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.
Sorry, the O/S as of today is:
1,065,570,000
Your numbers are a wee bit off there.
Why is this a sticky? It is from 2009 and is one of many examples of things that did not go as "planned" for a Koos production.
The fact that it is listed on the bottom of a recent publication suggests there was a tagging issue.
If you want the full scope, click below. Though you will have to have a membership to read most in their entirety. Well, at least you should.
2009
This is very old news.
The chart is a reflection of the current information. Once the much anticipated information is released by the company attesting to the fact that they have indeed struck black gold and hopefully a significant amount of it, the present charts will mean nothing.
This pps will be dictated by the income potential once they do confirm their barrels and barrels of gold and how much someone is willing to pay for their stock to be part of this little engine that could.
Once it all starts pumping, everything up to this point is moot.
XNRG
Given the income potential when this is complete, the share structure will be no big deal. There are many companies with similar or higher share structure that trade in multi-dollars. You have to look at the big picture.
Further to that, if you take into account acquisition interest already outlined and PV's plan, as it has been maintained by him for quite a while now, and you note the below, it is more than obvious why this 144A was sought:
144A For purposes of this section, qualified institutional buyer shall mean:
Any of the following entities, acting for its own account or the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers, that in the aggregate owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with the entity:
Any insurance company as defined in section 2(a)(13) of the Act ;
Note: A purchase by an insurance company for one or more of its separate accounts, as defined by section 2(a)(37) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "Investment Company Act"), which are neither registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act nor required to be so registered, shall be deemed to be a purchase for the account of such insurance company.
Any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act or any business development company as defined in section 2(a)(48) of that Act;
Any Small Business Investment Company licensed by the U.S. Small Business Administration under section 301(c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958;
Any plan established and maintained by a state, its political subdivisions, or any agency or instrumentality of a state or its political subdivisions, for the benefit of its employees;
Any employee benefit plan within the meaning of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974;
Any trust fund whose trustee is a bank or trust company and whose participants are exclusively plans of the types identified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) or (E) of this section, except trust funds that include as participants individual retirement accounts or H.R. 10 plans.
Any business development company as defined in section 202(a)(22) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940;
Any organization described in section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, corporation (other than a bank as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act or a savings and loan association or other institution referenced in section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Act or a foreign bank or savings and loan association or equivalent institution), partnership, or Massachusetts or similar business trust; and
Any investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act.
Any dealer registered pursuant to section 15 of the Exchange Act, acting for its own account or the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers, that in the aggregate owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $10 million of securities of issuers that are not affiliated with the dealer, Provided, That securities constituting the whole or a part of an unsold allotment to or subscription by a dealer as a participant in a public offering shall not be deemed to be owned by such dealer;
Any dealer registered pursuant to section 15 of the Exchange Act acting in a riskless principal transaction on behalf of a qualified institutional buyer;
Note: A registered dealer may act as agent, on a non-discretionary basis, in a transaction with a qualified institutional buyer without itself having to be a qualified institutional buyer.
Any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act, acting for its own account or for the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers, that is part of a family of investment companies which own in the aggregate at least $100 million in securities of issuers, other than issuers that are affiliated with the investment company or are part of such family of investment companies. Family of investment companies means any two or more investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act, except for a unit investment trust whose assets consist solely of shares of one or more registered investment companies, that have the same investment adviser (or, in the case of unit investment trusts, the same depositor), Provided That, for purposes of this section:
Each series of a series company (as defined in Rule 18f-2 under the Investment Company Act ) shall be deemed to be a separate investment company; and
Investment companies shall be deemed to have the same adviser (or depositor) if their advisers (or depositors) are majority-owned subsidiaries of the same parent, or if one investment company's adviser (or depositor) is a majority-owned subsidiary of the other investment company's adviser (or depositor);
Any entity, all of the equity owners of which are qualified institutional buyers, acting for its own account or the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers; and
Any bank as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act, any savings and loan association or other institution as referenced in section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Act, or any foreign bank or savings and loan association or equivalent institution, acting for its own account or the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers, that in the aggregate owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with it and that has an audited net worth of at least $25 million as demonstrated in its latest annual financial statements, as of a date not more than 16 months preceding the date of sale under the Rule in the case of a U.S. bank or savings and loan association, and not more than 18 months preceding such date of sale for a foreign bank or savings and loan association or equivalent institution.
No, haven't had any updates from the investor on the matter and nothing in the SEC database that points to any action yet. There is allegedly another case filed against Koos by a former investor from one of Koos's past ventures. I can't validate that presently. Man is pretty irate, though, and has a pretty big ax to grind.
