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.
Here is the SEC, as in the UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION defining NANO CAP and MICRO CAP ,since some, "claim" the terms are "made up" and do not exist.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm
Notice the market cap cut-offs? BHRT isn't even a distant hope of a micro-cap at the $200 MILLION market cap range as defined by the SEC and still, doesn't even scratch the surface level definition of the smallest, i.e. a "nano" cap stock, with a sub $50 million market cap. BHRT of course barely cracking $10 million, maybe $12 million market cap lately, dipping to $5 million or so market cap only at end of 2013.
Guess the ole SEC just makes it up and blue, blue sky, blah, blah, blah?
And who is "Maxim group"??? Is it UBS or Merrill or Citi or JP or Zacks or Morningstar or Jefferies or Barclays or B of A or Deutsche or Raymond James or Credit Suisse or Roth or Longbow or anyone who'd have a recognizable name on "The Street"? No.
They appear to be some firm who "makes markets" or handles institutional, aka insider, order flow and similar in penny stocks- look at the so called "spot light" firms (penny stocks) and then the "suspended" ones right below those. Real high quality stuff, IMO.
Analysts generally (as in probably never) don't provide "coverage" or research on 2 to 3 cent penny stocks (in fact I'd say probably never, IMO). Institutional funds do not touch, or buy or own "penny stocks" which are generally defined as under $5 often, and certainly anything under a few dollars. Most institutional funds have internal guidelines whereby they can't even purchase sub $5 stocks for their portfolios, and certainly not penny micro-caps.
BHRT is a micro-micro-micro cap company- there's no analyst coverage or researcher following it for institutional investors, that I'm aware of?
CSTI is not "Cannacord securities"? What does Cannacord have to do with BHRT? CSTI is Collins Stewart and just a market maker symbol, a well known one.
Their name comes up on I-HUB quite often, as they are supposedly a sub contractor of NITE (NITE is a huge trading firm), but CSTI is often rumored to be a firm who takes up short (naked short positions) in penny stocks.
Don't know that to be true or not myself, I've just seen it come up several times on I-HUB when CSTI name comes up. I believe the firm name is Collins Steward, but you also find the name Genuity used. CSTI, from other I-Hub posts, is known apparently for "bid up" and then "dump" scenarios. Just something other posters have observed as their own opinions and observations on I-HUB, not my own. I don't know enough about them, CSTI, one way or the other- other than they're just another market maker (named Collins Stewart) in the penny arena, among perhaps other areas too.
https://research.scottrade.com/knowledgecenter/Public/Help/Article?docid=495c6b4b343c47b0bf5fd234a67542ef
CSTI
Collins Stewart Inc.
http://apps.finra.org/datadirectory/1/marketmaker.aspx
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=101052901
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103019108
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69396717
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89569863
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=94111030
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=94942090
Slow day? NO ONE said "slow day"? It was a "slow MORNING" and unusual opening? Guess you missed the open when the stock sat, not a single trade crossing the tape for close to one hour and then very few trades and low vol for the subsequent hour after that?
That's generally not "normal" or healthy? When this stock gets in the high-spread, lower vol it's in right now, running on PR about largely nothing, it's gonna go lower, if history is any gauge.
PR "fatigue" sets in sooner or later, IMO. It broke the 50 DMA for 5 days in a row before the little PR about a "grand opening, blah, blah" and the MM's using ultra wide-spread mode (as in 10% or more spreads often) of today and yesterday. It won't last IMO.
OTC site finally updated with 5000 shares at 10:10 EST. So that's 40 minutes into trading day it took to move 5000 shares? That's like a single, 5000 X .0268 = $134 dollar order.
Wow, sloooow day is right? Talk about volume drying up?
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/Info_Center.asp
Yeah, that would be a really slow morning?
As stated, I've seen it open and take 5, maybe 10 minutes at the longest and then a real small order like a 1000 shares gets printed. Then, it usually ramps right into like 10,000 or more share pretty quick.
That's gotta be as long as I've ever seen it go w/o a trade on open? Oh well?
Is it trading? I've checked multiple screens and don't show a single trade, not even a 1000 shares or whatever?
Corp. web site down and zero vol almost 1/2 hour into trading day? I checked the SEC/OTC trading halt/delay site and saw nothing on there?
Wonder what gives? I've seen slow mornings where it takes 5 minutes or so to put up the first small order, maybe a 1000 shares or whatever- but as the other post said, this is now 1/2 hour in and Vol appears to be a goose egg? AND the main corporate web site is down?
Weirdo-rama?
Just checked TD Ameri and checked Bioheart site right before hitting send on this post- I got nothing?
Anyone live in the Florida area or wants to make a long distance call?
"Made a couple thousand"??? "In then already out with 300k today"??
How would that be possible? The day's range has a low of about .024, as is close to that, this past week.
Assuming one got a fill on all 300K at the low of .024 (highly unlikely)
.024 X 300K = $7,200 worth of stock.
The stock at most is about about 14% today, and that would assume one could unload/sell all 300K at the top (again, highly unlikely- a sell of that size would not be on the ask, IMO).
But even saying best, best case scenario: $7,200 X .14 = $1008.00
Not a "couple thousand" by any stretch? The math ain't there?
"It's obvious that the grand opening refers to the facilities new upgrades that will now allow for BioHeart treatments to take place."???
How so?
Why? What needed to be "brought up to FDA standards"? Read the original Press Release from March. Magnum was touted as "state of the art" and "top notch"? So WHAT needed to be "brought up to so called standards"? Further, what "FDA standards"? List which ones? Are they going to manufacture something at this Magnum facility? The FDA doesn't typically regulate or oversee "doctor's offices" or "treatment clinics"? I guess if there is some sort of lab there, it could be to "FDA standards" I suppose? GMP is "Good manufacturing practices"? So again, what are they going to "manufacture" or "make" at Magnum? Wouldn't it be GCP such as "Good clinical practices" or something like that? What is being "manufactured" at Magnum, that they need GMP certified facilities? Has any agency actually performed the inspection and "signed off" on these facilities as being FDA and GMP compliant? One typically can't make that claim until a regulatory body or approved/recognized certifying agency, who does these inspections, has actually seen and inspected the facilities and granted them a GMP "compliance" or similar approval? The facility is then open to random inspections typically to maintain that FDA or GMP rating. Did ISO or someone actually show up there? I don't even know who/what, if any agency in Honduras does FDA/GMP certifications? Will have to research it?
Can't have it both ways in conflicting PR IMO. It's one or the other. Either the existing facility/company, Magnum, was "state of the art" (implying up to "world" standards such as FDA/Euro or it was not, IMO). So why the hype now about a "grand opening" of what was touted as already "being open" and being "state of the art"?
PR from March 2014 quoting:
"Magnum's facilities include a state of the art clinic and laboratory located in Honduras.
We are thrilled to work with the team of specialists and scientists at Magnum."
