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.
Um, not necessarily when they see you just went bad/belly up to a bunch of other creditor(s), not IMHO? Don't think other creditors/investors see what you just didn't pay and walked away from? Why are they going to trust you won't do the same thing to them? Huuum?
Why do you think they run multiple credit report(s) on that ole mortgage app? They want to know IF YOU PAY your prior OBLIGATIONS and IF YOU PAY THEM ON-TIME, and very importantly, CONSISTENTLY. It's the thing they (potential creditors) care about probably more than anything else, even your income situation. Way more than they care about your current debt load too. You can have a boat load of current debt to income, but if you have a long, long history of always paying, and always paying on-time, they often want to extend you even more credit. Hhuuuum?
Writing down a debt cause you can not pay it- as you have no cash/cash flow, is not necessarily a "good thing" IMO. It's "negotiating" one step before BK in many situations. Creditors don't like to see "bad debts" just disappear IMO. The creditor on the other side of the deal is the one who didn't get paid the "accrued" expenses and is taking a loss on their balance sheet entry. See?
Take it for whatever it's worth. Like it, don't like it. Good. Bad. Makes no difference in the cash situation IMO, and that's the real pinch they're in that I can see. The other big debts, the one's that have to be paid each month and can't be "accrued/carried" are still there and unchanged and need cash flow, same as yesterday. Will a potential new "creditor/investor" like that they were able to work out a deal, "negotiate away" and clear off an old, bad debt they've been "carrying" on the books, accruing, but never making payments on? Maybe? Don't know? It's possible, off course.
They never paid anything on the "debt/royalties" whatever you want to call it - so it makes no difference IMO. Yes, it will lower the "current liabilities" debt total on the balance sheet- but not have any effect on cash use/cash flow that I can see since they were never paying on it anyway, IMO. It's essentially an accounting/bookkeeping entry w/ perhaps some sort of potential tax implication on the gain is all, IMO? Am already seeing "claims" this somehow generates cash-flow or something? They never paid a single payment or royalty against it according to the 10-K; so it's just an accrual gain, clean-up of carried "accrual" expense entries or whatever (need a tax attorney), the other side (Beaumont) probably writing it off as a loss/bad debt IMO (not an accountant and we don't know all the details). BHRT never has made payments on it- so it's not going to give them any cash that they didn't have as far as I can tell IMO? Just another "license" they bought or whatever, announced in some PR "deal" and then apparently never used, and/or it never amounted to anything, IMO.
What's also interesting IMO, is the 8-K today says the following, "We DID NOT use this license in ANY of our technologies."?
But you read the latest 10-K entry below and it states, "We utilize the methods under these patents in connection with our BioPace and certain other product candidates in development."
So did they use it, or didn't they? One statement says it was "used in biopace" and "certain other products" - in plain English that I'm reading, IMO?
Recent 10-K page 18/19:
Other License Agreements
In June 2000, we entered into an agreement with William Beaumont Hospital, or WBH, pursuant to which WBH granted to us a worldwide, exclusive, non-sublicenseable license to two U.S. method patents covering the inducement of human adult myocardial cell proliferation in vitro, or the WBH IP. The term of the agreement is for the life of the patents, which expire in 2015. WE UTILIZE the methods under these patents in connection with our BioPace and certain other product candidates in development. We do not have rights to patents outside the United States relating to BioPace. In addition to a payment of $55,000 we made to acquire the license, we are required to pay WBH an annual license fee of $10,000 and royalties ranging from 2% to 4% of net sales of products that are covered by the WBH IP. In order to maintain these exclusive license rights, our aggregate royalty payments in any calendar year must exceed a minimum threshold as established by the agreement. The minimum threshold was
$50,000 for 2005, $100,000 for 2006, $200,000 for 2007 and 2008. This minimum threshold will remain $200,000 for 2009 and thereafter. To the extent that our annual net sales of products covered by the WBH IP do not exceed the minimum threshold for such year, we have the option of paying any shortfall in cash to WBH by the end of the applicable year or having our license to the WBH IP become non-exclusive. In addition to the patents licensed from WBH, we purchased a U.S. patent and its corresponding Japanese filing, which are directed to biological pacemakers, by assignment from Angeion Corporation on September 1, 2000.
As of the date of this report, we have not made any payments to WBH other than the initial payment to acquire the license. Accordingly, WBH may terminate the license to the WBH IP at any time at their sole option. We are currently in negotiations with WBH to amend the terms of the license agreement. Unless earlier terminated by WBH or by either party upon the other party’s breach of the agreement, the agreement will terminate upon the expiration date of the last patent covered by the WBH Agreement. ""
It looks like it will come off the "accrued expenses" line of the balance sheet (see 10-K page F-35) -
" At December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company’s liability under this agreement was $2,122,130 and $1,825,675, respectively, which is reflected as a component of accrued expenses on the balance sheets (see Note 5).
F-35
During the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company incurred expenses of $210,000, $210,000 respectively, and $2,122,130 from August 12, 1999 (date of inception) to December 31, 2013. The Company has accrued interest for the past due commitment at 2% over the prime rate per the terms of the agreement. The Company has included $2,122,130 in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2013."
So all it looks like IMO is that Beaumont is terminating the agreement per the terms above as BHRT never paid them, or made any payments and thus had lost "exclusivity" and Beaumont had the right to terminate based on no payments ever received. Beaumont looking at BHRT's situation, probably also figures they never will get paid anything- so just terminate it IMO and take the accounting entry. Looks like what Cassel does among other things- debt restructuring I believe is on their web site. This move, plus the cashing out of debt for equity and other things looks interesting to me? Like they're cleaning up a bunch of "stuff" for who knows what reasons?
Well, that's seems like some pretty thorough, interesting info. But again- problem's seen IMO are:
a) Why is it only in what appears to be a private email conversation between an individual and the CEO of a public traded company, and not distributed to all as public disclosure? Also, did "Mike" a CEO really write that- as it's got a bunch of poorly written sentences, punctuation problems and more in it? "we will definitely will roll out "? "Will" is used twice, incorrectly? And that's not the only place it's got major sentence construction problems? "Prior to the Bioheart"? That should read, "Prior to Bioheart" (no "the" needed), etc In all other emails I've ever seen posted from "Mike" it ends in "Warmest regards" or some similar closing salutation. Never "Mike"? But again, that's just my memory and what I've seen quoted many, many times?
b) Most important IMHO, is man, sure looks like a crowded space from all those names listed? If all BHRT does is "license" it- then what do they have that's proprietary or special? How then do they ever make any money off of all of this? What's the patentable portions, special "tech/process" that will belong to BHRT, that some 10,000 gorilla like a Baxter can't just step in and license, or more importantly, just buy-out on their own from that wash list of names?
Still, doesn't make real sense to me? Just not "getting it"? Those posts, that last one have a lot of info in them, but more questions than answers IMHO? A lot of "players", and who knows who has patent that makes um special, then BHRT has to license what they don't own- and then do what with it to make it a money maker? Also, are those license deals exclusive? Can anyone else step-in and license/use the same thing? That's what it makes me wonder? As stated, it's a lot of names, info, appears to perhaps explain a few things (vague IMO), but it also opens a big round of more questions as I see it. At least you were chasing due diligence and saw some missing puzzle pieces, that seem obvious also to me, and began to ask the questions. Only thing, it still doesn't make a "big picture" sense IMO, especially as to how it now gets monetized and protected and proprietary and all those other big, important "tech" type "stuff" that has to fit together to have a big seller/winner as I see it.