There is all sorts of stuff on Hicks, however. And for the life of me I cannot understand why Koos would file anything bearing Stephen Hicks name as a show of any type of authority. Makes no sense to me at all. If he is planing to go 100% legit that is.
That hurts.
Wise choice! Great potential here.
SAFC
Mine, too. Responses are just sitting it seems--having to open a new window to view each page as the message completes.
Yeah, I know what you mean. And I came up with a conclusion on that a couple of says ago that I am trying to shoot out of the water (believe me, no one wants to hear it). But I do know what you mean.
But what would be the logic in that at this stage? Particularly with the possibility of really good news being released anytime.
XNRG
Since it is possible to request a specific MM, is it plausible this is retail in an effort to make it look like dilution is underway? Or is it good ole fashioned dilution, you reckon?
Just wondering.
XNRG
Exactly! The repeated efforts of this CEO and his crew show diligence, commitment and a determination to take something small and not-so-glamorous and see it materialize into something only those with the necessary drive can: greatness!
Every business endeavor has hiccups. Those that know how to hold their breath through it while still pounding away are the ones that ultimately succeed. PV is soon to show that he is truly building an enterprise!
VDSC
PS: My previous message was one of reinforcement---I agree 100% with you!
MEDS
The patents for inventions that Dr. Ichim has evaluated and processed for execution for each exceed fifteen.
Honestly, persecuting Dr. Ichim because of the actions of his superior is irresponsible and bad business, IMO; considering that it has only been recently that the more than questionable actions of the CEO of the other company has been brought to light, that Dr. Ichim is under contract and has worked tirelessly to see several of his cellular babies a reality, I can't imagine how anyone could connect him with any culpability in wrong doing at all.
Let's see what Mr. Salvador has to say as well as continue to give Dr. Ichim a chance at proving he and Medistem are all he represents them to be.
Can any of us say that we have found anything that gives us pause about Medistem? On the contrary if you really comb their records, look at everything objectively and consider the revolutionary steps they are taking to secure their places in medical history.
MEDS
Now we have been through this before--Dr. Ichim is the CSO of the other company and is, by the very nature of his position and contract, not responsible for the actions of the CEO. Medistem and Dr. Ichim are in no way responsible for the going's on elsewhere.
As an FYI, I have secured an interview so-to-speak with Mr. Salvador and hope to have it published to this board by weeks end.
MEDS.
He is paying for:
A.) DcV IND application and all associated expenses
B.) Lawyer to assist with all the questions the SEC has about that der S1
C.) Lawyer to assist with legal matters pending against him from prior illicit dealings (including ENTB).
D.) Additional preclinical matters for DcV
E.) Additional preclinical matters for Hema
F.) Upcoming pumps....ahem, promos.
G.) Medical team consulting fees.
H.) His big boat.
Whatever the case may be, the dilution machine has kicked back on. Wait, did it ever go off?
Still loving that science, though and waiting to see if Koos lets it pay some bills for his shareholders.
All my opinion of course.
It's a 144A not 144. There is a significant difference.
Looks like PVE is posturing to unveil the dried ink of some big dawgs. IMO, that is.
VDSC
Odd to see it so blatant like here, imo.
SAFC
Or, someone is setting it up to load. Let's hope that is the case.
Are my eyes deceiving me? Did someone just whack the daylights out of this on a less than 20.00 trade (fee not included)?
SAFC
Exhibit 10.14
This SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), dated as of , by and between Regen Biopharma, Inc. , a Nevada corporation, with headquarters located at 4700 Spring Street, Suite 304,La Mesa California, 91942, (the “Company”), and ASC Recap LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Company, with its address at 90 Grove Street, Suite 108, Ridgefield CT 06877(the “Buyer”).
WHEREAS:
A. The Company and the Buyer are executing and delivering this Agreement in reliance upon the exemption from securities registration afforded by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”);
B. Buyer desires to purchase and the Company desires to issue and sell, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement 100,000 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”).
NOW THEREFORE, the Company and the Buyer hereby agree as follows:
1.Purchase and Sale of the Common Stock.
a. Purchase of the Common Stock. On the Closing Date (as defined below), the Company shall issue and sell to the Buyer and the Buyer agrees to purchase from the Company the Common Stock
b. Form of Payment. On the Closing Date (as defined below), (i) the Buyer shall pay the amount of $ 100,000 USD for the Common Stock to be issued and sold to it at the Closing (as defined below) (the “Purchase Price”) by wire transfer of immediately available funds to the Company, in accordance with the Company’s written wiring instructions and (ii) the Company shall deliver the Common Stock to the Buyer, against delivery of such Purchase Price.
c. Closing Date. The date and time of the issuance and sale of the Common Stock pursuant to this Agreement (the “Closing Date”) shall be September 30, 2013 , or such other mutually agreed upon time. The closing of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the “Closing”) shall occur on the Closing Date at such location as may be agreed to by the parties.