Of course, the Magnum web site, that I can find, does not list a single one, or member, or resume, of this "team" of "specialists" and "scientists", as in, who they are, where they were schooled, their backgrounds, titles, now many there are, etc. Just typical BHRT PR IMO.
The March PR said "The facilities are top-notch and we are hopeful that Bioheart therapies can help many patients," said Kristin Comella, Bioheart's Chief Science Officer."
It did not say the facilities needed to be brought "up to standards" or "upgraded"? How do you "upgrade" beyond supposed "state of the art"? What's beyond the "state of the art"?
Same PR from March 2014, indicated only "training" would be provided- it didn't state that any facility "upgrades" were needed or that they needed to be brought up to some new "standard"?
From March PR:
"Bioheart will provide the necessary training and expertise to transfer Bioheart therapies to Magnum."
Not a word in there about a "new facility" or "new upgrades" being needed?
Just a reason to put out another PR IMO. Typical. Any word on the ole MIRROR trial, over ONE YEAR past now since the "first patient was enrolled"? Sound familiar?
Read this latest Honduras PR:
"The event is significant since the first cardiac patient has successfully been enrolled at Magnum "
(let alone, how does a facility who's web site (Magnum), which claims "expertise" in cosmetic procedures and orthopedic procedures, now suddenly, start doing cardiac/heart procedures? How does that work?)
MIRROR PR from July 2nd, 2013 (over one yr ago)
"Bioheart, Inc. (OTCQB: BHRT) announced today the successful enrollment and randomization of the first patient in the Phase III MIRROR Trial"
(not to even get into how you "randomize" a set size of ONE? That made zero sense? One unit of anything can not be "randomized", it's makes no mathematical sense?)
15% SPREAD on almost no volume. They're gonna "work" this PR for all it's worth. So predictable, IMO.
The MM just took someone for about a 15% spread on about a $1000 order. Nice gig if you can get it, eh?
Original Magnum PR said the so called "facilities" were already "built" and were "top notch"????
March 17th, 2014:
""We are thrilled to work with the team of specialists and scientists at Magnum. The facilities are top-notch and we are hopeful that Bioheart therapies can help many patients," said Kristin Comella, Bioheart's Chief Science Officer."
The previous, March 2014 PR also said that this "facility" and "partnership" was going to make BHRT "therapies" available to over 8 MILLION people in Honduras- which is the entire population of the country- man, woman and child. So I guess every living person in Honduras, one of the poorest countries on earth and with thee highest per capita murder rate on earth according to the CIA World FACT book and U.N., I guess every last person in Honduras needs "stem cells" for something, eh? Pretty amazing IMO. Interesting that in the news these past weeks, many flooding into the U.S. in what is deemed the present "immigration crisis" are coming from and escaping from where? HONDURAS, that's where. But I guess the ones remaining, the 8 MILLION or so are going to be paying for some "Stem cell", treatments?
March 2014 PR Quote:
"Magnum will offer these therapies to the more than 8 million people living in Honduras as well as being a premier site for medical tourism. "
Wow, that must be some "facility"- 8 MILLION can go there and "tourists", too? The most recent census, as of 2014 data puts the Honduran population at just a smidge over 8 MILLION, could drop below that given what's happening there now. They may want to check that 8 MILLION claim and see if it's current, IMO?
When the March PR was put out - the "Magnum" web site was operational and claimed several kinds of available treatments, etc? I translated it to English in Google- it didn't appear to indicate they weren't "open" or "operational" yet? So how were they already conducting business before and performing all the "procedures" stated on that web site, but now they need to have a "grand opening"? What sense does that make? They weren't "open" before as stated on the web site? The web site says their "specialties" are COSMETIC AND ORTHOPEDIC, not a word about heart/cardiac? (Just use Google or similar to translate web page if one doesn't read Spanish)
http://www.magnumterapiacelular.com/#!testimonials/c1iwz
http://www.magnumterapiacelular.com/#!terapia-cosmtica/c1408
Very interesting IMO, that the Magnum site claims "expertise" in COSMETIC and ORTHOPEDIC procedures on the pull down tab, but suddenly they're jumping to "cardiac/heart" procedures?? How does that work? You'd think that messing with people's heart would take at least a "little" cardiac specialty training or background maybe? I don't know too many U.S. cosmetic doctors or physicians with an "orthopedic" practice who just slide on into the ole cardiac/heart side of the medical practice field? Oh well, maybe it's different in Honduras?
http://www.magnumterapiacelular.com/#!training/ckqh
The magnum web site domain was registered on Dec 3, 2013. So they sure don't seem to have been around very long, at least not having a web site or that particular web site?
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=magnumterapiacelular.com
So how does one have a "Grand opening" of something the previously released PR/Web site said was already "open" and "operational"??
The previous, March PR, also said that BHRT will "own" a whopping 10% of this "new venture"? What does one think that 10% of some operation in Honduras, one of the poorest countries on the planet, is, or will be worth? BHRT never gives any monetary projections of course, or even explains how this will be monetized or what it's ever expected to amount to or lead to, IMO. Just another vague PR and a web site that could have been built in about a day or two by an experienced web master.
March 2014 PR:
"Bioheart will assume 10% ownership of Magnum Cell Therapies."
How does a company "assume" 10% ownership of another business? Did they "buy" this 10% ownership or is it a stock deal or what? I'm not familiar with other businesses "assuming" ownership of other businesses w/o some contract/money/stock or some kind of "buy-in" or something taking place? VAGUE as usual IMO. Also, if they "assumed" a 10% ownership, then didn't "Magnum" already exist? So why is there now a "GRAND Opening" if Magnum was already existing and "open" essentially? Again, makes no sense IMO? They never indicated in the March 2014 PR, that this was a "new" facility being built or a new business being started up, and the Magnum web site indicated "open for business" from what I read on it? Why a "grand opening"? That means they weren't "open" previously, IMO?
The two BHRT PR releases don't seem to jive with one another IMO?
Sounds like another, vague, Bioheart, "PR about something" release, IMO.
"Great post today from user "Mike C"??? Well, except it appears to make no sense IMO?
"They agreed to give these up by converting their shares to common in conjunction with the next round of financing. "??
They did? When? Where? What "next round of financing"?? Huh? There's a "next round of financing"???
"IMO, these actions indicate that a new round of financing is in process."??
How? Why? Where? When?
The 8-K said that the DTC is inquiring about the shares even being properly transacted and the only thing BHRT said to this point is, "They've responded" (meaning BHRT has responded, not that the DTC has accepted their response or resolved the matter IMO, from the way the wording is stated?). My understanding, is it probably takes the company security's counsel to respond to something like a DTC inquiry about "shares being eligible", as in, it's not just some low grade, no-biggie kind of matter perhaps?
The DTC (Depository Trust Company) from my understanding, is probably not somebody you want "inquiring" about whether your large share transactions were handled properly or not, or whatever these "requests" are that they've sent BHRT. They're an enormously powerful and secretive organization- they essentially "clear" all stock transactions for pretty much the entire U.S.. They wield a lot of power and regulatory authority. When they are asking about a bunch of large stock block transfers, as in these debt to equity conversions, I don' think IMO that it's just a "trivial" matter necessarily. Who knows what it can mean?
