Did you fail to comprehend the part about the company paying in CASH? Why would it matter what the conversion rate is if the company is paying in CASH?

I believe this is from the earlier funding with Dominion. If the company is redeeming the $500K note, that means they won't be issuing shares for the earlier note. Guess what? That LOWERS the dilution everyone expected from the earlier funding. The cash will be provided by the $0.06 warrants that will be exercised by March 7.

Seems like a good strategy to me, paying off older debt at $0.04 with newer capital from a $0.06 warrant conversion. Instead of issuing shares at $0.04, they've lowered the price of the capital raise for that amount by 50% for number of shares required, not counting accrued interest.

But I'd expect nothing less from you, Sol... always looking for a negative aspect of any transaction, even where it clearly lowers the expected dilution.

You really should look up what "just saying" means in regards to including it in your posts. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=just%20saying

Still waiting on your suggestion for how Amarantus can raise capital without issuing shares, or destroying the value of our assets by giving up large percentages of future revenues in a bad licensing deal. Please, enlighten us. We're eagerly waiting. Put up or shut up with the constant whining about dilution.

Solantey, still waiting for your solution to how this company should fund itself without issuing shares.

Please, educate us with how you would do it as CEO. We can critique your solutions and compare them to the options Gerald has with a company at this stage of development.

If you're not willing to offer workable solutions to the dilution issue, perhaps you should stop complaining about it so much. I know I'm tired of hearing all the whining about dilution, but no one offers realistic alternative solutions. Perhaps the solution to those concerned so much about dilution is to sell out and find another company where dilution isn't a concern. Dilution is necessary for a company like Amarantus at this stage... unless one believes the solution is to shut down the multiple paths being pursued and focus solely on a single asset until commercialization is achieved. Risk everything on one asset and hope for the best. That would certainly keep dilution to a bare minimum.

Concerning your displeasure with Gerald selling shares at 6 cents... that deal was inked in September 2013. Even if the share price was 50 cents now instead of 9 cents, the company would be obligated to sell the warrant shares at the price stated in the warrant contract with the investors. I can only imagine the complaints that would ensue if we were currently trading at 25 or 50 cents.

The capital generated in the warrant conversion is orders of magnitude more important at this stage than the price paid on a deal that was made over 5 months ago. I guess some tend to see the negative in everything... especially if they're on the buy side of their flip trading.

CEO Interview on The Traders Network 2/19/2014

CEO Interview


Perhaps one of the moderators can add this link to the stickies. I'd suggest replacing the stickied post from 5/2013 which is old and not very relevant at this point. All the other stickies are from 2014 with the exception of the board warning which is now a year old as well.

Kinda reminds me of the candidate posters that get tacked up everywhere prior to a local election, and then no one ever returns to take them down after the election. They end up being eyesores and no one cares about their content any more.

I'm not suggesting new information worthy of a new press release or 8-K filing. But in several of Gerald's recent presentations, we've picked up tidbits concerning details of stuff that had already been reported. Little things that shed a little more light on what we already knew, or thought we knew.

No great expectations here, just hoping for a little more insight... perhaps an update on the monthly cash burn rate, or something on yesterday's funding that wasn't in the press release but might show up in the 8-K when it's filed, or his latest thoughts on up-listing. A careful listener can usually pick up something new.

And then there are those who hear words not spoken but implied with their tone of voice (i.e., Rubinfeld's presentation). Perhaps it's not the tone of voice, but little voices some hear inside their own heads. LOL

Gerald's interview starts in less than an hour, so that should give investors something else to focus on. Perhaps we'll get a bit of new information we can chew on.

I don't see any indication the interview will be archived, so I plan to capture the audio and post a link to the audio file so those who are unable to listen can catch the interview later at their convenience.

Sorry, I edited my post just before you responded. The "pandering" comment was replaced.

That is the heart of the matter. I suppose some believe that grants from MJFF and other sources would be enough for the company to operate. The problem is, any grant funding will be targeted toward specific areas such as Eltoprazine and LID, and those funds have to be accounted for and shown to be used only towards that specific purpose. The company can't use these funds in a different area such as LymPro commercialization. They'd have to continually get grant funding in all the areas they are moving forward, and that's unlikely.

