I agree IDCC and BHP. Since we probably do not have the resources or knowledge, one possibility is just to monitor this via PACE or some other way like the trustee website and watch to see if there is that stalking horse bid from RCPI/its lawyers. That is when other bidders would come in. But if RCPI does not put in a stalking horse bid, then I guess the bidding war would start at a very low price. My head hurts.

He did tell me he tried to contact the trustee twice and got no response. I suppose he could be wondering about some unpaid salary. But I don't see how he could NOT be interested in the IP.

Thanks to you, pheman, 4 mark and you and others for research. Your thought about someone getting the IP for pennies is really the result I want to avoid. A brief run down of what we've learned:

Rule 2002 applies to getting all notices of the procedure. You would get all notices, motions, objections and other proceedings. It might be voluminous and, from what I gather, you might need an attorney to figure out what applies to you (us).

There is a form called proof of claim that I found after 4 mark's 2002 info. It looks like you fill out a claim to say you should get some money, and you'd be in line after all the creditors get their money.

For a small fee you can go to the site pheman found and have access to what is going on. www.pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.

Realistically, the IP will be sold to someone. I don't think I have the know-how to do all the above except maybe file a proof of claim. But that will do no good if someone gets the IP for pennies. The question is, is there any way we can prevent that? Other than actually upbidding the stalking horse bid, do we have any affordable course of action? By the way, I wish I could say there was a way that Dr. Mullan could be our ally in this, but I don't see any scenario where he would have any motivation to help us, especially if Archer were to bid on the IP.

Thanks for this. I was just coming on to pass along your info. I will look into the Rule 2002, but will at least ask my brother if he knows about it. He is a PI atty. so I admit that avenue is probably not going to go anywhere.

As I wondered in my email to you, would RCPI attys. be adversarial here. For example, I THINK they would be the ones who would file a "stalking horse" bid. I don't think they care about us, nor will they volunteer any info. But I hope I am wrong.

Thanks. I will look at PACER. I was hoping that the lack of mention on the Miller, Coffey & Tate site meant that nothing had happened yet and it looks like you are confirming that. ( I had seen the list showing status of other BKs.)

Do you have any opinion or insight on whether there is any benefit in shareholders emailing G. Jones?

I typed my last post too fast and did not proof. I meant to say that I want the trustee to know that there are shareholders "out there" that are interested in this bidding process for IP, and to communicate that any action taken or decision made without first making is a part of the case is a serious violation of any fiduciary responsibility the trustee has.

I think Leif is correct about possible dishonest things going on, although neither he nor I believe Dr. Mullan has any ill-intent. I will be watching to see who, if anyone, submits the first stalking horse bid on behalf of Rock Creek. Or maybe the trustee only gives the amount? I'd also like to see who the first real bid is from; the one that bids up the stalking horse bid.

I sent another message to the trustee, George Miller, on the law firm's website. The firm is Miller, Coffey & Tate. I want to make sure that there are shareholders interested in this, and that taking any action or making any decision without keeping us informed.

I have to say there are some very nice and very smart people who have responded to this. A person with 33 years in the securities business. A medical doctor from Europe. I hope we can accomplish something here.

****A PHONE CALL FROM DR. MULLAN****

This morning, I emailed Dr. Crawford to ask why the Roskamp Institute would be able to continue any use of anatabine citrate.
I also mentioned to her that I felt like the emails of Dr. Mullan and his personal assistant were adversarial in tone.

Dr. Mullan just called me and I am writing this before I forget what he said. First of all, he pointed out (accurately, I assume?) that Roskamp is a not-for-profit (non-profit?)and, as such, can continue to use anatabine. He said it is a "different story" if it becomes commercial, and in that case, any use would have to be permitted by the IP owners. He said he himself has called the trustee a couple of times and got no response. He said something to the effect, "I'd imagine there would be some kind of bidding" for the IP. I explained what I had just learned about a stalking horse bid, and that I had again emailed the trustee saying that a group of shareholders would like to be informed if there is a stalking horse bid. (I cc'd a law firm email where my brother worked. without his OK. He can yell at me later if he wants to) Dr. Mullan said he also wants to know what is happening and asked me to let him know if I learned anything. I am going to make the decision for myself that, if this was all a plan to "steal" the IP, Dr. Mullan has nothing to do with it. Everything he said rang true. I don't have the same fuzzy feeling about other entities who have been spoken of here in the last year or so.

IP bidding--interesting fact (or not!)

In bidding for the assets of a BK company, IP and others, the BK company often chooses a stalking horse bidder. This stalking horse makes the first bid and allows the distressed company to avoid low bids on its assets. Once the s.h has made its bid, other bidders may submit bids.

Being a s.h. can be very expensive. I'd rather make sure the court/trustee knows we want to be in the bidding process. Also, is there anyone left at RCPI to even choose a s.h. bidder? And if not, does that mean Johnnie Williams or Archer Pharma could just sneak in and get the IP for pennies? Any advice is welcome...