How old is that "news" article which is on, what appears to be nothing more than a very small time "blog" page (not a major "news" or med journal or similar by a long, long shot), just a blog designed, it appears, to be a google "ad-word" key word page system about any topic that has medical sounding terms in it, who's only contact info is a google gmail address? They also list their contact as "Medical and healthcare advertising, Small or large projects, Direct-to-consumer, educational campaigns, Reasonable rates
Write to us: medfrontiers@gmail.com"
What's interesting, since it's being linked to as some sort of "source" of info- is that
a) Nowhere in it, this blog article, does there appear the word lipocell (the Ageless supposed precursor product to Adipocell, see 10-K for statement of licensing change from Ageless to Invitrex or whatever it's called)- the blog article only mentions Myocell by name, a product called the TGI 1200 and something called Bioheart’s Acute Cell Therapy, which it states is "being designed" as in it was not even complete at time of this blog statement? So, where is the linkage that this is now Adipocell? Not seeing it IMO? It says this TGI 1200 system/method was licensed from "Tissue Genesis"- so it seems they would own the process/tech behind it- again, way more than a simple name change IMO to arrive at "Adipo" or whatever? Don't see any connection to Adipocell, or the precursor, Lipi or Lipocell or whatever it was called, the Ageless licensed product- where is that linkage? Is there a PR or other official company statement stating such? It appears to me, just my opinion, that in each case so far, BHRT was licensing something from someone else and it's not even their own? Genesis, then Ageless, etc?
b) What's real interesting IMO, is this blog link posted says in it, via the then CEO apparently speaking, being quoted, that, "Bioheart is currently marketing these systems outside the US in countries recognizing the CE Mark approval." as in referring to this TGI 1200??
So where was the revenue/sales from that? Why didn't it ever "take-off" and sell as a product if it/this technology was/is supposedly so "good" or "so great" I guess? That's a natural question that comes to mind IMO? Where did it go? Where were the sales ramping up? Never have seen any sales or revenue mentioned from it in a 10-K or 10-Q that I can remember? I might have missed it- is there a 10-K or 10-Q that mentions sales and revenue from this TGI 1200 that is said to have been selling and "being marketed" in many places?
That is super "curious" and interesting IMHO? Where did it go? What happened to that? Why did it not sell apparently? Why didn't it generate any revenue to move forward all the "several promising trials" that is quoted in that same blog "article"? That link IMO, raises more questions than gives any answers IMO? Not seeing it, or any connection to anything going on today- especially as to how it would explain going back to a phase I in Mexico, when you have/had at least a phase II/III and now a phase III as stated as "enrolling" - when you are extremely low on cash, have very few employees or resources, etc. Not seeing the connection- but hey, that's just me?
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recognizes "death spiral" (i.e. convertible share based financing) as a 100% legitimate and industry wide used term.
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm (see bottom of page titled "Convertible Securities")
"By contrast, in less conventional convertible security financings, the conversion ratio may be based on fluctuating market prices to determine the number of shares of common stock to be issued on conversion. " (SEC speaking)
"Because a market price based conversion formula can lead to DRAMATIC stock price reductions and corresponding negative effects on both the company and its shareholders, convertible security financings with market price based conversion ratios have colloquially been called "floorless", "toxic," "DEATH SPIRAL," and "ratchet" convertibles." End quote, United States SEC.
That is the SEC speaking, using their words: "toxic", "death spiral", "ratchet", "convertibles", etc.
They state (the SEC):
"Because the market price based conversion formula.." (SEC speaking)
- SEE BHRT, latest 10-K, PAGE F-41:
"The Note is 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. "
(THAT is the conversion, market price based ratio formula, i.e. what the SEC describes as a "convertible" with "toxic" properties and is "floorless" as it does not matter what the price is (occurs 10 days prior trading period, and is the avg of LOWEST 3 days of price), or how low it goes, nor does it have any other limits/stipulations on it, IMO. The lower the share price goes, the more shares Asher gets upon conversion- thus they are motivated to get the share price as low as possible, IMO and that of experts (the SEC) who write about this type of financing deals)
Lets see? Who to trust, who is credible, who knows what they're talking about IMHO? United States SEC? Or? LOL !
"spun in so many different, and at times even in opposing ways,"?? Really?
Would like to see proof and examples of how the company's own words, as cut n pasted from their own 10-K have been "spun"? Will be anxiously awaiting to see these "spun", direct cut n paste, word for word copies of the company's own 10-K.
This will be fascinating to see how copying a document's own words, verbatim, turns into being "spun". Thanks in advance. Looking forward to it. Should be very interesting IMO.
And the share price was about 1/4 of what it is today. (market cap closer to 4 million if memory serves) and as stated, lets see where the price goes- give it time, if the past pattern of 2/2.5 yrs is any indicator. It's already down almost 50% from the .08 peak of March 6th, and went as low as .035. Give it time, IMO. If the share count was just what it was 3 months ago per 10-Q Sept 30th, that .035 per share, only about 3 weeks ago, gave a market cap of 347 million shares X .035 = $12 million. It's bounced around between $4 million and $10 million or so for the past yr. Big whoop IMO. That's a nano-nano cap.
If the price were to return to the multi-year historic norm- that market cap is going right back to about where it was. 420 million X .01 = $4.2 mil or at 2 cents = $8.4 mil, big deal IMO. $5 or $6 mil or so average again. It is only increased right now via a) Massive share dilution and b) A price spike, which IMO is based largely on no underpinnings such as sales, an approved product, any significant financing, etc. It's not new in the slightest to see this "pumped"- in fact this time of yr is typical for the "pump" IMO looking at a historic chart (as same price spikes of past 2 plus yrs- which went right back down over a month/two month period to settle back at 1 to 2 penny range)
BHRT's market cap, less than about 2 months ago, was 1/4 or so of what it is today. Lets see how long it lasts. Further, when you "grow" your market cap, simply via endlessly diluting shares out onto the market, like water IMO, it really doesn't mean much. Each share is now diluted, worth a fraction of what it once was, and the price per share is the reflection of that. Pennies versus dollars for a market cap that has grown very little. As opposed to say Apple for instance or MSFT, who's market cap has grown by 100's if not a 1000X or more from their IPO dates, due to organic and tremendous sales and profit growth- not issuing shares, near worthless shares in this case.
Market caps of successful companies are based generally on multiples of sales and profitability and also underlying cash/assets on hand, etc. Not via simply issuing shares into near infinity. The concept that BHRT had a very poor (IMHO) market cap at IPO time, because the IPO was a "bust" by all commonly accepted market norms (again my opinion) and to now say it has "increased", not by share price increase, but simple via the near endless issuing of shares- well, IMO, it doesn't mean much.
If it gets someone excited or trips their trigger- then more power to um. Good luck.
Price per share- when looking at/comparing two stocks is 100% meaningless. It' market cap that matters.
ACTC: 7 pennies a share, has a market cap of $176 Million dollars.
BHRT: 4.6 pennies, has a market cap of about $19.6 Million dollars.