So I'm eagerly awaiting anyone complaining about dilution to educate me on how funding all these initiatives could be achieved without issuing shares. Perhaps the company should accept a lowball offer from BD or one of the big pharmas. That would certainly result in a pop in share price in the short term, allowing short-term traders to make a quick profit.

I'm glad Gerald and his advisors are focusing on value for the long-term investors and ultimately maximizing value for long-term investors who will reap the greatest rewards by holding their shares. The dilution the short-term investors are worried about won't have much impact on the longer term.

You've been complaining nonstop about dilution for months now. I suppose you believe you could do a better job if you were CEO. So please tell us how you would raise capital as CEO of Amarantus, a company with no revenues and no product currently fully commercialized. How would you accomplish this without issuing shares?

While serving as CEO and BOD member, would you also take a normal salary, or a very minimal one? Would you then use your minimal salary to purchase shares or rely solely on shares awarded?

Please enlighten us as to exactly where and from whom you would raise the capital to continue to operate and expand on multiple development fronts? Is there a bank where you have a buddy who will loan Amarantus the millions in capital needed without issuing shares as collateral? What would you use for collateral, given the company has no current revenue and no product fully tested to the commercialized stage?

Please, enlighten us. We all want to see how it's done and what Gerald is obviously missing from his Stanford education that specialized in financial decisions.

Why wouldn't the warrants be exercised? It's certainly not obvious to me.

CEO Gerald Commissiong of Amarantus to Be Interviewed Live Today on Clear Channel Business Talk Radio DFW 1190AM

http://ir.stockpr.com/amarantus/company-news/detail/1134

cloveless, the new warrants can be forcibly exercised by the company with or without moving to a national exchange. From the PR:

In other words, the new warrants can be forced to exercise if either condition is met:

1. The shares trade at or above $0.18 at the time the company is listed on a national exchange.
 -OR-
2. The shares trade at or above $0.18 for 20 consecutive trading days.

The move to a national exchange is not required for condition 2, so these could potentially be executed BEFORE the up-list.

This new warrant deal also results in additional dilution as I described in a previous post. I asked Jason Napadano to review my post and he responded that I was correct in the number of additional shares to be issued with the revised agreement over the original one.

If only 50M of the original warrants are exercised and new warrants issued, then an additional 37.5M shares will be issued assuming all new warrants and the remaining 33.333M old warrants are exercised.

If all 83.333M of the original warrants are exercised, then more new warrants will be issued and an additional 62.5M shares will be issued if all new warrants are exercised.

I don't believe it's realistic to assume any of the warrants won't be exercised before they expire as long as they're in the money.

I don't think it's strange at all... no more strange than the original funding agreement where there was the forced conversion option. Bribe implies something illegal. Incentive might be a better word to use, as all of this is perfectly legitimate and open.

Today's deal is voluntary. There's nothing about force involved in getting the $3M in capital. If the investors elect to not exercise their earlier warrants, then they simply won't get the new warrants. Their choice, but dumb if they don't considering the roadmap the company has laid out.

Historically it's always better to be an insider. So what's your point? Insiders often risk millions of their own money, a lot more than the average Joe retail investor, and it makes sense they'd have access to more information about what's going on than you and I do. As long as it supports the company moving forward and doesn't fleece investors for personal gains, I have no problem with it. It's necessary to get the needed capital. On the flip side, insiders have restrictions on their purchases that the retail investor doesn't have, so there's some trade-off there.

Doc, thanks for the explanation. It really puts this funding deal in perspective.

I wasn't trying to suggest this deal was a bad deal. On the contrary, this deal put a smile on my face and my only real concern as an investor in AMBS has now been resolved. I was only trying to show this deal resulted in additional shares, not a swap out of new warrants for the old warrants as some believed. To get the new warrants, investors had to exercise some of the old ones... not a swap, but an incentive to exercise them.