Thanks. I was thinking about asking my brother (attorney) to send an email and say he is informally representing a group of shareholders who want to to bid on the IP. If I have permission from even one other person here, I feel comfortable saying, "group." Did anyone else email the trustee? No word from that financial reporter from the Sarasota Tribune Herald...

I don't offhand, but it was on a short list of things to look up/do.
I also want to contact the Dept of Veterans Affairs and ask about their grants for Anatabloc. And maybe bug Calico Labs one more time about buying the IP; although I am thinking of putting in a bid for $199 or something with the trustee just to go on record. Let me know if you think of anything!

I gave Mullan the benefit of the doubt, but after the terse, unfriendly email from him and his assistant ("just to be completely clear"), I have done a 180. I will try to use my anger to explore any and every opportunity including suggesting the Sarasota newspaper do a story on the IP. I realize this is all a long shot, but I am going to try to salvage something here.
Roskamp has a Facebook page on which someone responded to me once. I filed that info away.

Thanks. Sorry if I typed the law practice name wrong. I sent an email to the Sarasota newspaper, choosing one investigative reporter who had done a story on Roskamp before and one (or "the") financial reporter. The first, Barbara, emailed me back to say that the second, John, was not around but that she'd mention this to him.

gmiller@mctlp.com. Trustee. Maybe we should email a query on how much the IP will be sold for because we would like to put in a bid. If no one minds, I will send another email saying I informally represent about 12 shareholders of Rock Creek and we would be interested in the value of the IP/patents.

Any ideas welcome. The "bid" idea is coming from a non-lawyer, but flying by the seat of my pants, I want to make at least an effort to make sure that no one walks away with the IP. And why would Johnny not give it a shot and get all his IP back for a few grand?

No, I emailed Sally Sunday night and told her I was collecting names of interested parties and asked her when she would need a final list. She responded early this morning with her email address but with a message directly from Mullan. Then she sent me another email saying. "just to be completely clear" that Mullan canceled.

I sent an email asking if Mullan would give his thoughts as CEO of Roskamp and, if applicable, Archer Pharma; and NOT as any position with RCPI. I noted that anatabine citrate is still listed at least once on the RI's website. It is now almost 6 pm in Florida, and I received no response.

Sally's email is: sgoulet@roskampinstitute. net

The trustee's email address is: gmiller@mctlp.com

I am so pissed off, I may start posting nasty messages on Roskamp's Facebook page. Which probably would do no good but might make me feel better.

Yes, it was a terse email that said my mailed letter had a phone number and not an email address, but after Sally and I exchanged emails, he could "convey without recourse to a call" that he no longer works for the company. Sounds like lawyer talk. And a little bit of a lie too because he agreed to the meeting regardless of whether he had my email address. I think much less of him now, and will do everything in my power to make sure Roskamp cannot use anatabine. The name of the compound is still on their website as of this morning in a section about TBI.

I did some brief research on Chapter 7 trustees and then emailed the trustee George Miller. I kept it short, mostly asking him about IP rights. If you look at a few websites about the responsibilities of a trustee, maybe you can see what I saw: the possibility that a lawyer who is handling multiple Chapter 7 cases will do just a brief search for the assets of the bankrupt company. In this case, that might mean that the IP is overlooked or sold cheap.

MULLAN MEETING CANCELED BY MULLAN.

Hi everyone. This morning I got an email from Dr. Mullan personally that very tersely said he no longer works for RCPI and any calls about the IP should be directed to the trustee. Then, Sally, emailed me with a "just to be clear" email that Dr. Mullan was content with the email and was canceling the call.

When I have time (if anyone is interested) I will post the exact email. I'll also post the trustee's name. Sorry for this. Maybe Mullan canceled on the advice of an attorney, but I think it shows a true disregard for any damage he has contributed to in the destruction of RCPI.

OH! And one other item: I did respond to his email asking if he can answer any question about the IP, not from the perspective of RCPI, but from that of his role at Roskamp or Archer. I pointed out that anatabine is still named on the Roskamp website. Thanks. Sorry.

sent you a private email. Thanks.

Hi Greg Too! I am certain that in our fast-moving conversation, Sally from Roskamp asked my for a list of names of people who will be in on the call. I think that is necessary. But I am pretty sure she also asked for email addresses. If she does, are you OK with that? It will just mean Roskmamp Institute will have your email address. Thanks. I may have to start keeping in touch here since a few more people are on the list of who I am trying to keep informed.

Thanks,
Greg B.

I am not sure it will do any good either, but then you and I may both be surprised that he (Sally) even responded to my letter. At the very least, we can put it to bed knowing 100% our money is gone! Just FYI, six people have responded and ,so far, three may be in on the call. I certainly will post after the phone call.