IMO, the purpose of putting out that 8-K today, was primarily to put it "on the record" that BHRT has "questions" from the DTC and they are "responding to said questions". That's my read on it. The rest seemed like a lot of "fluff" IMO (and as stated previously, is even poorly worded, has mis-spelled words, sentences that barely make sense they are so poorly written, etc.)
From the 8-K filing today:
" In addition, the Company has received a request from The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") to confirm that shares of common stock deposited at DTC were eligible under the Rules and Procedures of DTC for deposit. The Company has responded to this request."
I don't think that's necessarily some trivial or boiler-plate blah, blah statement just "slipped in" the ole 8-K by chance. When the DTC wants to know if pretty large block of shares were "eligible" for "deposit", that could possibly have some pretty big implications from my brief reading of past DTC issues involving other companies.
One would also think, that when a company files a pretty important document, as in a SEC filing (doesn't get much more important than that for public company, IMO) that someone would at least proof read it and get the spelling of words correct and sentence tense and completion correct and so forth.
But hey, that's just me. As to this "Mike C" comment over at stem whatever, it makes zero sense to me. What is stated, is not even what the 8-K says IMO, the way I'm reading it. So how this "Mike C" came to these vast extrapolations/conclusions is beyond my understanding?
An 8-K put out late on a Friday and it's
1) Fully of typos and spelling errors and odd, sentence construction problems (did anyone proof read it before uploading it to EDGAR?)?
2) They start off by saying (in a poorly constructed sentence) that apparently there's an "on-going" or "existing" I guess "corporate re-structuring" already going on? When did this "re-structuring" start and when were shareholders told about it? Did I miss that PR or something?
3) Says they have been asked by DTC to verify the eligibility of the way they are apparently trying to issue these shares and it appears it's not a "done deal", only that BHRT "has responded" to questions, not that any questions have been answered to the satisfaction of the DTC, IMO, the way I read it. Sounds like it may be something to do with "un-registered" shares being used under what's a Form-4 or something like that? I've seen it come up before on some other stocks (penny stocks especially)- distributing large blocks of un-registered shares or something to that effect.
4) That they have what's probably insiders trying to get out of their debt holdings (the "oat" .04 price is what's in the recent form 4's if I remember, will check later), on the supposed premise that someone else will want to step up and "finance" the company with some other "debt" or "financing"?? Why? If the present insiders don't want to hold debt in the company, why would some new guy/firm want to hold it? Makes no sense to me, again?
5) They clearly and IMO "carefully" state that the insiders would be "willing to convert their class A shares" and then that key word "if" some sort of "financing" uh "materializes" but more carefully chosen words, " No assurances can be provided as to the consummation or timing of any financing." Well, what a surprise IMHO.
Just sounds to me, like this is probably related to all the Form 4's they been filing and probably "Northstar", aka the other insiders trying to exit their debt positions/holdings and convert to equity (aka common shares they can sell at will), is probably part of the key to the hiring of Cassell and insiders wanting to get out of their debt positions in the company, IMO.
I don't see any other secret "code words" or deep implications in it. Again, if the insiders don't want to hold their current debt positions on which they are being paid interest, then why, if they get to "dump" out of those positions using dilution, is some other "guy/firm" supposedly going to want to step up to the plate and become a debt holder/financier of the company? Not see the connections? Just my 2 cent opinion of course.
"stock will run now"..."like it does everytime "
It's "run" itself DOWN, just hit .0232
That's a downhill "run".....like it does everytime (every time)
Market cap at .023 is now 10.82 million. That's not even equal to their outstanding debt.
Book value negative, cash flow negative, return on assets or equity huge negative, operating margins negative. It's a lot of negatives IMO. What supposed "big financier" is going to sign on at 2 cents a share and for what reason, when they'd be stepping into a pile of already existing debts? Who would offer debt financing in this situation, unless it's an ASHER type deal, where they guarantee their downside via the convertible, steeply discounted shares so they essentially can't lose, no matter how low the share price goes?
Of all the investments opportunities out there and places to park some big money, some "financier" is going to choose this? I just don't see the logic behind that, IMO.
Dilution "financing", in spurts and trickles, is the only thing I see continuing here, IMO.
"walk down"?? Is that a new name for massive selling in which it broke the 50 DMA and almost hit the 200 DMA in a single dump?
Interesting? Didn't know that's a "walk down"? Thought it's just far more sellers than buyers?
The volume has been drying up for over a week and the spreads are getting real wide again (as in 8% to 10% or so). On a few recent days, they took someone for like a 15% or 17% spread on the open. Probably an amateur who had a market order to "buy on open" for maybe $500 or a $1000 worth at most. Big mistake IMO to ever use a market order, on any stock, but on this one, the MM will really clean someone out typically.
Historically, when it gets in this low volume, wide-spread mode (not even cracking $10K traded on many days this past week or two), it's usually about to take some of these big, sell-off dump days. It's busted the 50 DMA avg today, if it does it a few more times, it will be a strong down-trend and I'd say it's back at 2 cents or even lower possibly- that's the historic, "normal" pattern on this one. One sell order of "size" when it's in this low-vol, high-spread mode, can dump it 20% in a blink, as it's done many, many times in the past. Liquidity is gone at these daily volumes.
(50 DMA is at .025 and 200 DMA is at .021 right now)
Remember, their $5K penny-pay-to-promote campaign with smaallcapvoice (possibly others too), has run out from the disclosure. It was $5K for "one month's service" and began on 5/27/14. So that is done if the disclosure is up to date and the air may be coming out.
"The stock is up 179% YTD"? AND it's DOWN about 99.40% since it's IPO date in 2008. It's DOWN about 93% or so, since the present CEO took over in 2010 (despite him and Comella getting very large pay package increases in the 2013 10-K filing, with "bonuses", and the stock hitting it's all time low of 6/10ths of one cent in late 2013). (this is CEO number 4 or 5 in about as many years- Pinon, Leonhardt, Groth, Leonhardt again I think, and now Tomas)
"BIOHEART, INC. REPORTS SIGNIFICANT REVENUE INCREASES" blah, blah, blah. They also reported a LARGER OPERATIONAL LOSS for the same period, yr over yr. (see 10-K/10-Q filings under loss from operations). Kinda always leave that little "tid-bit" out of that PR. Their expenses more than doubled and far outpaced the "revenue" reported. See the SG&A line entry for expenses (marketing, general and administrative).
When your expenses and spending rise faster than any "revenues", it really doesn't matter what the "revenues" are. There are companies, with literally, $1 BILLION or more in "revenues" who went or are going BK or are teetering on insolvency and can't make a profit to save their lives. Sears being a prime example in today's world. Sears has $35 BA BILLION in "revenues" (and owns the K-Mart chain and store brand too) and is on life support. Nortel, the largest tech company and tel-com company in the history of Canada, BK. Kodak, an American icon brand and household name, with $16 BILLION or so in revenues at one time, BK and gone. Six Flags amusement parks filed BK. Avon, on life support. Look at what happened to Nokia. The list is long.