And thanks for pointing out my error. I clearly stated I wasn't including the original $3M investment in either comparison, then I added it back in to one side of it. Dumb. I was in a rush to get the post finished and wasn't able to read the board until much later in the day. When I reexamined my post I found my mistake, then I saw you had already made a post about it. Thanks again. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

BH, I don't know how Jason reached his conclusion. I don't blindly follow what anyone else concludes when I'm capable of doing some calculations myself.

I initially took Jason's statement that he didn't have to increase the number of shares in his model to mean what others were posting here... that this new deal didn't increase dilution. I haven't looked that closely at Jason's current and previous valuation models, so perhaps today's news didn't affect what he had already factored in.

After doing the calculations myself, based on how this deal was described in the press release, I concluded it DOES increase dilution by 37.5M shares overall compared to the earlier funding regarding the exercise of the warrants. I was mainly just trying to get that point across, and possibly getting too wrapped up in it (i.e., the long posts). I was also pushed for time and rushed through the calculations, thereby making an error at the end, which has now been corrected.

My analysis of short-term prices is as follows: random. I'm not a short-term trader.

No real way to predict how investors will interpret news in the short-term. Long-term, I think it will result in higher share prices as investors realize the company has enough capital to operate through 2014, with additional capital lined up for hitting milestones. That seems to be the main concern for many shareholders.

I replied to your previous post before seeing your correction to my post, which I also identified and acknowledged in my reply.

So are we in agreement the new deal will result in and additional 37.5M shares vs. the old deal?

I believe this is a good move given the additional time needed to determine the true value of LymPro before any partnership or licensing deal is stuck. I feel much better knowing the company now has funding though 2014 with provisions in place for additional funding until commercialization of LymPro.

I just hope there's additional news to move the share price a lot higher before the up-list, as I'd rather see a smaller vs. a larger RS. (Note: this is not intended to start another discussion of reverse splits. I'm simply stating my preference, and wanting my shares reduced as little as possible).

Doc, the only error I found in my earlier analysis is in one of the paragraphs near the end. The total number of shares issued in the old vs. new deal is correct in my earlier analysis. I'm following exactly what was described in the press release.

You're saying the old warrants do not go away, but $3M of them (50M shares) are exercised to bring the $3M to the company now, instead of waiting for the forced conversion provision to occur. This leaves $2M worth of the old warrants (33.333M shares) left to be exercised either at the investor's discretion, or by forced execution by VWAP share price over $0.10 for 20 consecutive trading days. The new agreement changes nothing in the old agreement. It only encourages investors to exercise some of their existing warrants to generate capital for the company.

This clearly states the $3M is from the partial exercise of the old warrants. So yes, some of the old warrants DO go away when the $3M is delivered to the company. The exercise of 50M of the old warrants cause them to go away, leaving 33.333M old warrant shares to be exercised later.

In the new deal, investors are given new warrants with an exercise price of $0.12 at a ratio of ¾ of the old warrants exercised. This means 50M warrants exercised gives them 37.5M of these new warrants. These new warrants come at the expense of having to exercise 50M of the old warrants.
When this deal is done and the company has their $3M in capital, the investors will have 33.333M old warrants and 37.5M new warrants.

My analysis compared maximum execution of warrants in the old deal vs. maximum execution of warrants in the new deal, looking at both capital raised and total shares issued. I'll summarize it again. I don't include the $3M in the initial funding because it is the same in both cases. I only include the warrant shares. The initial $3M is not relevant in this comparison because it is a factor that doesn't change.

OLD DEAL

Assuming total execution of the 83.333M warrants @ $0.06, this would raise $5M for the company. So 83.333M shares are issued for warrant execution under the old deal.

NEW DEAL

50M of old warrants are exercised @ $0.06, raising $3M for the company. In exchange for exercising these 50M shares, investors are awarded 37.5M new warrants.

This leaves 33.333M old warrants remaining, which when exercised @ $0.06, would raise $2M for the company.

The new 37.5M warrants @ $0.12 will raise $4.5M when exercised.