Meaning, the market is valuing ACTC as being about 176/19.6 = 9X (nine times) more valuable than BHRT as of today's close. Note too- ACTC has at least a "little" net cash to it's debt it appears, maybe a little over a $million or so. It's not much, but BHRT essentially has no cash at any given moment right now against a large debt.
A typical example would be Apple, versus say Exxon Mobile- two of the biggest market cap, most valuable companies in the world. Apple hasn't done a share split in a long time so it trades at a high price per share.
Apple: $531 per share, total market cap = $474 Billion
Exxon Mobile: $97 per share, total market cap = $420 Billion
The two companies are being valued at nearly the exact same amount by the market. Apples stock is over 5X the price of Exxon Mobile. But the value of the companies is nearly the same. And that's despite Apple sitting on about a net $30 Billion in cash, to Exxon's "net" cash being negative, as in they have about $18 billion in debt. People don't worry about Exxon carrying a net "debt" as they own so many assets, oil/gas reserves in the ground and generate so much cash flow- they can easily pay off their debt if needed. Apple needs a lot of cash, as technology is more fickle and if they have a "dud" product, or their growth and market share slips, they may use/need cash for a long time, until they create another big hit, or use the cash for acquisitions to grow, buy into new technology or whatever. Exxon Mobile also pays the better dividend- meaning they return more of their quarterly generated cash/profits back to the shareholders, and have done so for many, many yrs, and steadily increase their dividend over time - also adding to their tremendous value as seen by the market.
Or for example:
Google: $543 per share, market cap $365 Billion
Microsoft: $39 per share, market cap $330 Billion
"The market" is valuing Google and MSFT about the same, despite Google's share price being 543/39 = about 14X that of MSFT
That's the way it works. Price per share, is near meaningless in comparing two stocks. It's market cap, cash on hand, profitability and profit margin, dividend paid or not, dividend ever increasing growth/increase in payout or not, growth- both top and bottom line (top is sales, bottom is profits/earnings per share), assets, return on investment, strength and track record of mgt, etc. (that would be the Warren Buffet valuation, 30 second company analysis in a nut shell for the most part)
Look at that spread- wow. The broker/dealer still trying to milk it, IMO.
Down 8% or so on just a little up-tick in sell volume, then back to +2% on a tiny buy. For all you know that buy is them, the broker/dealer. Not unusual in penny-ville. Now they can fill more sell orders on that big "up", 10% or more spread the way I see it, IMO.
Volume is dropping off sharply though. It was only 200K or so shares at over 2 hours into the trading day. That's a big fall-off from a week ago. Probably petering out here, IMO. Any sell of any size, now takes it down big- like a few minutes ago IMO. That sell was $2000 or so total it looked like, and it took it down 7% or more real quick. Anyone wanting to sell, is going to see the price ratched down real quick IMO again. Just the way these penny broker/dealers do what they do. Brutal to have a 10% or so spread, when the volume is still higher than normal. Normally, when volume moves up, the spread should get tighter and tighter, not the opposite, as there should be in theory, more liquidity. But hasn't happened here as far as when I've watched the trades.
Interesting IMO. That wide spread is "someone" working this thing IMO. Who? Have no clue. "Asher"? Who knows?
"They signed with Cassel and Septer and are working to get funding."
And they've "signed" or "announced agreements" or whatever with lots of people over the past 4 or so year "working to get funding"? Want the links to all the PR's and other announcements, "term sheet agreements" and similar?
Cassel whoever does a lot of other things besides "get funding" according to their own web site? Is there any specific info that a "bridge loan" is in process or other info that "funding" is imminent as has been claimed here, multiple, multiple times now? If not, it's all just conjecture and pure speculation IMHO. That's all- just putting out conjecture when no one knows anything concrete IMO.
"They're waiting on funding that's why"?
They've been "waiting on funding" for at least several yrs, if not more? Want link to all the PR and other statements, going back yr of "funding" that was "about to materialize" or that they were "waiting on"? I can post a lot of links if it will help?
Or can post all the 10-Q/10-K statements going back several yrs, saying (paraphrase), "we need substantial more funding and are attempting to get it" and/or the "going concern" portion of each SEC 10-Q or 10-K saying that funding is critical and that they are in risk of default or ceasing operations of meeting even day to day "funding" needs? I can cut and paste or post links to those if needed- since those facts seem to be "missed", IMO?
What is new about "waiting on funding"? What implication(s) is there that anything is different at this moment in time? Don't get the point, IMO? There seems to be some attempt to imply that some imminent, "large" funding is lurking out there "this time" -but IMO and as far as I can tell, it's nothing more than made-up statements by people who can't or couldn't possibly know if that's true or not? Unless they had/have insider trading information? There was nothing in the 10-K or anywhere else IMO that indicates some "imminent" big "funding" is out there? I'd argue the opposite, they, BHRT posted a quite, "dire" warning again in this 10-K, that their cash position was not even sufficient to "meet IMMEDIATE" needs, and that "substantial" funding would need to be obtained, or XYZ will happen. They then did "Asher" deals, typical of Asher deals they done many, many times before- and they did um right up until late Feb 2014, and for a grand total of $100K bucks. A $100K doesn't even last BHRT a month at their stated cash use rates (see latest 10-K)?
Latest 10-K, PAGE 25: (WHY is this statement in the document?)
"Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our immediate operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
· curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
· reduce our headcount;
· default on our debt obligations;
· file for bankruptcy;
· seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
· cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
"unregistered securities and short term loans" = a "bridge loan"?
a) Unregistered securities are just that- common stock that has already been sold for cash, adding to dilution.
b) Only short term "loans" I am familiar with, per the 10-K, are "convertible share deals" that carry a "note" attached to them. Again, typically resulting in more common shares being dumped, more dilution and have been used for at least a yr or more by BHRT for a continuous stream of month to month, maybe a few months of cash at a time.
c) A bride loan is just that, a "loan". What indication is there that BHRT is getting or going to get a "bridge loan"? Where? Bridge loan always, as far as I've ever seen, like all loans require collateral- real estate, plant and equipment, inventory- something tangible to secure the loan for the bank/lender. I am not aware of BHRT having any real "assets" IMO? How would they get a "bridge loan" - which is a very specific finance term and a very specific type of loan, only used typically in very specific situations?
Just tossing the word/term "bridge loan" out there, doesn't mean it's even remotely likely to happen or that there's any data to support that one is impending, IMHO. Where is this "bridge loan" and from who and backed by what collateral, etc? Where? Was it discussed in the 10-K or any recent company public documents?
"Once approval occurs"?? Oh, FDA "approval" is just a few tiny steps, maybe a few pieces of paper, a few dollars away? HUH?
Baxter has a registered, phase III trial of heart-stem-cell treatment, it's posted right now on clinicaltrials.gov. The phase III began in 2012. It is not expected to even have "final data" until 2016. Two more yrs away for a total of 4 yrs for the trial. And that is not even "submitting" to the FDA, let alone how long a review can take- easily 10 months a yr or more, let alone do they ever approve it?
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01508910?term=baxter+stem&rank=9
Enrollment: 291
Study Start Date: April 2012
Estimated Study Completion Date: June 2016
Estimated Primary Completion Date: June 2016 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
What does BHRT have that is even remotely close to FDA "approval occurring", when they are functioning on cash that lasts a month or two each time and spent a total of about $600K R%D last yr (per the last 10-K) - which would be the "trial" funding money from what the 10-K indicates, IMO? $600K is noise level money IMO when it comes to conducting a phase II or III trial? Companies routinely spend $10's of million at the phase III level, often in the $100 million or more range.