Despite those reported "significant revenue increases" and the PR all about it, the 10-Q showed they finished that Qtr as "normal", as in, nearly cash broke and cash poor stacked against large, short term debt and also very large long terms debt(s). Nothing changed in their "going concern" position because of those "significant revenues". They spent more than they took in, by far, and had enormous short term debts still. ($4 million or more in just accounts payable and accrued expenses, with about $200K cash left on the books)
A few hundred thousand in so called "revenues" is noise level money- especially in high technology bio-tech, where they are supposedly supposed to be conducting FDA level, phase II/III trials. It would not be unusual to need in the many $10's of MILLIONS of dollars, maybe as much as $100 MILLION or more and still be taking losses while running trials and seeking an FDA or Euro or similar legit regulatory body approval, for just one product.
From FORM 14C, it's PLAIN ENGLISH, the shares, via the BOD, just as in past 14C filings, can issue/use the shares for essentially ANYTHING THEY DEEM NECESSARY at ANYTIME. It's ENGLISH.
From the 14C (present one) PAGE 51:
"Material Terms, Potential Risks and Principal Effects Of The Increase of Authorized Common Share
Our Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholders have adopted and approved resolutions and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to effect an increase of the number of common shares of the Company that the Company may issue from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively. The Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholder believes that the Increase in Authorized common shares is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders because the increase in the number of authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock would enable the Company, without further stockholder approval, to issue shares from time to time as may be required for proper business purposes, such as providing for reserves that are often required when and if necessary to raise additional capital for ongoing operations, business and asset acquisitions, present and future employee benefit programs and other corporate purposes as we make every effort to become cash flow positive."
WORD FOR WORD from past 14C filing, PAGE 4:
"There is no current plan, commitment, arrangement, understanding or agreement, written or oral, regarding the issuance of common stock subsequent to the increase of the authorized shares."
Sound familiar? It's almost verbatim the wording in the present 14C. The shares can be used for "employee benefits" or for "ongoing operations" or for "OTHER corporate purposes" which leaves it wide open. The word "current" has meaning. It means, that when the document was filed, there were no "current" so called "plans" to issue the shares. But guess what happened in the past- EVERY last one of the newly "authorized" shares ended up getting issued. The present 14C carefully inserts the word "current", as in no "current" plan. Well, next week, in a month, 2 months, the "current" so called "plan(s)" can change, IMO, will change, and the shares can be issued, per the statement on page 51, for essentially ANYTHING the BOD deems "necessary" and from "time to time as needed" and for pretty much anything they decide is a "corporate purposes". Simple as that IMO.
There is NOTHING that "guarantees" the shares are supposedly for "financing only", IMO. READ the document. The lines above are cut n pasted, straight from the document. It doesn't get any clearer IMO. OTHER CORPORATE PURPOSES or EMPLOYEE BENEFITS and from TIME TO TIME "as needed" blah, blah, blah and NO "CURRENT" plans. Well, then tomorrow, or next week, the "CURRENT PLAN(s)" could be revised and then the shares can be issued, used just as in past 14C's for DILUTION. Simple as that IMO.
FORM 14C DATED 8-16-2011:
PAGE 4:
"There is no current plan, commitment, arrangement, understanding or agreement, written or oral, regarding the issuance of common stock subsequent to the increase of the authorized shares."
Think all those shares got "used up"? But wait, there was "no current plan"??? So how did that happen?
Page 3, same 14C, 2011:
" The Board of Directors has proposed, and the holders of a majority of the Company’s issued and outstanding voting common shares as of the Record Date has approved, an increase in the number of authorized shares of the common stock from 75,000,000 shares to 195,000,000 shares."
So, that took it from 75 MILLION, to 195 MILLION but there was "no current plan" at the time of the filing of that 14C for the "issuance of the common stock subsequent to the increase of the authorized shares"???
That was about 466 MILLION shares today - 75 MILLION shares then = 391 MILLION common stock (ISSUED/DILUTED) shares ago, all with "no current plan" it said to use/distribute them, "at the current time".
This present 14C, makes it crystal clear IMO, that the BOD can use/issue/make-outstanding the increased shares into common stock shares for essentially ANYTHING THEY WANT as a BOD.
Current 14C, filed on 4-28-14, PAGE 51:
"Material Terms, Potential Risks and Principal Effects Of The Increase of Authorized Common Share
Our Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholders have adopted and approved resolutions and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to effect an increase of the number of common shares of the Company that the Company may issue from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively. The Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholder believes that the Increase in Authorized common shares is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders because the increase in the number of authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock would enable the Company, without further stockholder approval, to issue shares from time to time as may be required for proper business purposes, such as providing for reserves that are often required when and if necessary to raise additional capital for ongoing operations, business and asset acquisitions, present and future employee benefit programs and other corporate purposes as we make every effort to become cash flow positive."
Doesn't get any simpler or clearer IMO. Plain English.
"fully funded" or a "PR said" or "they said in a blog"- it's been said for years, and no "large funding" has ever materialized that I'm aware of?
There is no "missing pile of money" hidden somewhere or "funding tucked away", IMO, that's there to supposedly "fund this trial" as in MIRROR, which is now over 1 yr old since the original PR, stating "ONE PATIENT ENROLLED" and then never heard from again, as in the word "MIRROR" not even appearing once, in the last (latest) 10-Q filing.
Read the 10-K and 10-Q; they are nearly out of cash at any given time and heavily debt laden, as in even short term debts that must be paid or go into default or similar. They "finance" on a continual basis using things like ASHER, share dumping, steeply discounted warrant deals, paying bills in common stock shares, and similar (see most recent 10-Q page 23/24: there were 10's millions of shares "paid out" for all kinds of "stuff" and to all various "people" for such things as "services rendered"). They're so low on cash at any given time, they do "ASHER" or similar firm type deals (meaning ASHER themselves or a firm similar to them- a convertible debt deal with STEEP discounts on the shares), they do those continually, as they have little to no cash at any given time.
So, there is no "mystery" pile of "funding" money tucked away, IMO.
Then entire purpose of the 10-K or 10-Q is to state their financial condition and show cash on hand, debts owed (current and long term), etc.
Most recent 10-Q for example (period ending Q-1, 2014):
Page 4: Cash and cash equivalents was $218,984.
That's not even a month's or so worth of cash on hand, given their present "burn-rate" and cash use rate if one figures it out. Meaning if they didn't have more cash coming in via "financing" like ASHER or similar, they are lights out essentially.
Page 4, Same 10-Q, they have Accounts Payable (SHORT TERM DEBTS/PAYMENTS TO BE MADE) of $2,513,125.
Remember, that's against having about $200K cash on hand. That's essentially BROKE by any normal measure. $2 MILLION short term accounts payable, against $200K cash. What are they going to "fund" some "trial" with?