The total raised from warrants will be $3M + $2M + $4.5M = $9.5M

Here's where I made the mistake in the original analysis. I reported $8M raised in the original deal, which should have been only $5M because I didn't include the initial $3M in non-warrant funding. I should have stated:I acknowledge that mistake, but I believe the rest of my calculations are correct based on how this deal was described in the press release.

It is essentially the same old deal with additional warrants added as an incentive to cause exercise of some of the original warrants. 50M of the old warrants will be exercised now, and the remaining 33.333M warrants will be exercised at some point. In addition, 37.5M new warrants will be exercised at some point. This totals 120.833M new shares issued from warrant exercise, where only 83.333M shares would have been issued from warrant exercise in the old deal. So I don't see this as a swap of warrants at all, but an added incentive to exercise those old warrants. In essence, it is just a new funding arrangement, since all of the existing warrants will be exercised under their original terms, with the new warrants having different terms. Overall there will be 37.5M more shares issued than in the earlier deal.

I'm thinking management intentions were that LymPro partnering news would easily move the share price above the $0.10 needed to trigger forced execution of the earlier warrants. But with the change in strategy resulting from the CPT code and now the re-evaluation of the Phase 1 AD patients from 7 years ago, this has delayed their partnership efforts for LymPro because both of these can significantly increase LymPro value. Thus, the company has decided to hold off on immediate partnering for LymPro until the revaluation is done. Therefore, a new stimulus was needed to cause execution of the earlier warrants, and today's announcement was it. Now, in my view, the company has the cash they need for the rest of the year, and when the LymPro partnering news does come, it will drive the forced execution of the rest of these warrants, old and new. With LymPro revenues starting around end of 2014, this seems like an excellent strategy and it only cost us 37.5M additional shares. This is not a concern of mine for the benefit we obtained.

My apologies for the long post.

Sorry, Joe. I made it as simple as I could, while comparing both old and new funding arrangements. I've emailed the company IR and Jason Napadano to take a look at my post and to clarify anything I might have missed.

I'll update my post if their responses indicate I've overlooked something in how I analyzed the new arrangement.

My analysis of new funding deal

I believe Jason is only looking at the shares resulting from the swap, and is forgetting about the warrants remaining from the earlier funding that are outside of this swap.

In my analysis, the shares resulting from the initial funding where the company received $3MM in cash are not included, as that deal is already done and the company already has the cash. My analysis only focuses on the remaining warrants.

ORIGINAL FUNDING

$5 Million cash to be received from exercise of warrants at $0.06 = 83.333 MM shares issued, which would complete the original funding arrangement.


NEW FUNDING

50 MM original warrants exercised at $0.06 = $3 MM in cash to company now.

50 MM old warrants exercised x (3 new warrants/4 old warrants) = 37.5 MM new warrants
The 37.5 MM new warrants exercised at $0.12 = $4.5 MM in additional cash to company.

However, there are still 33.333 MM warrants remaining from the original funding, which can still be exercised or forced to exercise at $0.06 = $2 MM in additional cash to company.

50MM + 37.5MM + 33.333MM = 120.833 MM shares issued when this new deal is fully completed.

120.833MM (new deal) - 83.333MM (old deal) = 37.5MM additional shares issued

The original funding would provide a total of $8 MM, while the new funding will provide a total of $9.5 MM. This additional $1.5 MM / 37.5 MM additional shares = $0.04/share, which was the purchase price in the original funding for $3 MM. So, this swap appears to be an extension of the original deal, sweetened with new warrants in order to spur investors to execute their warrants now to provide funding to the company sooner rather than later.

While this "swap" does appear to result in some additional dilution, I am encouraged that the original investors would accept this deal and provide the $3 Million funding now. I expect this deal is being done ahead of additional news to be released over the coming weeks.

If anyone sees flaws in my analysis, please point them out.

Key words in Jason's new Seeking Alpha article...

Take it from a trusted source, an analyst who can do real math, unlike some here who believe today's news constitutes additional dilution. IT DOES NOT.

The new bios have been up for several days. I first saw them 2 days ago. The company is gearing up for major moves forward.

No dot connecting with this assessment, BH. Some of us can see the obvious.