Just tossing it out there that "when approved" or as soon as "it's approved" doesn't mean anything is going to "Get approved" by a long shot, IMHO. There has to be reality and some cold, hard facts to back up major claims like that. MIRROR barely got a passing mention in recent SEC docs and the big blog update? Why?
Or, one could just pull up a two, 2.5 yr chart and see how many times the exact same thing (spike/plunge/rise/slow return to 2 cent range) has happened, multiple times?
Maybe that would be worth a look? This is nothing "new" IMO or the indicator of the "verge of something big"? They just did qty-3 Asher convertible share deals as recent as Feb. 2014, for a grand total of $100K cash because it's "about to go big"? At their burn rate- the cash listed in that 10-K is almost gone in a few more weeks - unless there is already more shares being sold or some other form of "financing" already producing more cash?
Or, one can just read the 10-K statement- you know, that "boiler plate" ole "stuff" they just toss in for no reason I guess:
10-K, PAGE 25:
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our IMMEDIATE operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
· curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
· reduce our headcount;
· default on our debt obligations;
· file for bankruptcy;
· seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
· cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
$211K cash is about one month's worth of survival from their cash use spending/expense pages of same 10-K: so from March 14th, to today- it says that cash money ($200K or so) is about gone IMO, unless more has "materialized" as in more share sale deals or some other means- maybe warrants being exercised? Who knows? Doesn't seem like a statement you put in your SEC doc when you're "flush" or about to "go big", not IMHO? But, who knows, eh?
"420m o/s and float has churned nicely. " Huh? When? Where? It traded 1.5 million shares today and maybe 3-4 million a day max, for the past 20 or so of trading days. The peak of the bubble day, the 6th, at .08 was what, 11 million shares traded I think? It then tanked to as low as .035 the next day I believe.
The float and o/s shares being "churned" or "turned over" hasn't even come close- not by a mile. Maybe 100 million shares "turned or churned" over 25 days or so since bubble day. The float of 350 million shares hasn't even come close to being turned even one time. It's now trading off .0486/.08 = .60 = 100-60 = 40% down from peak bubble day. Off 40% of the high for bag holders from pump peak day.
Further, the spread is opened Grand Canyon wide for days IMO- which says the actual demand is to the low side, and it's more broker/dealer manipulation causing the 10%-12% "up" illusion spikes like today- and why it closes flat when they are done at end of day IMO.
Simpleton math versus hype statements. No more complicated than that IMO.
Previous PR said Angel patients were treated/injected with "Lipicell". Read it right in the text of this PR:
http://stemcellceo.com/wp/bioheart/404/
" Most recently we concluded enrollment and treatment of the patients in the Phase I Angel trial for LipiCell™. Patients with chronic heart ischemia received transplantation of LipiCell™ through endocardia implantations with an injection catheter." (CEO speaking)
So it is said they were treated with a product specifically named "Lipicell".
Now you read this SEC document: 10-Q, PAGE 29, Sept 30, 2013 and it seems confusing, as it indicated that "Adipocell" is a "different" product "licensed" from a different source?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544313002166/d30730.htm
PAGE 29:
"AdipoCell
Bioheart has successfully completed various trials using adipose stem cells. In August 2013, the Company canceled its license agreement with the Ageless Regenerative Institute for adipose derived stem cells called LipiCell. Bioheart has entered into a term sheet agreement with Invitrx to License their adipose derived stem cell products. Bioheart has changed its adipose derived stem cell product name to AdipoCell. "
Just confusing IMHO? If you treated people with a product from Ageless, as in a very specific product/process called "Lipocell" and then you "licensed" something apparently "different" from Invitrix and named it "Adipocell"- then how did the people treated with Lipocell per the CEO PR above, now get labeled as having received "Adipocell"- something "licensed" from a different source?
Unless the two products/processes are IDENTICAL to the tee- I don't see how you can interchange them freely in PR, having said the group originally received "Lipicell" (that's what CEO says above), but now the PR says they received something called "Adipocell"?
Again, just very confusing to me IMO only. That's just me. It seems like two different products- since it involves licensing from "Invitrex"- so I don't know how "on the fly" you can just change a name- but say the "treatment" they received was now for "Adipocell" - when it's clear in former communications, that it's stated with 100% clarity IMHO, that they were actually injected with "Lipicell"? Oh well, maybe I'm not smart enough to follow it- or understand all the changes and changes to PR as they go along? Who knows?
Uh, but if Ageless "owns" the underlying tech and intellectual rights (as in being asserted somewhere in Broward county) - then an ole name change/trademark does not suddenly just "make it yours" I would think, IMHO? I think it goes way deeper than a "trademark"- it's a process and a specific technique/trade secret process from some things I have read about Ageless- but could be totally wrong? Just my 2 cents. Who knows?
But again, that's just me and my opinion. Seems some just easily "explain away" every change, every PR that was later "altered", etc. No problem IMO.
Again, no biggy. Just me reading what was put out as original PR in a lot of places/outlets and I'm not aware of any "updates" - but I could have missed them easily I guess. Oh well. When it says U. Miami and "experts" and all, and that PR is on dozens of sites in a simple google search- just seems, well, "odd" to me when it ends up in Mexico later, with no real "updates" that I saw. But I could have missed them, as stated. No big deal IMO. It is what it is I guess. Mexico it is, and Adipocell it is- just "toss" those original ole PR's I guess. Not a big deal.
"Adipocell"? Oh right, that's "Lipicell" that was "suddenly" renamed after the initial PR releases about the trial? Got it- remember now.
Oh, and it was going to be at the University of Miami, forgot about that too. Just remembering old news, that's all. Probably doesn't mean anything, IMO of course.
Wonder why that was "re-named" though from Libicell? What else has been mentioned that might involve this technology/process and intellectual property rights, around that time? Oh well, just remembering some things, that's all. Probably means nothing, IMO.
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/02/28/469246/247371/en/Bioheart-Announces-University-of-Miami-as-Clinical-Site-for-ANGEL-Trial-of-LipiCell-TM.html?print=1
""Dr. Joshua Hare and the University of Miami are world leaders in the field of stem cell research," said Mike Tomas, President and CEO of Bioheart. "We look forward to working with these acclaimed experts and bringing the LipiCell™ technology to patients in the U.S."
"Joshua Hare, MD, Director of the Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine is the principle investigator of the clinical program. "
Guess those "acclaimed experts" just didn't work out- don't think we ever heard about that again, or got a "PR" or 10-Q or other "updates", did we? Clinicaltrials.gov is good at updating- but I guess they don't need to be on there and all? Oh well? Who knows, IMO?
Seems pretty clear there, it was U. Of Miami, and not Mexico? Oh well, guess they just change things as they go along? Not a big deal of course, IMO. They call it Lipocell there, too? Oh well? Who knows, eh?
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2011/12/06/462783/239653/en/Bioheart-Files-With-the-FDA-to-Begin-the-ANGEL-Trial.html
See in that PR- it's "Lipicell" too? Oh well, "stuff" changes I'm sure, no biggy IMO. Maybe I'm just confusing all these "PR'S" that said the trial "Angel" was using "Lipicell" and was going to use "experts" at the University of Miami and all? Oh well, that's just me- maybe I just get confused easily from all these different PR's and then not hearing "updates" - maybe I missed um all, who knows?