Page 4, Same 10-Q, ACCRUED EXPENSES, those are more "costs/expenses" that they've been racking up, delaying that are owed to "someone" or some debt holder. An accrued expense could be something like unpaid loan interest on a debt that is accumulating, something like that. It's typically considered a "current" debt.
They had accrued expense entry of $2,368,377
So add ANOTHER $2 MILLION or so into their "current" obligations. That's now $4 MILLION due (short term, "current" debt) against about $200K cash on hand. Not looking too good.
How low were they on cash? Well, look at their recent "financing" they reported on that same 10-Q, the most recent one.
PAGE 14: (they did ASHER deals as recent as Jan, Feb and March 2014 to bring in small amounts of cash, and at horrible terms, as in real steep share discounts. Why? Cause they need cash "trickling" in for survival, else, why would one do such lousy and desperate financing terms?)
PAGE 14:
Asher Notes (During this year)
During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreements with Asher Enterprises, Inc. (“Asher”) or affiliates, for the sale of 8% convertible notes in aggregate principal amount of $97,500 (the “Asher Notes”).
The Asher Notes bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum. As of the quarter ended March 31, 2014 all interest and principal must be repaid nine months from the issuance date, the last note due December 26, 2014. The Notes are convertible into common stock, at Asher’s option, at a 45% discount to the average of the three lowest closing bid prices of the common stock during the 10 trading day period prior to conversion. The Company has identified the embedded derivatives related to the Asher Notes....
Daniel James Management
On February 19, 2014, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreements with Daniel James Management (“Daniel”) for the sale of 8% convertible note in principal amount of $35,000 (the “Daniel Note”).
The Daniel Note bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum with all interest and principal due February 28, 2015. The Daniel Note is convertible into common stock, at holder’s option, at a 47% discount to the average of the three lowest closing bid prices of the common stock during the 10 trading day period prior to conversion. The Company has identified the embedded derivatives related to the Daniel Note. These embedded derivatives included certain conversion features and reset provision...."
So, as recently as Feb 19, 2014, they did "financing" for a measly $35K with horrible terms and also just prior to that, an ASHER deal for $97K. So they did $135K in "financing", that's how bad they need cash to stay afloat. There's no "hidden" or "mystery" pile of "funding" tucked or hidden away, not according to their own 10-Q and 10-K.
On the 10-K, period ended yr 2013, they finished the yr with $46K, yep, $46 THOUSAND dollars left on hand (about the price of a mid level luxury car).
10-K, Page F-3:
Cash and Cash Equivalents: $46,227
And all the form 14 means, IMO, is they are upping the available shares to 2 BILLION from the present 970 MILLION or whatever the number is. It's not some hidden "code" for some immanent "financing" deal. The shares can be used for anything the BOD wants, as long as it's for legit "corporate business" (paraphrasing) as they, and only they see fit, with no shareholder input needed. It's all in black n white in the form 14 filing. This is the second form 14 filing in only a little over a yr (Jan 2013 for last one, that took the shares from like 200 MILLION to the 970 MILLION) and it never amounted to any "big financing deal" or whatever is being claimed. Just more dilution, that's all that occurred as far as I can see. Dilution and lots of it, on-going, non stop.
The period Q-2 is over already as of end of June. What will the new outstanding share count be? It was over 460 MILLION (500 million fully diluted) last 10-Q and I'd guess it's gonna be a lot more than that on this next, coming 10-Q, if past history is any indication or track record, IMO.
"first ever combination stem cell trial in the world"?? "EVER"?? and "IN THE WORLD"???
Kinda a bold "claim" IMO, in the age of Google. Just plugged in "combination stem cell trial" into ole Google, and it took a fraction of a second to return numerous search results.
Just read the first one, which sure sounds like a "COMBINATION stem cell trial" to me? Maybe I'm missing something here?
http://isci.med.miami.edu/clinical-trials-research/trials
TAC-HFT II: Phase I/II Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Transendocardial Injection of Autologous Human Cells (Mesenchymal or the combination of MSC and Cardiac Stem Cells) in Patients with Chronic Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Heart Failure Secondary to Myocardial Infraction.
I believe "MSC" is traditionally bone marrow stem cells if not mistaken, but also can derive from other areas too? So it's a COMBINATION of a MSC type of stem cell and cardiac stem cells. It's a phase I/II as noted.
Sure sounds like an existing, "combination" uh "stem cell" ole "trial" to me? That's just reading one, out of About 8,440,000 results (0.33 seconds) from Google for the search term, "combination stem cell trial"
Here, here's one more just for good measure. This one is clear back in 2010, and describes STEM CELL COMBINATION TRIALS/RESEARCH in very specific details:
International Archives of Medicine 2010, 3:5 :
http://www.intarchmed.com/content/3/1/5
"Stem Cell Combinations"
"We have previously published data from an end-stage patient suffering from dilated cardiomyopathy which underwent a profound improvement in ejection fraction after receiving a combination of cord blood expanded CD34 cells and placental matrix derived mesenchymal stem cells [136]. In the current case report we describe a patient with ischemia cardiomyopathy who received a combination of allogeneic CD34 cells and endometrial regenerative cells (ERC), a MSC-like population which has previously been demonstrated to possess higher growth factor production ability as compared to control MSC cells [31],...."
Well, maybe add one more just for the heck of it- since the PR "claim" didn't specify first ever "human trial" of a combined stem cell approach- here's a "study/trial" involving "Yorkshire Swine" (I'd take that to be a pig of some sort?) but it's a COMBINATION stem cell trial:
"Enhanced effect of combining human cardiac stem cells and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells to reduce infarct size and to restore cardiac function after myocardial infarction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224061
Well, since Google's making it so easy, here's one more, this one for "multiple myeloma". It's from 1992, so it's a golden-oldie versus the FIRST EVER COMBINED statement, IMO.
"Low-risk intensive therapy for multiple myeloma with combined autologous bone marrow and blood stem cell support"
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/7/1666?variant=short&sso-checked=1
"all 75 patients was 68%, with 12-month event-free and overall survival projections of about 85%. Using both bone marrow and PBSC together with GM-CSF, autotransplants are safe and appear effective in myeloma, especially when prior therapy had been limited to less than 1 year. ...."
(PBSC is peripheral blood stem cell) according to the research paper.
SEVENTY FIVE patients in a COMBINED STEM CELL "trial" in NINETEEN NINETY TWO, 1992.
"FIRST EVER COMBINATION STEM CELL TRIAL in THE WORLD"????
"This is the only reason for the new 2 billion A/S"? No proof of that whatsoever, IMO. None.
Read the past form 14. Also said "no plans" as of the time of the filing. Yet, they blew past that share count and kept right on going.
Form 14, 8-16-2011, PAGE 1:
"
The amendment of the Articles of Incorporation of the Company to increase the number of authorized shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, from 75,000,000 shares to 195,000,000 shares."