Great question. A smile, eyebrow raising, facial ticks, etc., can convey significant meanings during a phone conversation. Much like the tone of the author's voice can convey meaning while writing a blog post about the status of the company's progress.

LOL

zoom, they changed the name to MUNF. Check the edited post again. In the famous words of a former shareholder... "Know what you own." LOL

Connection... speculation... I was referring to the same thing. I can't clue you in. I can only suggest you spend some time reading his posts. He first posted as watsonhelper and then changed to helperwatson when all of his posts started getting deleted as soon as he made them.

These links will give you access to all of his posts that weren't deleted. I hope these help. Some really interesting observations made.

watsonhelper posts

helperwatson posts

I'm not sure how you made the connection from his post that he was possibly attending Amarantus business meetings. I've always had the impression from his posts that he is an industry insider, but never felt he was an Amarantus insider.

And blackhawks, I don't dispute what watson posts because so far I haven't found him to be posting false facts to support his opinion on what he believes is happening behind the scenes. That doesn't mean I believe everything he says, but he certainly seems a lot more credible than our board expert who can't seem to get the facts straight, time and time again.

facai88, I'm not sure if you read the post helperwatson was responding to, but here it is. Perhaps it puts his response in better context. He's clearly stated in previous posts he is not involved with Amarantus in any way, other than working in the field of neuroscience.

Well, as I said, you are free to believe whatever or whomever you choose.

I'll leave it at that. In the end, both of us are likely not going to care as we will be banking a lot of gains on our investment. Good luck to you.

How is challenging someone's opposing view seen as "curtailing" when their view is not supported by the facts, which they've either deliberately lied about or simply pulled out of their ass and have no basis in reality? How about when they refuse to acknowledge the facts as presented in counter posts and continue their opinions based on their inaccurate "facts"? How dare anyone challenge their posts? We might offend someone, and we certainly don't want that in our politically correct society, do we?

Exactly my point, zoom. An argument or opinion is usually relevant when supported by facts. When someone who considers themselves an expert on a topic is shown to have the facts wrong as many times as we've proven in his case, one has to wonder what's at work... is someone seriously that misinformed or do they have another agenda for posting the false info? Did that person openly acknowledge having recently sold out of their entire holdings, and again having started to buy back in? Is the reason for the false info because they hope to create fear and get a better share price?

I'm not claiming this tactic would work here. I'm just stating that it is a matter of credibility when our board expert has been shown to be misrepresenting the facts so many times, and yet there are still those who value his opinion.

I guess I really need to examine my own motives. I always try to validate the facts I post when using them in my conclusions. While my conclusions might not always be correct, in almost all cases my facts are and I often post links to back up my facts. If I'm wrong on my facts, I welcome corrections. I've even gone so far ask to correct some of my friend's pro-AMBS posts when they mis-state a fact or two. I'm also man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I can't say the same for our board expert, who believes he is all knowing and those of us without 30 years medical experience are just a bunch of misinformed investors, and he works had to educate us on all things Amarantus based on his own version of the facts. Yes, we should all certainly be thanking him for the service he provides us. LMAO

MJFF says Eltoprazine is safe and no mention of any adverse side effects. The drug has "too many side effects" only in someone's mind. Par for the course. I guess not only Amarantus has it wrong, but now MJFF does too. We've seen the "expert's claims that we know the cause of PD, even though MJFF clearly states on their website that the cause of PD is unknown. LOL

Just because someone with 30 years medical experience makes a claim and surrounds it with a lot of medical jargon, doesn't mean we should believe it.

Who should we believe?

https://www.michaeljfox.org/files/accelerate/participants/psychogenics_1.pdf

How many years combined medical experience does John Commissiong have, or his advisors, or the researchers at MJFF? So who has more credibility? I wonder...

I'm sure we'll soon get a detailed medical explanation from our expert of why the Phenouard discovery approach won't amount to much of anything, and how the company is clearly pursuing the wrong path in that regard.

Wait for it.

No, I'm not worried about that. But I enjoy jerking his chain about it because he openly reveals all this personal info about himself and having his medical license revoked (really dumb thing to do), and yet any mention of it in a post and he removes the post as a personal attack. Yet his original post has been allowed to remain, as he claims it serves to establish his credibility as an expert.

