins due??
FYI: DD is the CFO, not the CEO.
It seems pretty obvious that the execs are taking their salaries in shares. So once they get revs up to a certain point, why wouldn’t they wanna throw a small portion toward extinguishing a fairly significant number of shares—and thereby increase shareholder equity while the PPS will allow them to do that
Bear in mind that the ENTIRE MC is a little over $1M—so the buyback and retirement of, say, 100M shares would cost around $100K. NOT wildly improbable during the remainder of 2019, imo...
Another possibility: because PPS is so LOW, company may engage in a massive and swift buy-back using revenues generated from operations. This, in turn, could result in a substantial reduction in the OS.
“We have steadily growing revenue—so naturally our stock should plummet in value to almost totally worthless status.”
Where are the apologists as this flirts with the f’ing TRIPS?!?!
Has anyone seen or heard from CF—or know anything about the legal action he was encouraging?
New 52-week low: .0011. Anyone know the last time the PPS was here??
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/16/2019 04:50 PM
INDEX NO. 654073/2019
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------
In the Matter of Arbitration
SPENCER CLARKE, LLC.,
-against-
-----X
Between:
Petitioner,
Index No.: PETITION
CREATIVE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC.,
Roth Law Firm, PLLC, as and for SC's Petition herein, alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING
This is a Special Proceeding, brought pursuant to Section 7502(a) of the New York Civil
Practice and Rules ("CPLR"), to confirm an arbitration award rendered by an arbitrator of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") on or about April 2, 2019 (the "Arbitration Award"), in the arbitration entitled Spencer Clarke, LLC v. Creative Medical Technologies Holdings, Inc.,; AAA Number 0 1· 18-0003-3441 (hereinafter "Arbitration"). A true and correct copy of the Arbitration Award is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
PARTIES. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Petitioner is an investment banking firm organized under the laws of the State of New
York and maintaining its principal place of business in New York, New York.
Respondent. -------------------
-X
Petitioner Spencer Clarke LLC ("Petitioner" or "SC"), by and through its attorneys, The
1 of 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/16/2019 04:50 PM
INDEX NO. 654073/2019
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
2. Upon information and
or "CMTH") maintains offices in Phoenix,
belief, Respondent Creative is a is a public corporation
Medical incorporated
Technologies Holdings Inc in the State of Nevada and
("Responden~t"
Arizona.
3. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to CPLR §§ 7502(a) and 503(a).
BACKGROUND FACTS AND DISCUSSION
4. On or about September 6, 2018, SC commen~ced the Arbitration by the filing of a
Statement of Claim, wherein it requested, among other things, compensatory damages to be determined by the panel at the hearing.
5. After failing to appear for the preEmin~ary conference, Respondents failed to appear at the hearings on the merits, despite being the party that chose both the medium and the date for the hearing, on or about February 19, 2019, requested that a second preliminary conference be postponed. It was agreed by all parties and the arbitrator that the preliminary conference be held on February 22, 2019.
6. On or about February 22, 2019, the day the Respondents agreed to have the preliminary
Respondent again failed to appear or participate..
7. Notwithstanding, because Respondents participated in the action, a hearing was
scheduled with the Respondents knowledge and consent.
8. Upon considering all the evidence submitted to the panel, the Panel: (i) granted SC
claims in its entirety; and (ii) awarded SC compen~satory damages in the amount of $600,749.00, as set forth in the Arbitration Award. A copy of the Award is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
9. Further, the Panel granted administrative fees for the American Arbitration Association
and the compe^n~sation of the arbitration totaling an additional 4.680.00 see Exhibit A.
2
conference,
2 of 3
INDEX NO. 654073/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2019
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/16/2019 04:50 PM
10. This Petition has been brought within one year after the delivery of the Arbitration Award to both the Petitioner and Respondent and the Arbitration Award has not been vacated or
modified upon any grounds enumerated in CPLR § 7511.
11. No prior application for the relief herein has been sought in this or in any court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for the following relief:
A. A Judgment, pursuant to CPLR § 7514(a), judicially confirming the Arbitration Award annexed hereto as Exhibit A;
B. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED:
New York, New York July 16, 2019
3 of 3
TH
By:
295 New Tel:
ROT
Ri
Jordan Madison
LA FIRM, PLLC
Attorneys Spencer
for Petitioner Clarke LLC.
York, (212)
ard A. Roth M. Kam
Avenue, 22nd New York 10017
542-8882
Floor
Bid now at .0011. Trips soon??
It doesn’t take a lot to get this kinda volume when the PPS is <1/5 of a cent...
We thought .01-.02 fit that description one YEAR ago. And yet here we sit with folks crowing about the “prospect of reaching pennyland”: is that and f’ing JOKE?!
I will continue to ask this question—daily if necessary—until I get a clear and convincing answer: how can a company with ANY putative value—much less one with actual revenues and a considerable IP pipeline—possibly be trading at 1/5 of one penny?
In any event, is it likely to be (or be within striking distance of) self-sustaining revs—which they themselves proclaimed as an achievable goal in 2019? Am I the only one who noticed complete silence on that point in last week’s release?
It’s crystal clear that the company is not interested in “investors” (people who have a reasonable expectation of clarity, consistency, and communication)—they want folks motivated by blind faith.
Let me know when we get .07 again. No rational explanation has yet to be provided for how the absolute OBLITERATION of stockholder value is in any way “good” for the stock. Been asking many times, with no answer forthcoming: there obviously IS no answer—even as we creep slowly toward the trips. Are you F’ING KIDDING me?! TRIPS?!?! No more “hope and dreams”: SUBSTANTIVE ACTION ONLY.
Assuming the validity of your claims (which I have no reason to disbelieve), who would NOT want to tell that story loud and clear? Again, I will always employ rational thought and argumentation—and am happy to be proven wrong whenever that can be done demonstrably.
What purpose/whose purpose is served by letting this continue to tank? I believe in rational explanations—and I truly wish to understand. All of 2019 has been a catastrophic BUST—and there’s truly no end in sight.
Today’s release seals it for the foreseeable future: they have no intent of taking any actions whose communication would legitimately raise the PPS, and they are OK with being shifted down in the OTC cesspool—which in turn makes a rise to the ridiculously low PPS of .01 very unlikely anytime soon. In my opinion, based on what I have seen (and sensed) in nearly 2 years following this company closely, their actions and orientation are in no way focused on ANYTHING that would raise the PPS substantially. To my mind this stock is moribund. Finally, all these factors require me to question with GREAT skepticism their projection that they would begin generating self-sustaining revenues sometime in 2019. Unbelievably HORRIBLE year somehow continues to get worse...
This is getting more asinine and absurd with each passing day. INBELIVABLE
How does one verify that a CTO is in place for a given company. JDF seems to have doubts (I don’t generally care about his doubts, but in this case I’d like either confirmation or refutation). Just because they’re quiet doesn’t mean anything along these lines: need PROOF.
What is a CTO (I’m thinking it’s NOT chief technology officer). Lol
While I hate to agree with you, the burden of proof is on those who would say you are wrong: they must REFUTE you, or accept the validity of your arguments.
Sorry to put you to the trouble, my friend: I’ve checked out here to a great extent, so frustrated by the inaction and inertia. Do like I do: save well-crafted messages (especially those with great documentation) in the “notes” section of your phone—then just find, plug, and play!