Same Form 14, 8-16-2011, PAGE 4
"There is no current plan, commitment, arrangement, understanding or agreement, written or oral, regarding the issuance of common stock subsequent to the increase of the authorized shares"
EVERY LAST ONE OF THOSE 195 MILLION shares was used up and issued, fairly rapidly, and yet, just as is stated in this latest form 14 filing, there was no "current plan" to use them at the time of the form 14 filing.
Sound familiar?
The latest form 14, like the ones in the past, says the BOD (Board of Directors) can issue those shares at any time and for pretty much any reason they, and they alone, see fit, as long as it's for "corporate purposes" as they determine.
Latest form 14 filing, PAGE 51:(the increase to 2 BiLLION)
"Our Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholders have adopted and approved resolutions and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to effect an increase of the number of common shares of the Company that the Company may issue from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively. The Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholder believes that the Increase in Authorized common shares is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders because the increase in the number of authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock would enable the Company, without further stockholder approval, to issue shares from time to time as may be required for proper business purposes, such as providing for reserves that are often required when and if necessary to raise additional capital for ongoing operations, business and asset acquisitions, present and future employee benefit programs and other corporate purposes as we make every effort to become cash flow positive."
That's black and white, plain English. It can't be any clearer IMO. ("to issue shares from time to time")
A/S is typically "available shares" which would be 2 BILLION now per latest form 14 filed. The 466 million number is "issued" or already "outstanding" O/S shares and is already an old number (it's almost July 1st, 2014)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544314000633/d31331.htm
"Ratification of the increase of the authorized shares of capital stock of the Company from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, effective as of the filing of an amendment to the Company's Articles of Incorporation with the Florida Secretary of State."
The 466 million number stated is already old, it's gonna be a lot more than that now, with all the debt to equity conversions done recently, plus, BHRT is always diluting for on-going "financing" based on recent history. They had very little cash left end of Q-1, not enough to cover their cash use/burn rate if one does the math. They've almost certainly done more dilutive "financing" since the period covered in the Q1, 10-Q filing.
In just the period from the time covered under their end of yr 10-K, period ended 2013, to their end of Q-1, 2014 10Q filing (March 24 to May 6th, 2014, a little over 30 days), they diluted by 466,396,016 - 420,920,157 = 45,475,859 or about 45 MILLION shares dilution in about a one month period.
Latest 10-Q, PAGE 1:
"As of May 6, 2014, there were 466,396,016 outstanding shares of the Registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share."
(it's July now, so it's gonna be a lot more than that, IMO. Just look at all the form 4's filed recently, those shares alone are 10's of millions)
Latest 10-Q, PAGE 10: (they've hit about 500 MILLION already fully diluted, as of end March 2013, so it's gonna be a lot more than that as of July 1, 2014, IMO)
"Fully diluted, which means the "real" share count needed to cover all warrants, share options issued and so forth, is:
Fully diluted shares outstanding were 498,696,292 and 222,688,816 for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively."
Latest 10-K, PAGE 1: (end of 2013)
"The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s Common Stock, $0.001 par value, as of March 24, 2014 was 420,920,157."
It was a question to the BioheartUS "representative", no?
Perhaps this is the Doctor?? Well, if it is "the doctor" in the Bioheart official Press Release then 1) Why is that web site not listed in the Bioheart PR? And 2) Then why hasn't BioheartUS responded with the simple answer providing the same link?
They, BioheartUS, claim to be here (taken up a I-Hub presence) representing Bioheart in an "official capacity" and "answer questions about the company, its technology, business plans, etc" Then it should take about 2 seconds IMO, for BioheartUS to respond and confirm that same link is indeed thee "facility" referred to in the "South Africa joint venture PR" and also just give the physical address and phone contact info that's on that linked web site. If that's indeed, thee "Dr Walter Bell" of South Africa?
Simple, correct?
Please confirm for us, BioheartUS, it should be very simple IMO. Waiting BioheartUS, still waiting.
They just started the Venture?? WRONG. The PR says, specifically, that, "Dr. Walter Bell has been providing Bioheart therapies to patients in South Africa suffering from degenerative diseases since the end of 2013." (that's over 6 months)
One should not have to "phone" Bioheart or do their own "google" search or hunt for anything, IMO. It's simplistic, common sense, that any business has 1) A physical address 2) A phone and typically in the "modern" age 3) A web site with all contact, including email listed on it.
How can there be a Dr. Walter Bell listed in a press release, but that doctor does not have a simple, physical practice location already in existence in South Africa if he's been providing "Bioheart therapies to patients in South Africa since the end of 2013"? The PR says in bold, that 51 million people will "have access to Bioheart therapies" via this "treatment facility" that is "being expanded". For it to be "expanded", then it must, via simpleton logic, already have an existing address and location.
Any PR would list the contact info, IMO. It shouldn't have to be Googled or hunted down IMO. It's common sense. Just give the address and phone, it should take 2 seconds. BioheartUS said, specifically, they are here, on I-hub to answer any questions. Well, this one is a very, very, very simple question. An address and a phone contact for someone to find this "existing" (according to the Bioheart PR) facility. Read the wording of the PR, it's existing and has been "doing treatments" since late 2013, which is 6 plus months. Where do these treatment take place? Just an address is fine.
I've know people who do business with tiny operations in distant provinces in China these days and they all have 1) A physical mailing address and 2) A telephone one can call and 3) Most even have a web presence today. South Africa is far advanced as a society than remote China.
How does someone contact South Africa Dr. Walter Bell and the South Africa, new stem cell treatment facility? The recent PR gave no web site and no address or phone number to contact this new stem cell facility in S. Africa that is now part owned by Bioheart, according to the PR?
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/bioheart-announces-joint-venture-in-south-africa-otcbb-bhrt-1923668.htm
Some may want to refer someone there, but there is no contact information in the Bioheart Press Release for Dr. Walter Bell in South Africa?
Is there a web site for this doctor and his practice or at least a address and phone? It seems that some kind of contact information and a location for this facility must be easily available?
Please provide contact information for the South Africa facility. Thanks.
"an additional 322K negative."? Uh, no. You don't understand cost of sales and expenses. The "revenue" is "top line" and comes with a cost of sales, a "cost". The gross "revenues" applied after cost of sales was 322,572 - 94,446 = 228,126. Thus, 228,126 is the very most they could have put into their pocket essentially. But, they had a tremendous growth in SG&A costs, and since that included marketing, one would assume a portion of that large expense increase would be due to these "revenues".
If your expenses outgrow any revenue, in order to gain that revenue, then you didn't "gain" anything. There can be no inference made IMO, that the loss would have been greater had the revenues not been booked- that's not how accounting 101 works.
If one were to back-out the revenue, the cost of revenue, and assume that a portion of the very large SG&A (sale/marketing, general and administrative costs, at least a portion were due to booking that revenue), then there may have been no difference in the loss, in fact, it even might have been smaller for all one knows.
Product "revenues" made no difference to their cash position. It's all in the 10-Q filing, Q-1, 2014. Their operational loss for Q-1 2014, was actually greater than the operational loss for the same yr-over-yr period prior.