2. Buyer’s Representations and Warranties. The Buyer represents and warrants to the Company that:
a. Investment Purpose. As of the date hereof, the Buyer is purchasing the shares of Common Stock for its own account and not with a present view towards the public sale or distribution thereof, except pursuant to sales registered or exempted from registration under the 1933 Act
b. Accredited Investor Status. The Buyer is an “accredited investor” as that term is defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D (an “Accredited Investor”).
c. Reliance on Exemptions. The Buyer understands that the Common Stock is being offered and sold to it in reliance upon specific exemptions from the registration requirements of United States federal and state securities laws and that the Company is relying upon the truth and accuracy of, and the Buyer’s compliance with, the representations, warranties, agreements, acknowledgments and understandings of the Buyer set forth herein in order to determine the availability of such exemptions and the eligibility of the Buyer to acquire the Common Stock.
d. Information .The Buyer and its advisors, if any, have been furnished with all materials relating to the business, finances and operations of the Company and materials relating to the offer and sale of the Common Stock which have been requested by the Buyer or its advisors. The Buyer and its advisors, if any, have been afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company has not disclosed to the Buyer any material nonpublic information and will not disclose such information unless such information is disclosed to the public prior to or promptly following such disclosure to the Buyer.
e. Transfer or Re-sale. The Buyer understands that sale or re-sale of the Common Stock has not been and is not being registered under the 1933 Act or any applicable state securities laws, and the Common Stock may not be offered, sold, transferred, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise disposed of except pursuant to an effective registration statement under the 1933 Act and applicable state securities laws or any other applicable securities laws or pursuant to an applicable exemption from the registration requirements of such 1933 Act and such laws;
f. Legends. The Buyer understands that the Common Stock will bear a restrictive legend in substantially the following form:
THESE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “ACT”), OR SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED, SOLD, ASSIGNED, PLEDGED, TRANSFERRED OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR PURSUANT TO AN AVAILABLE EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT OR SUCH LAWS AND, IF REQUESTED BY THE COMPANY, UPON DELIVERY OF AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE PROPOSED TRANSFER IS EXEMPT FROM THE ACT OR SUCH LAWS.
g. Authorization; Enforcement. This Agreement has been duly and validly authorized. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered on behalf of the Buyer, and this Agreement constitutes a valid and binding agreement of the Buyer enforceable in accordance with its terms.
3. Company’s Representations and Warranties. The Company represents and warrants to the Buyer that:
a. Organization. Company is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Nevada and has the corporate power and authority to carry on its business as it is now being conducted.
b. Authorization; Enforcement. This Agreement has been duly and validly authorized. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered on behalf of the Company, and this Agreement constitutes a valid and binding agreement of the Company enforceable in accordance with its terms.
4. General Provisions.
a. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, oral and written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.
b. Governing Law. This Agreement, and all transactions contemplated hereby, shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event that litigation results from or arises out of this Agreement or the performance thereof, the parties agree to reimburse the prevailing party's reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and all other expenses, whether or not taxable by the court as costs, in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each of the individual parties hereto on the date first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of:
COMPANY:
By: /s/David R. Koos Date signed:9/30/2013
David R. Koos, Chairman and CEO
BUYER
By: Stephen Hicks Date signed: 9/30/2013
Stephen Hicks, Managing Partner
Shockingly misleading and untrue; there have been a number of OTC short squeezes this year alone but per TOS cannot be named on this board. There can be no doubt that there is a significant short position in many, many OTC stocks.
Additionally, an OTC stock can be halted for various reasons at the request of the company. If the company can provide proof that extraordinary events have occurred that have or will significantly impact investors negatively for example. Another example would be if the stock was illegally listed/traded on a foreign exchange and subsequently removed (de-listed) at the behest of the company. The company can appeal to have the stock halted domestically for this reason.
Again, there are various reasons an OTC can successfully appeal to have the trading of their stock halted.
VDSC
Sometimes, silence is golden. However, in this stage of the endeavor I think PV would do quite well engaging in online Q&A with his shareholders. He can respond to the good, the bad & the indifferent, providing a human touch, allowing those invested in him to view the man behind the plan. And not just the mistakes so eagerly highlighted by some.
JMHO.
VDSC
It's never occurred to more than just a few of us on here that Koos & Hicks are the people with the greatest short interest? Maybe a few of their affiliates, too. If you go through the shorting history and match it with certain events, it is pretty clear that more often than not someone had a pretty good idea that things were not going to go so well for the pps.