I think I received it, since only four people have responded. I am adding your questions to a list of mine and anyone else and I think I will send them to Sally the assistant a couple days before the meeting. I think that will help us if Dr. Mullan can identify which questions he can and will answer. Thanks.

i WILL GET TO ASK MY QUESTION ABOUT IP because I set up a sort of conference call with Dr. Mullan's assistant, to talk to the doctor next Thu. at 4 pm EST. See earlier post with detail.

sTILL CURIOUS ABOUT PATENTS? PHONE CALL WITH MULLAN NEXT THU. SEE PREVIOUS POST BY ME--THE LONG ONE.

CONFIRMED CONFERENCE CALL WITH DR. MULLAN NEXT THU. AT 4 PM EASTERN TIME. PLEASE SEE EARLIER POST FROM ME tHX

please see earlier post by me RE: phone call with Mullan.

Phone mtg with Mullan next Thu. Please see full post earlier.

Phone meeting with Mullan next Thu. See my full post.

Mullan returned my call. Please see my detailed post.

Mullan called me. Please see my full post.

Thanks for responding. I will take notes and probably others will too. If it seems like he is open to it, I will ask him about future calls. If you have a question you want to ask, feel free to post here or send to my email. I can tell you my first question will be about IP and who owns it and what will be done with it. A note that I am considering questions that I think Dr. Mullan can actually answer!

Hi Leif. Since I know you from two boards and since you also emailed Calico Labs, I thought I'd specifically contact you to read my earlier message about a phone chat with Dr. Mullan. Thanks.

ATTENTION *****PHONE MEETING WITH DR. MULLAN****

My real name is Greg. I mentioned previously that I wrote Dr. Mullan a letter which, in a sense, represented the posters here and/or former users of Anatabloc. Just now I received a phone call from Dr. Mullan's assistant, Sally, and we set up a conference call next Thursday at 4 pm EST, 2pm for me in AZ. Sally wanted me to get names of people who would listen in and participate. I am sure we could ask him hours of questions and (rightfully) complain, but I hope we can have a constructive call in whatever time he allots.

I need to collect emails and names of people who would like to participate. My email is gregebooth@q.com. If you respond, can you please put "Rock Creek" in the subject line? Thanks.Any suggestions to organize questions, etc. are welcome.

If I had to (just for fun) give a percentage that my letter will get a response I'd put it at 17.4%. Still, I have contacted people before that were in important positions and got responses. So it was worth the stamp.

I wish Mullan would at least try some creative thinking like making an inquiry to Calico Labs. Maybe he wouldn't because, as you said, he already has other legal but unfair strategies in mind.

Well, to the ten posters left here...

I just out a letter in the mailbox to Mullan. Basically I told him politely that a lot of "small" shareholders and former loyal users of Anatabloc feel like we were screwed by the company. I mentioned the IP and referenced that, according to the website, Roskamp continues to have some ties to anatabine citrate.
And just for the heck of it, in a p.s. I noted that two shareholders contacted Calico Labs and hinted that it might work better if someone with some creds contacted Calico.

"Q'd" and screwed RCPI shareholder

I agree. Especially in the case of Mullan, I don't think of it as a purposeful, devious strategy to cheat us. It's more of a feeling that the company has never really gave a nod to its retail shareholders/former Anatabloc users. So, for example, if Roskamp continues its work with anatabine citrate on TBI and/or GWI, no one there would stop to consider that they are using IP that belongs to us. Who is there to protect our interests?

I DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM CALICO LIFE SCIENCES, the Google company whose mission is life extension. The respondent said he/she would pass along the information to colleagues and "SHOULD THERE BE INTEREST, SOMEONE FROM OUR TEAM WILL FOLLOW UP."
Leif, did you get a response yet?

I am just trying to be reliable and am following up on a previous post, even though I have not found anything helpful. My brother the attorney told me there are a couple sites that attorneys use to research case law and precedent, and to read related articles. I already forgot the names of the sites but will try to find out more. So glad Ted Jenkins seems to have landed on his feet with his new job. I was worried for him. (not)

It all sounds reasonable. I know my brother knows a little bit about BK because I was asking his opinion for a personal BK a friend of mine is doing. However his knowledge is limited. What I was going to do--and this is a long shot--is ask him if he could point me to a better method to look at precedent law. Most likely we are all totally out of luck, but I am still trying to figure out something I (we) can do. Not only the IP, but also the actual use of anatabine in the veteran studies.

I like the general idea, but I am not sure lawyers for RCPI have any responsibility for shareholders. There might even be conflict of interest. I will ask my brother who is a lawyer what he thinks. He is NOT a BK lawyer, but sometimes he can offer some good feedback.

But, again, I would be part of any official, legal query if we can find someone to query.

Thanks. I think I will try calling Tracy Monday.

Hi EC. Does the absence of the O/S update mean no disclosure from the TA again? It's always been my favorite part of Friday. (yes, I need to get a life.)