Dated 3/4/14? "Breaking news"? It's April 4th tomorrow. Any updates on MIRROR, rather than the 5 person, phase I, Mexico "Angel" trial?
Why start over, waste money/resources of which you have very little (5 employees, maybe a a few $hundred thous cash at any given time, total R&D last yr of about $600K which is what, about $50K a month per last 10-K) on going back to phase I, when you have a phase III called Mirror and a phase II/III called Marvel, Marvel now being about 4 plus yrs old and gone nowhere? All for essentially the same product line, key product? Doesn't make sense IMO?
It's a long, long ways from a phase I, to get to a phase III and beyond. Baxter is doing a phase III, stem-cell-heart related trial right now, listed on clinicaltrials.gov, and it began in 2012 and shows an "expected" end date, just for final data of 2016. That's 4 yrs in my book. That's just the phase III portion. There was probably 1 to 2 yrs more for the initial phase I ,then phase II to get to that phase III. So that's about 6 or 7 yrs total.
Why post old news about Angel? It's been posted many times before already? Curious/interesting IMO?
That's as solid a theory, and based on good under-pinning facts/reality that I've heard so far.
Good analysis. And yes, I too, would be/am weary when "they" the Asher's of this world- will turn and go the other direction via the convertible shares.
Remember- the pros, especially the "Ashers" of this world, they make money going both directions. They don't care if it's going up or going down (truth IMO, they don't even care what/who the company makes, does, whatever- to them it's just numbers in a spreadsheet,a highly complex computer algorithm to determine a max return for a certain amount of cash money loaned and they are big on "time value" and "total return"- as in big returns, and turn-over their cash as fast and as many times as possible - to free it up and re-lend it ASAP, wash, rinse, repeat) they have the capital and the "tool-box" and, in this case the convertible shares and/or warrants to benefit going either direction, and benefit big-time.
I think the "warrant theory" is a solid one. And then, my opinion, they turn and go short at some point- whenever they deem to be "the right time" to manage their play for max profits. They're brutal (the Asher type folks), that much is well known, well established IMO as pretty much "industry Gospel".
Partnership from Angel?? Why? Where? What proof?
Why would Angel, a 5 person, phase I generate a "partner", when BHRT has a phase III called "MIRROR" sitting out there (as well as Marvel - for what, 4 plus yrs now) that has generated no "partner" to date? Why?
Details of why a 5 person, phase I generates a "partner" when phase II/III's do not would be fascinating IMHO? Really love to hear how that works?
Getting from a phase I, such as Angel, means typically about another 3 to 5 yrs and about $10's of millions, to perhaps as much as $100 million or more, from even being close to having a chance to submit to the FDA for approval IMHO? Those are typical industry numbers I believe- can cite references, typical cases if needed.
For example- Baxter, who has literally $100 of millions, if not a $Billion or more in cash at their disposal, has a phase III "stem cell" and "heart" related trial, registered and in progress right now, on clinicaltrials.gov.
They are in phase III, 41 U.S. based "sites" (hit tab on .gov web site and you can see location of all 41 study/trial sites) and yet they list on the .gov site they don't even expect "results", let alone an actual "submission", until 2016- two more yrs away. So, what is a 5 person trial from Mexico supposed to do, and when and how? Why does someone want to "partner" based on that? Why? Just interesting to me, IMO?
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01508910?term=baxter+stem&rank=9
Enrollment: 291
Study Start Date: April 2012
Estimated Study Completion Date: June 2016
Estimated Primary Completion Date: June 2016 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
That's BAXTER w/ 60,000 or so employees- see the dates. 2012 to 2016, 4 years they are expecting for their Phase III, to even get "final data", let alone does it even work, turn out good, get submitted to the FDA, let alone does the FDA ever even approve it. That is reality-ville of FDA trials IMO. As reality as it gets IMO. Those are "typical" industry numbers from what I have seen and read.
They have the spread opened up HUGE on this- the broker/dealers are still milking it. Your just seeing the spread huge- even above the bid if they can get it to fill, what are pretty small orders or chunks of order IMO.
It looks to be minimum 7 or 8%, to as high as 12% spread to buy say, $500 to say $1000 puny bucks worth of stock. That's highway robbery in my opinion. Cause if you were to turn around and try and put that same $1000 of stock you just bought 30 minutes ago up for sale, you'd be at a 10% or so loss, minimum looking at the spread. That's penny-ville IMO. Listed stocks trade, typically with a spread of a fraction of a penny, which is a fraction of a percent typically. You'd typically pay a 1/16 or 1/8 cent max spread on say a $50 dollar stock on NYSE or NASDAQ. Example, Apple is over $500 a share right now. The bid is $539.89 and the ask is 540.00. $539.89/540 = .99979. Not even, barely a fraction of a percent spread.
Freddie Mac, ONLY one of the largest lenders on planet earth- a "quasi-govt" private/public hybrid with essentially an unlimited supply of money/cash/bail-outs behind it.
Yeah, great analogy to BHRT being a 5 cent stock. Sure. Who cares what Freddie Mac trades at. What is IBM trading at? What is Baxter trading at? What is Walmart trading at? Who cares?
BHRT is nearly out of cash and trades at about 5 cents as of today. That's just a fact IMO. What anything else has to do with that, who knows?
Why did BHRT do qty-3 share-sale/dump deals by Feb 19th with Asher in 2014 already for a grand total of $100K dollars (10-K, page F-41) and how does that relate to the price of Freddie Mac?
Here we go LOL. I knew that was coming LOL.
Oh, lets see: Monster Bev Corp had oh, a measly $2.25 BILLION in sales generating net income of over $300 MILLION. They have operating cash flow of $300 million plus. Oh, and cold, hard cash of over $600 MILLION dollars and ZERO debt and they employ over 1000 people. They trade at about $70 bucks a share, as opposed to say 1 to 6 pennies a share. Yeah, "funny"?
Monster is a cash printing machine. They generate more cash in one week, than BHRT had raised in the entire past yr, via selling over 100 million shares of dilutive stock. That's what's "funny", IMO. Real "funny".
"imagine a product"- yep, that's all it is, "imagining" IMO. As of right now, there is no "product", very little to no sales, and very little cash on any given day of the week against a lot of debt, and 4 or 5 employees and no real assets, that's reality IMHO.
What percent out of the universe of 1000's of penny stocks? I'd estimate it can easily be proven that less than 1 or 2 percent, certainly less than 5 or 10% at most, ever go from pennies to a $1 or more a share.
By contrast, I believe there is a lot of industry/SEC, stock research firms and similar data that would say the bankruptcy rate for any stock under $1 is very high, under .50 cents is extremely high and at true "pennies" as in 1 to 5 pennies say, is astronomically high- as in 90% or better probably, IMO.
Nine out of how many? At one time, there was probably more than 5000 over the counter OTCBB and "pink" sheet "over the counter traded" companies. Most ending up there because of being on the verge of bankruptcy, out of cash, no assets, unable to meet the minimum status to remain "listed" as set forth by either major exchange, many just empty shell companies with no business at all, etc.