Their expenses grew much faster than any "revenues".
See latest 10-Q filing, PAGE 5, "net loss from operations".
It was (531,084) in same qtr 2013.
It was (620,923) Q-1 2014, an increase.
BHRT was delisted from the NASDAQ on about Feb. 26th, 2009.
BHRT went public on about Feb. 20, 2008 in perhaps one of the worst IPO's in at least recent stock market history according to the commentaries I have read about it, netting almost no money after fees (about $1.5 million net after fees, when the initial IPO PR said they were going to raise approx. $70 million, then they kept lowering their target price and amounts and changing underwriters), and that was despite the then CEO even buying up some of the IPO shares himself according to the news reported.
http://www.techjournal.org/2007/09/florida%E2%80%99s-bioheart-prices-ipo-to-raise-up-to-70m/
http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/20/bioheart-a-new-record-for-ipo-futility/
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2009/02/26/393349/160467/en/Bioheart-Inc-Receives-Notice-of-Delisting-From-The-NASDAQ-Capital-Market.html
It means nothing IMO, and is a total empty argument that BHRT was the ONLY "bio-tech" of 2008, as there were many, many companies that successfully went public that yr, including several medical related companies such as Mako Surgical and CardioNet.
BHRT has essentially traded straight down for the most part since it's IPO date price of about $5.25 with a few bumps and "pops" along the way, but a max-chart will show a near straight-line down trend. I don't believe it ever traded, not even a single day above its IPO price. It rapidly collapsed and declined from the IPO date forward, ending the yr as the worst IPO of 2008 according to reports that track IPO's (see links), down about 85% by Jan of 2009 at .79 cents, and was then de-listed from NASDAQ shortly there after Feb. of 2009 or so. So it only lasted about one yr as a "listed" company on the NASDAQ and has been a "penny" stock ever since, by all standard definitions of a penny stock that I'm familiar with. It was delisted from NASDAQ as it could not meet their minimal financial and asset and share price requirements according to the press release about the delisting.
http://www.marketfolly.com/2009/01/how-some-2008-ipos-fared.html
BHRT is at bottom of the list in that link above, down 85% by early 2009, at 0.79 cents a share (from $5.25 IPO price) in one yr, and then delisted from the NASDAQ shortly thereafter.
BHRT has been in financial troubles, essentially going clear back to the IPO period and for the most part at all times since then if one would read their 10-K and 10-Q filings (going concern warnings, debt defaults, massive share dilution as in over 200 million shares in just the past approx. 1 yr alone).
For example of the massive dilution of the common shareholder, here is a share count taken from page 1 of their 10-K/10-Q filings:
As of February 28, 2010 was 20,489,444.
As of May 6, 2014, there were 466,396,016 outstanding shares
They have defaulted twice on key, major loans/debt, the first being the default of the large, "Bluecrest" loan/note and then the B of A loan going into default.
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2009/01/12/daily50.html?page=all
That Florida business journal article said that BK was possible in 2009, only one yr or so after the IPO, as the Bluecrest loan went into default.
Then, in 2010, they defaulted again on a large loan/debt, the B of A loan.
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2010/07/26/daily1.html
This company has been struggling and in serious financial trouble since pretty much the IPO date. There has been "talk" and "chatter" of supposed "imminent" so called "big financing" about to "happen" going back years, not months as was stated yesterday, I believe. "financing" supposedly being "close" has literally been talked about for years, per what I've read on chat boards and even in the company's own statements in PR releases about "term sheets" and "financing is close" etc. They never materialized to any degree that I'm aware of. They, BHRT, simply keep diluting and selling shares and using "ASHER" type convertible debt deals and similar, to keep month to month cash coming in. Their own 10-K's and 10-Q filings, will show that they often end a quarter or fiscal yr, with near zero cash on hand, one filing I read, actually had "zero" as the cash entry on their balance sheet, literally entered as -0-. Zero cash. Most of the time it's a few $hundred thousand or less at any time.
PR about "imminent financing" that never happened that I'm aware of or showed up in subsequent 10-K or similar filings as ever having been completed as stated in the PR:
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/bioheart-receives-2-million-term-sheet-investment-offer-from-vitalmex-global-leader-otcbb-bhrt-1686526.htm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/northstar-launches-20-million-private-113119817.html
http://www.hotstocked.com/article/20272/bioheart-inc-otc-bhrt-left-the-bottom-on-the.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2011/10/06/bioheart-raises-3m.html
"currently no plans, arrangements, commitments or understandings for the issuance of the additional shares of Common Stock"
"currently" is a VERY specific word/wording IMO. It means, 5 minutes later, the BOD could meet, and per the statement in the prior portion of the 14C, they could "issue shares from time to time AS NEEDED...."
See previous 14C filings, there were also "no immediate plans", but the shares got issued, every time, and for all sorts of various reasons, none of which had to do with a single, "big", "lump sum" type of so called "financing deal".
14C, PAGE 51:
"Our Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholders have adopted and approved resolutions and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to effect an increase of the number of common shares of the Company that the Company may issue from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively. The Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholder believes that the Increase in Authorized common shares is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders because the increase in the number of authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock would enable the Company, without further stockholder approval, to issue shares from time to time as may be required for proper business purposes, such as providing for reserves that are often required when and if necessary to raise additional capital for ongoing operations, business and asset acquisitions, present and future employee benefit programs and other corporate purposes as we make every effort to become cash flow positive."
See that, "employee benefits" or "OTHER corporate purposes". Once they put "other" in the wording, it IMO, leaves it 100% wide open to pretty much anything the BOD deems to be "for corporate purposes" and solely at their discretion, "without further share stockholder approval".
It's plain English IMO.
No, IMO. That's a 14C. It's information that would/could be "required" in a proxy. It's not a "proxy" filing. One could argue I guess, the 14A is a "proxy", but again, in the case of BHRT, there was no "proxy vote" being called for by the common shareholders and it says so right in the "information filing" 14C. Further, there is no connection to the assertions being made of it meaning "financing "is imminent or "in the works" IMO, none. Don't see even a remote connection to making that vast claim.
It's simply increasing the authorized shares to 2 BILLION at the behest of those who control the shareholder vote, i.e. "insiders" and it says essentially just that and that the shares can be used for essentially anything the BOD deems to be "corporate needs or corporate business" (paraphrasing) and they can issue them from "time to time as needed", and says essentially, "Thank you very much common shareholders, but your input is not needed, nor is it wanted" (paraphrasing). And that is all it says. It's a notice of increasing the outstanding shares, just as they've done about 1 yr ago and again prior to that using form 14 filings. And they never resulted in some "big financing" deal. See the 14C filed about 1 yr ago authorizing the increase from about 190 MILLION to now 970 MILLION shares. It's essentially the same, and resulted in no "big financing" deal that I'm aware of?