It don't take a GED in rocket science (yes, I said GED in rocket science) to figure this one out. The big questions are how long will this continue? How low will it go before all of the manipulation stops? And, is Koos really any closer to behaving himself now that he is under SEC scrutiny?
Still lovin' that science, though!
Are you referring to the Sazant & Comland Capital -V- PVE case? There has been a judgement rendered in this case???
Wilhelmsen Technical was voluntarily dismissed.
A threat of bankruptcy based on these? Eh?
VDSC
I saw that! Great response by Jerry and should silence some critics for a while. Yes? No? Probably not?
However, the "lessee" details can be confirmed by him or a representative by calling the PA DEP; they will confirm that only NECEP are the parties noted and are noted as having the land leased to them (lessee) with the lease holders being unknown.
The likelihood of records not being updated correctly are great. As a matter of fact I will be visiting our local courthouse next week to resolve a records issue that has been addressed and supposedly corrected twice already by the county. This will be the third time in 18 months that I will visit the courthouse with the necessary documentation to attest to ownership & location and witness the records being updated. Maybe third time is the charm.
Thank you, Jerry for the prompt response.
XNRG
There is nothing present whatsoever on the "fleet" page that even remotely suggests that PVE is attempting to credit PVE with ownership or affiliation with the vessels listed on the ship tracker. Further, on the main page the below message is present for every visitor of the site to see: Going Forward
The company plans to establish cruise operations in the Mediterranean and South Caribbean as well as ferry operations between Florida, The Bahama Islands, Turks and Caicos and Dominican Republic.
The company will be permanently located in Aegean, Adriatic, and Black seas focusing in short itinerary & fun cruises all year round.
The company has also prepared to commence operations in the South Caribbean, Panama, Colombia, San Andres, Aruba, and Curacao.
"Going forward","Plans", "will be" & "commence" being the operative words.
It is obvious as the site is toured that this is a work in progress and that PVE are highlighting concepts and future endeavors.
Again, eco, good work. Looking forward to seeing the site completed.
VDSC
What exactly is a "Forward looking" statement to you? Is that the same as a plan? Would you rather the company release a PR that states "I have your money but I have no plan. Don't know what we are going to do now that we are in business. But hey, as soon as we figure it out, you shareholders will be the first to know."?
Good grief...forward looking statement? Sometimes hyperbole is used and sometimes things don't pan out as expected. That is business. But, PVE has a plan and it is quite apparent PV is doing all that he can to see the plan materialize.
VDSC
And there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.
I think you did a fine job on the site and served PVE well.
VDSC
Prior to the acquisition by XUN, yes?
If you are speaking of the production reports due on this years production, they are not due until January 2014 with February (8th I believe) being the deadline. The reports are indeed due annually. I confirmed this with Roger at the same office yesterday.
XNRG
Oh I know that. The request is for the purpose of those who do not understand the process since neither Vencedor or XUN are noted on any publicly obtained document issued by any authority with respect to the work being conducted on the wells. And since PA DEP cannot confirm or deny who the assignor is, in an effort to assist with validation, against naysayers, any information that the company is willing to reiterate to the public by way of communication or documentation should go a long way.
XNRG
It's called Pica...really is a disorder. He (or she) might be gnawing on some old bike tires right now!
JK, pepe.
Call Roger yet?
XNRG
You made me laugh.
First off, I am a girl.
Second, I have no way to verify that you have actually consumed the large amount of inorganic matter you claim you will upon the successful employment of at least half the number indicated.
Third, once this baby hits a certain mark, I will exit part of my investment then post smileys to aggravate you.
How's that?
I take it you haven't called Roger yet?
XNRG
You realize that if they are compelled to negotiate with a union to supply these jobs that after all wages and benefits and fees paid to the union that the company will have to pay, that annual amount is nothing out of the ordinary? You do realize that it costs a pretty penny to employ people in many sectors that don't require their workers to wear a boat-shaped hat or hold a spatula on the job? Especially if unions are involved.
Have you done a census check of late? And have you called Roger yet?
XNRG
Yeah, I went straight to the source, says the same thing for the 15th. That is interesting...
FINRA SHORT REPORT
Hmmm...could that be a mistake? If not, now something like THAT is cause for alarm. Anyone done a FINRA broker check for all insider parties? Or institutional owners with broker connections? I haven't. Suppose I should.
XNRG
Well, you ain't gettin' mine!
XNRG
Where is the sidestepping? What "real" numbers are being sidestepped? How long has it been since they confirmed the Log Results of #15? It has been what, 31 days?
If you are not happy with the pace here, why don't you just move on? Perhaps take your money and time and invest it in a big boy that has already worked its way through the muck of getting established and rest easy at night?
XNRG