So, to site 9 companies- what does that really mean? Lets be generous and say that the total OTCBB has declined (tighter regs, crack downs on old ways, IPO/public company decline in general) and lets say there was/is about 2000 companies at the time of the 9 cited.
That would mean that those 9 represent about 9/2000 = .0045 or about 4/10th's of one percent of the "penny world" of penny stocks. Hardly a significant data point IMO.
Further, I believe if you read that- all but one of those 9 were major players at one point who then fell on hard times- usually due to bad mgt, major poor biz decisions, etc. In other words- most, if not all of those 9 has sales well in the $100's of millions if not more at one point, were highly profitable, had significant assets like plant, property, inventory, equipment, etc.
None (perhaps one cited) came from little or no cash, and essentially no assets and a price of pennies and then became large. It was the opposite. They were large, had a lot of sales, were once profitable, had a lot of infrastructure, filed for BK or closely approached BK, then re-emerged, rebuilt their businesses and then re-emerged successful once again. 4/10ths of one percent of the "poo" of penny companies.
Statistically, just well documented by the SEC and many others- any stock that gets to true "pennies", as in 50 cents or under say, or lower- is highly likely to end in BK or total dissolving of the business. Just reality and well studied/documented. Companies end up "un-listed" and on the OTCBB or pinks for a reason. And it's not cause things are going well or that they are financially healthy. Just the reality of it.
So, not sure what the relevance of citing 9 "unusual", what most would be considered extreme "outlier" data-points, or examples is, IMHO? Don't see any connection to BHRT's situation whatsoever IMO? None.
For example- kinda left out 4.3: (further, these sections being cited, are "recommendations" and are "non-binding") they're part of a much, much bigger set of rules/regulations the FDA relies on, IMO and as far as I'm aware of. 3.1, 4.3, etc are just one, of many "recommendation" of process/procedure.
Also, If I'm not mistaken, it's the "CFR" (Code of Federal Regulations) sections that are the actual "law" as codified, passed by congress, etc. The area you cited is equivalent to FDA internal "guidelines" as far as I am aware and reference back to the relevant "CFR" actual law/regulations which are book-thick as far as I am aware. My opinion. Example:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=860.7
That's the actual "law" portion- and it's long, complicated and goes into sub, sub, sub categories, etc
4.3 Additional Factors in the Assessment of the Probable Benefits and
Risks of Devices
Uncertainty – there is never 100% certainty when determining reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of a device. However, the degree of certainty of the benefits and
risks of a device is a factor we consider when making benefit-risk determinations.
Factors such as poor design or poor conduct of clinical trials, or inadequate analysis of
data, can render the outcomes of the study unreliable. Additionally, for certain device
types, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a real effect and a placebo effect in
the absence of a trial design that is capable of blinding investigators and subjects.
Furthermore, the repeatability of the study results, the validation of the analytical
approach, and the results of other similar studies and whether the study is the first of its
kind or a standalone investigation can all influence the level of certainty. In addition, the
generalizability of the trial results to the intended treatment and user population is
important. For example, if the device requires in-depth user training or specialization, the
results of the clinical study may not be generalizable to a wider physician population.
Likewise, if the device is intended to diagnose a disease in a subpopulation, it may not be
useful in the general population. In general, it is important to consider the degree to
which a clinical trial population is representative of the intended marketing or target
population.
Characterization of the disease – the treated or diagnosed condition, its clinical
manifestation, how it affects the patients who have it, how and whether a diagnosed
condition is treated, and the condition’s natural history and progression (i.e., does it get
progressively better or worse for the patient and at what expected rate) are all important
factors that FDA considers when characterizing disease and determining benefits and
risks.
Patient tolerance for risk and perspective on benefit – if the risks are identifiable and
definable, risk tolerance will vary among patients, and this will affect individual patient
decisions as to whether the risks are acceptable15
in exchange for a probable benefit.
When making a benefit-risk determination at the time of approval or de novo
classification, FDA recognizes that patient tolerance for risk and a patient-centric
assessment of risk may reveal reasonable patients who are willing to tolerate a very high
level of risk to achieve a probable benefit, especially if that benefit results in an
improvement in quality of life. How data concerning patient risk tolerance and other
patient-centered metrics are developed will vary depending on a number of factors,
including the nature of the disease or condition and the availability of existing treatments,
as well as the risks and benefits they present. FDA encourages any sponsor that is
15
21 CFR 860.7(d)(1) states that “The valid scientific evidence used to determine the safety of a device
shall adequately demonstrate the absence of unreasonable risk of illness or injury associated with the use of
the device for its intended uses and conditions of use.”
"AMONG OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS" - sorta missed that little ole "tid bit" of KEY language? Sorta. Further, that is a citation of ONLY 3.1. There's about another 500 pages of "review process/standards" missing there?
For example- something as simple as "the magnitude of the so called "benefit" is a determining criteria. In other words, a "small" benefit may be deemed not worth it by FDA: FDA-
"The magnitude of the benefit(s) – we often assess benefit along a scale or according to specific endpoints or criteria (types of benefits), or by evaluating whether a pre-identified health threshold was achieved. The change in subjects’ condition or clinical management as measured on that scale, or as determined by
an improvement or worsening of the endpoint, is what allows us to determine the magnitude of the benefit in subjects. Variation in the magnitude of the benefit across a population may also be considered. "
A "refection" can come down to something as simple as the FDA saying, "the benefit is small to almost nothing at all, therefor there is no purpose to approve this "new" drug/procedure/device"- seen it happen many, many times.
Other examples:
:In addition to section 513(a), the criteria for establishing safety and effectiveness of a device are set forth
in 21 CFR 860.7. Subsection (b)(1) notes, “In determining the safety and effectiveness of a device … the
Commissioner and the classification panels will consider the following, among other relevant factors …The
probable benefit to health from the use of the device weighed against any probable injury or illness from
such use.” (21 CFR 860.7(b)).
To make this determination, “the agency relies upon only valid scientific evidence.” (21 CFR 860.7(c)(1)).
Valid scientific evidence is defined as “evidence from well-controlled investigations, partially controlled
studies, studies and objective trials without matched controls, well-documented case histories conducted by
qualified experts, and reports of significant human experience with a marketed device, from which it can
fairly and responsibly be concluded by qualified experts that there is reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of a device under its conditions of use.” (21 CFR 860.7(c)(2)).
A reasonable assurance of safety occurs when “it can be determined, based upon valid scientific evidence,
that the probable benefits … outweigh any probable risks,” and can be demonstrated by establishing “the
absence of unreasonable risk of illness or injury associated with the use of the device for its intended uses
and conditions of use.” (21 CFR 860.7(d)(1)).
Similarly, a reasonable assurance of effectiveness occurs when “it can be determined, based upon valid
scientific evidence … the use of the device for its intended uses … will provide clinically significant
results.” (21 CFR 860.7(e)(1)). The evidence of which is demonstrated principally through “well-controlled
investigations” (see 21 CFR 860.7(e)(2)), as defined in 21 CFR 860.7(f).
2
Section 513(a)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act."
And that's just a small, smattering of how complex that section is and how many pages and sub-references and other "statutes" and other areas of FDA regulation are involved.
"Silicon Valley is overcrowded. Venture capitalists are looking outside of the comfort zone"???