From the 14C:
"SCHEDULE 14C
Information Required in Proxy Statement"
"WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR A PROXY
AND YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY"
"This notice and information statement (the “Information Statement”) "
The 14C is a "Statement of information" and is not a "proxy" requesting a vote or declaring a meeting or similar.
"Our Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholders have adopted and approved resolutions and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to effect an increase of the number of common shares of the Company that the Company may issue from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively. The Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholder believes that the Increase in Authorized common shares is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders because the increase in the number of authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock would enable the Company, without further stockholder approval, to issue shares from time to time as may be required for proper business purposes, such as providing for reserves that are often required when and if necessary to raise additional capital for ongoing operations, business and asset acquisitions, present and future employee benefit programs and other corporate purposes as we make every effort to become cash flow positive."
"stock will run now"??
Like it "ran" from .08 to .02 in about 1.5 to 2 months, a loss of 75%?? Guess they call that a "downhill run"?
Someone who bought only 1.5 to 2 months ago, only needs about a 100% to 250% gain now to break even. That's some "run" IMO.
"Bioheart is about to RUN $again$
For those of you that have used BHRT like an ATM over the past 3 years. Get ready for another run. Proxy is done and the turn to financing is closing, regardless ASHER has 50million share warrant at $0.0197"
Huh? What??? What "proxy? BHRT has filed no proxy that I'm aware of? Is there a BHRT proxy posted somewhere? Proxy for what? A "proxy" statement is normally used when soliciting a shareholder vote and/or such as an annual meeting announcement, a form 14A. Where is there a "proxy is done" form 14A for BHRT, and what would it be for? BHRT never files "proxy statements" that I'm aware of, as the insiders control all voting rights anyway according to their 10-K/10-Q (25 preferred share votes for Northstar, at 20,000 million shares = 500 million voting rights, right there), so what would they be asking for a vote on?
http://www.sec.gov/answers/proxy.htm
Here is the link to the SEC EDGAR database for Bioheart- don't see any "proxy" filing? So where is this "proxy" supposed to be?
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001388319&type=&dateb=&owner=include&count=40
Asher has 50 million warrants at .0197??? Where? When? What page of 10-Q or 10-K makes that statement? There were about 50 million warrants issued recently (past 1 yr approx. I believe), but they went to many different "parties", no way to indicate they all went to ASHER?
"turn to financing is closing"?? How could anyone possibly know this? What proof is there that this is true?
The statement makes no sense IMO.
"that would be you. You first spoke of it and linked to it. "?
WRONG. The first place I ever saw it discussed was insetorstemcell site. I'd be happy to link to it.
It's PUBLIC INFORMATION on a county site. There's no mystery or anything to hide? Look at dubb, he just "stumbled" on another one. Looks like it coincides with the youtube stuff that was also discussed/posted about on inverstorstem.
Broward County Clerk of the Court web site - looks like Comella has retained an attorney now. Since it was first listed by the clerk, at least when people first spoke of it and linked to it (that I saw/read), the suit listed the plaintiff(s) and her/their attorney (an M.D. and 3 companies as plaintiffs), but the "box" on the web site for where Comella's defense "attorney" would be listed was always blank to this point in time(each time I read it in the past at least).
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
The suit "summary table" is now filled in it appears with a Florida attorney "retained" by Comella. So, the case must be advancing, at least to some degree, IMO. Or, it at least hasn't been dismissed or vanished up to this point, it appears? The clerk-of-the-court public web site states it apparently involves the BHRT Chief Science Officer (Comella) as defendant, and lists qty-3 companies, "Ageless" and "Laboratory Kits" and "Stemlogix" as plaintiffs, at least 2 of which, I'm almost certain that BHRT had previous "business dealings" with, as they appeared in past SEC filings and/or BHRT "PR" that I read.
Comella also worked for/at "Ageless" I believe? She is seen in photos I've seen prior, with the "Ageless" logo on her lab coat. I believe she's actually listed herself in prior public documents as the "CEO" of "Stemlogix" and the "Chief Science Officer" of "Ageless". She was/is apparently the BHRT full time "Chief Science Officer and Sr Mgt team member" AND a "Chief Science Officer" of "Ageless" AT THE SAME TIME AND and was/is the CEO of "STEMLOGIX" all apparently AT THE SAME TIME.
http://www.stemcellpioneers.com/showthread.php?7000-Installment-61-Ask-the-Doctor-with-Kristin-Comella-CSO-of-Bioheart-Inc
She has titles in that PR relating to both Ageless and Stemlogix and BHRT that appear to run concurrent/overlap, IMO reading it.
Interesting IMO.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/idUS94395+14-Feb-2012+GNW20120214
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/05/29/477877/257402/en/Bioheart-and-Ageless-Regenerative-Partner-to-Advance-Stem-Cell-Field-With-New-Laboratory-Training-Program-on-June-23-24-2012.html
Those show PR of Bioheart and "Ageless" in some sort of "partnership" and "licensing/rights for Adipose" deals.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bioheart-partnership-stemlogix-leads-first-161440921.html
And that one shows Bioheart and "Stemlogix" in some sort of "partnership".
Interesting, IMO, that no "PR" or any public info has ever been made about this apparent suit that's on the public viewing portion of the Broward County 17th Judicial Site official portal? Not that I'm aware of anyway?
Spread is almost 6%. The mm/broker-dealers got it opened WAY up as vol has dropped way off.
One hour left in trading day and it's at about 250K shares @ 0.0215 = approx. only $5K total dollar vol. traded so far on the day.
It's been "flat-lining" again, going as long as one hour or more w/o a single trade crossing.
Testing, right at that 200 DMA of .02 pretty much.
If you're claiming to be "official representatives" as in, "insiders/Sr mgt" of a public traded, stock based company- where are your SEC and other required "disclosures"?
Might wanna get those added to any statement(s) being made to the public, on a public forum, IMO- especially when you're specifically discussing your stock price, stock trading action (as in apologizing for it previously, to a single, individual, common-stock share holder), making non "PR" statements to specific individuals about plans, company actions, material events, future plans, stock price behavior, etc.
Just a thought and opinion.
Public traded companies, per my experience, as a CARDINAL RULE, never, ever discuss their company stock price, public shares trading action, etc (in RARE instances and only through 100% public disclosure and officially released "PR"). IMO, and experience and in commentary I've read or heard by "industry experts", published in textbooks or similar such as CNBC, for example, it's just not done and for many, many different reasons.
Sure. And a former supposed CEO of a public traded company did NOT know the difference or purpose of a 10-K versus a 10-Q versus a Form 4 SEC document.
Right.
"Official"?? Like when "Howard Leonhardt", the past CEO appeared?
"Official"?? Doubt it. Highly. It's a logo and an "alias". Nothing "official", IMO.
Yes, you CAN continually have lower highs and lower lows AND have the stock close green.
The down "trend" line is solidly intact and a one day "green close" such as today, on a few, low vol end of day trades, does not alter that trend yet. It's in a solid, confirmed down trend. LOWER HIGHS and LOWER LOWS, still, yet to be broken.