Sources, links, articles by industry people, venture capital firms- all appreciated. Again, thanks in advance. Was not aware of this "fact" and find it fascinating IMO? Interesting that nearly ever major VC firm, the who's who list of venture capital keeps an office, their main office in Silicon Valley - despite this "overcrowding"? Also, fascinating that every multy billion company of the past 10 yrs that I am aware of on a major U.S. exchange- still had major ties in one way or another to major players in "The valley" - Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram- go back a bit further and it's youtube, skype (who became a VC who's owner is now a VC investor in several more huge successes), paypal, etc
Guess they never got the memo about that "overcrowding" problem that's apparently going on?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/05/08/the-top-ten-in-venture-capital-today-midas/
Really never knew these amazing "facts"? Again, would love to read lots of articles, industry insider news via published writers, actual venture capitalists making these comments regarding it being "overcrowded" - would love to read all of them, if they exist of course?
"That's the determining factor. "??
Would like to see a citation/quote from an FDA or other Euro regulatory handbook, operations manual or similar that emphatically, and clearly states that the main/primary criteria and only criteria for reviewing and then approving a new drug, med device or similar is, "Do the benefits out way the risks, PERIOD".
Didn't know that's why they take minimum 6 months, to often several yrs to approve a new drug/med device cause all they are looking for, searching for is "Do the benefits out way the risk, PERIOD"? (it's outweigh by the "way"). But never knew that? That's fascinating new info IMHO. Is this a new, published policy of the FDA or similar?
Links, copies of handbook, public statements by govt. bodies as to this clear and specific policy, etc all appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I'm assuming you don't know any of the implications of that, EITHER. (EXACT wording of original post regarding "assuming")
According to the FDA and the Hippocratic Oath among other sources, I don't believe DEATH of the patient or serious complications worse than the state of the patient prior to being given "said treatment" is considered "treating" anything, IMHO. Further, there is only "research" going on, in this field as of this date, I am not aware of any approved "treatments" in existence? A "treatment" is generally an FDA or similar regulatory body, peer reviewed and widely accepted method/drug/device within the medical community. I don't know of anything in "cardiac stem cells" that meets that criteria yet?
According to the U.S. FDA, there is only one, FDA "stem cell" approved "anything" in existence to date. In fact, the FDA made a point to create a "warning" to this effect for consumers:
http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm286155.htm
"FDA has approved only one stem cell product, Hemacord, a cord blood-derived product manufactured by the New York Blood Center and used for specified indications in patients with disorders affecting the body’s blood-forming system."
"To draw celebrities ranging from Pitbull to Howard Stern, this event will be a lot bigger than typical showcase type events. "??
Huh? PROOF? Facts? Data? A "rapper" is hardly the pinnacle of a "tech investment" um "event" IMO? I don't think there's ever been a credible Silicon Valley, MAJOR venture capital "event" where anyone cared if a "rapper" was in attendance or not?
Further, all the headline says is Stern was/is "invited" - not that he's attending or not and it says he's there "to party" with said rapper. Talk about grasping at meaningless straws, IMO. What does Stern have to do with anything in high technology?
Claim it will be "a LOT bigger than typical showcase events" -as opposed to say something put on by a credible firm like UBS, Cowen, Morgan Stanley or JP or Citi or various tech/VC incubators out of silicon valley- where most, serious tech "investment" money comes from- not some place in Florida, of all states?
Thee "big" one, JP Morgan Healthcare Conference. This convention is held in San Francisco’s Union Square every January. This is the granddaddy of all biotech industry conferences, having been around for more than 30 years. All the top executives in biotech and Big Pharma are there, along with the major venture capitalists, fund managers, Wall Street analysts, and media.
"Bio" in San Diego (which has a huge, bio-tech incubator campus) is also one of the top- for example, Sir Richard Branson, a billionaire who loves investing in tech, will be there this yr, not some "rapper"
http://convention.bio.org/?gclid=CPTDx678wb0CFVKIfgodhW8AgA
Biopharm America, Boston is another biggie- every major player is there typically. Boston of course, for anyone in the know, is also a huge tech corridor area. Again, don't think they put "rappers" on their billing ever or care if Howard Stern is mentioned?
http://www.ebdgroup.com/bpa/index.php
Top names in Silicon Valley- as in the who's who of venture money would be names like Kleiner Perkins Caulfied & Byers, Sand Hill Ventures (entire books written about the fame of "Sand Hill Rd" and the companies launched from that area) and the following- perhaps the most famous names in all of VC money investing and no, not familiar with any "rappers" ever associating with them:
Accel Partners - Investors in Real Networks, UUNet, Foundry, and WalMart.com.
Andreessen Horowitz - Investors in Airbnb, Instagram and Twitter.
Benchmark Capital - Investors in eBay, AOL, Pointcast, Geoworks.
Bessemer Venture Partners - Investors in EToys, Verisign, Verio, PSINet, Flycast.
DAG Ventures - Investors in BitTorrent, Chegg, Funny or Die
Draper Fisher Jurvetson - Investors in Hotmail, I-Cube and Upside.
Canaan Partners - Investors in DoubleClick, Computron, EStamp.
CMEA Ventures - Specializes in high-technology and life sciences.
Foundation Capital -- Investors in Netflix, SimplyHired, Atheros Communications.
Greylock Partners -- Investors in Facebook, LinkedIn, Oodle and Claria.
Khosla Ventures - Led by Vinod Khosla, Sun Microsystems co-founder
Hummer Winblad - Investors in BizTravel.com, TheKnot, NetGravity.
(Vinod is a LEGEND in Venture Capitol - appears in Forbes regularly for example)
Institutional Venture Partners - Investors in Excite, Seagate, Cirrus Logic.
Interwest Partners - Investors in Cyrix, Silicon Graphics, Stratacom.
Khosla Ventures - Founded by well-known investor Vinod Khosla.
(Again, Vinod is LEGEND for his stream of VC successes)
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers - Investors in Google, Sun, Intuit and AOL. (Kleiner alread mentioned above- LEGEND IN VC WORLD)
LightSpeed Ventures - Formerly Weiss, Peck and Greer Venture Partners. Investors in Brocade Communications, Blue Nile, Adaptec, Doublelick.
Mayfield Fund - Investors in Amgen, LSI Logic, Broadvision and Silicon Graphics.
Meritech Capital Partners - Late-stage Venture Capital.
Mobius Venture Capital - Formerly known as Softbank Venture Capital.
Mohr, Davidow Ventures - Investors in Critical Path, Rambus, Brocade and Viant.
New Enterprise Associates - Investors in Macromedia, The Learning Company, Silicon Graphics.
Norwest Venture Partners
Onset Ventures
Palo Alto Venture Partners - Investors in AdForce, AvantGo, Career Builder and Esurance.
Redpoint Ventures - New firm from partners of IVP and Brentwood.
Sand Hill Capital - Offers bridge loans to high-tech firms.
Sequoia Capital - Investors in Electronic Arts, Yahoo, Cisco Systems (LEGENDS OF FAME IN VC WORLD)
Silicom Ventures - Group of angel investors
Sutter Hill Ventures
Technology Crossover Ventures
US Venture Partners
Versant Ventures - Investors in biotech and medical devices.
ANY of those are names that serious players try/need to get in front of to typically "go big" IMHO. It's the "rolodex" of not only the money world, but the "connections" world- where members for board seats come from, and CEO's are eventually found for rapidly growing firms, where top mgt skills for rapidly emerging firms is located via key "connections", etc. I don't think Howard Stern is known for any of that, but that's just my opinion. "rappers" - same.
It's the FDA, the SEC and numerous "other" regulatory bodies that "require BHRT to list those risks" and "material FACTS" (it's not imaginary or made-up "risks"), else, serious consequences can ensue.
That's my opinion. I don't believe "Dr Seuss" or "wordolgy" has anything to do with it.
" stating someone is correct just because they are a "leading expert" or have a phd,md,pe etc. "
as in, of course, being weighed against, oh, say, um, like, opinion of anonymous info on stock chat boards? Yeah, I can see that?
"I took an undergrad class". I took lots too, and many way beyond that, don't need to "google" a thing. That M.D., commenting on effects of heart scar tissue, also took a lot of "undergrad classes" and then about another 12 yrs of schooling/residency and then more specialty training to reach the title "Cardiologist" and is also the spokesperson for a major, publishing/published, peer reviewed, highly credible cardiology association. Again, I know where I'd put my chips and what info I'd rate in the "more credible" category of medical information.
But hey, that's just me and my opinions only of course. If stock boards are one's source of "medical information", and issues regarding "cardiology/heart research" it's a free country. Good luck.
Oh, found her resume/curriculum vitae too: She's ONLY published over FIVE HUNDRED times. Has been in practice as a cardiologist it appears for about 24 yrs now. Done numerous clinical and research studies, etc. Seems pretty flush to me, as opposed, to say, an M.S. in a field of chemical engineering and has never practiced medicine or obtained a board cert as a licensed Cardiologist, kinda like something like that many boast about endlessly?
Cindy L. Grines, MD, FACC, FSCAI
http://www.dmccvi.org/grines
Just happens to be, "Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Interventional Cardiology"
(must of took a few undergrad classes to get that position?)
"After completing her medical training at Ohio State University, and a cardiology fellowship at the University of Michigan, Dr. Grines spent three years as an assistant professor of medicine and director of interventional cardiology at the University of Kentucky at Lexington. She has practiced in Michigan since 1990.
Dr. Grines is widely acclaimed for her research in acute myocardial infarction and has initiated and designed the PAMI studies, which have brought primary angioplasty to the forefront as a leading reperfusion strategy revolutionizing the management of heart attack patients. Listed in the “Best Doctors in America,” Dr. Grines has earned worldwide recognition and respect as a leading interventional cardiologist and researcher, participating in numerous clinical research trials, with over 500 publications, numerous book chapters and hundreds of medical journal articles regarding cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, acute myocardial infarction, chemical intervention to break down arterial blockage, and gene therapy.
She is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Interventional Cardiology, serves on the editorial boards of many leading national and international medical journals, and has co-edited several medical handbooks.
Dr. Grines is a member of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and is an active participant in their scientific programs and committees.
In the medical community, she is well-known for her expertise in the fields of acute myocardial infarction, coronary reperfusion and percutaneous revascularization procedures and lectures extensively throughout the United States and abroad."
An expert in " acute myocardial infarction"- know who's "opinion" or input I'd follow. Yep. But that's just me and my opinion.
So again, they just toss all that wording/language and warnings in the 10-Q/10-K's for NO reason other than to, apparently, "fill empty space" - cause a stock chat board has debunked it all as "meaning nothing"?
Cool. Great. Makes sense IMO? Understand. Must need to just make those ole 10-K's and similar longer reads- so they just casually "toss" in a lot of this "stuff" and then make sure to report it/repeat it in every SEC 10-Q/10-K since, right up until the most recent one?
Ok, it's all clearer now IMO? Sure. Got it.
"Wait a minute. That doesn't make sense. "??
So, clinical level, M.D. and Ph.D. level researchers in Europe, and conducting industry/University level research and publishing their findings and commenting on them, and U.S. based CARDIOLOGISTS reading the data and/or commenting on these types of procedures "Don't make sense" cause someone on a stock board says/thinks so?
Wow, that's amazing. I'll send an email over to um right away and tell um they all don't know what they're doing or saying, cause it's all been invalidated via a stock board, chat discussion.
Great. That should change everything? Amazing how M.D. and Ph.D. level researchers just get it wrong so often, and all it takes is a chat board post to correct all their mistakes. Amazing IMHO.
That statement about the needle causing "scar tissue" and in effect causing potential damage/rhythm problems was made by a DOCTOR as in " Dr. Cindy Grines, a cardiologist with the Detroit Medical Center and a spokeswoman for the American College of Cardiology."
My opinion- SHE is qualified to make any statement she wants and, to have it questioned as "not making sense", on a stock chat board, is well, take it for whatever you want.
"Grines said she (a CARDIOLOGIST, M.D.) looks forward to reviewing safety data from the new trial and future trials, since needle injections can cause an increased incidence of irregular heart rhythm. The tiny scars left by the needle can divert the electrical signals of the heart."
http://www.drugs.com/news/stem-cells-may-rejuvenate-failing-hearts-study-suggests-50994.html?utm_keyword=ZootRock
"I recall reading in the published Marvel results that patients in the placebo group experienced arrhythmia as well."? Huh?
So, AGAIN, BHRT just put that pesky ole "boiler plate" (I suppose, it's what many "claim" it to be supposedly) ole "so called" language in their own SEC filed, and Sr Mgt signed documents, and used "little" words like "Our product candidates may NEVER BE COMMERCIALIZED BECAUSE" and "INCREASED MORTALITY" and "SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENT(s)" and "SIX PATIENT DEATH" and "COMPETITOR CANCELLED TRIAL IN PROGRESS for SAME REASON", blah, blah, blah. (10-K, PAGE 31)
Sure. Yep. Makes sense IMHO. Yeah. Companies always like to put wording in their 10-Q/10-K when, when you know, it's just not really needed and doesn't mean a thing. Sure? Makes perfect sense IMO? Right on? Just toss some extra words in to what, make the 10-K read a little longer, more interesting? And leave it in every 10-Q and 10-K since, since you know, according to some, it never really means anything or serves no purpose anyway? Sure. Right on.
PAGE 31:
"Our product candidates may never be commercialized due to unacceptable side effects and increased mortality that may be associated with such product candidates.
Possible side effects of our product candidates may be serious and life-threatening. A number of participants in our clinical trials of MyoCell have experienced serious adverse events potentially attributable to MyoCell, including six patient deaths and 18 patients experiencing irregular heartbeats. A serious adverse event is generally an event that results in significant medical consequences, such as hospitalization, disability or death, and must be reported to the FDA. The occurrence of any unacceptable serious adverse events during or after preclinical and clinical testing of our product candidates could temporarily delay or negate the possibility of regulatory approval of our product candidates and adversely affect our business. Both our trials and independent trials have reported the occurrence of irregular heartbeats in treated patients, a significant risk to patient safety. We and our competitors have also, at times, suspended trials studying the effects of myoblasts, at least temporarily, to assess the risk of irregular heartbeats, and it has been reported that one of our competitors studying the effect of myoblast implantation prematurely discontinued a study because of the high incidence of irregular heartbeats. While we believe irregular heartbeats may be manageable with the use of certain prophylactic measures including an ICD, and antiarrhythmic drug therapy, these risk management techniques may not prove to sufficiently reduce the risk of unacceptable side effects."