By the way, have you thanked him for his military service, his service to his patients and to the shareholders on this board? He did state in that post that's what we should all be doing. LOL You should get busy if you haven't done that yet.

Seriously, watch all the backpedaling posts by our expert as each of his claims are proven inaccurate. I'm sure there will be detailed medical explanations as to why his prior claims were not valid. We'll all be very impressed.

Are you kidding? A potential JV partner being spooked because of what is posted here? If that's part of their DD on the company, perhaps we don't want them as a JV partner.

I really don't care what anyone else does with their pizza money. But this poster makes a lot of effort to let everyone know of his 30 years medical experience. And yet many of his claims suggest Amarantus management and advisors don't have a clue about what they're trying to bring to market.

My point about making a point was that no matter how much effort is expended, this expert won't be convinced his assessments are wrong. The only way will be to watch the company succeed with their diagnostics and treatments and prove these expert claims are not credible.

Does anyone actually believe a message board poster with a revoked medical license has more credibility about the company's products and direction than the company management, chief scientific officer, and world-class advisors who are actively executing the company plans and so far are hitting every milestone they set?

Agreed. I think posters will discover in the coming weeks and months the company management and advisors know what they're doing, and the credibility of self-proclaimed experts will be severely lacking when their claims about LymPro are proven to be completely inaccurate.

It will be fun to watch the backpedaling, though.

He's probably referring to higher doses in other uses for Eltoprazine. From what I recall in the data shown in the presentation, the optimal doses found in the Phase Iia study were low enough to virtually eliminate the side effects that may be seen in larger doses. But good luck getting that point across.

It's important to do our own DD and not let others instill fear by spreading misinformation and doubt.

Again, I'm a long-term investor, not a trader like yourself. My mindset is I don't piss and moan over the day to day swings in share price. Even if I was a trader, I wouldn't do as so many do and try to manipulate other investors by constantly switching my outlook back and forth. It destroys one's credibility and it's really pretty sad when someone has to resort to outright lying or spreading fear and confusion to support their own agenda with flipping their shares, instead of being able to rely solely on their own trading skills without the attempts at manipulation.

I might learn something from the market's reaction in the short term, but long term I'm confident I'm going to do extremely well with this investment. I certainly won't be learning anything from a flipper whose outlook on the stock flips weekly depending on which side of the trade they're on.

No one here knows the status of the sniffing and the bites being offered. A pretty girl with a lot going for her doesn't need to accept a prom date request from the first guy who asks her, nor the second or third. She knows she can hold out for the right guy to ask her. Same situation with Amarantus, I suspect. This girl might hint that she's getting a number of requests, but she's not naming names until she accepts the right one.

Probably because:

1.  It's something that's been known for over 5 months now and already factored into our mindset.

2.  Some of us are investors, not traders, and don't try to create fear and confusion to support which side of the flip we are currently on.

3.  Some of us realize if the debenture shares are a concern for you and your many aliases, then it is automatically NOT a concern for us.

Warrants can be exercised at any time now that the shares are registered. Since their exercise price is $0.06 the warrant holders are already in the money with an immediate return of over 50%. Any voluntary warrant executions will provide immediate funds to the company.

I'd suggest not getting too wrapped up in the "over 0.10 for 20 days" requirement as it may not be needed. While it seems reasonable that some of the investors might want to execute their warrants now, Gerald provided a means to force any holdouts to execute in order to gain access to the additional funds provided by their warrants.

It seems clear to me they were hired as part of the plan to up-list and to support the news of funding and/or partnerships expected to be announced prior to the up-listing. We might learn more of the strategy when and if the company issues a press release about the new hires.

As with other additions to the board and advisors in the last year, it's not only their skill set being sought, but their connections within the industry that can help move the company forward.

Risk, I was only correcting your post as to what Gerald actually stated. We can all have different interpretations of what his statement means, but we need to be careful not to put words in his mouth. Some of our posters already do that by hearing words in the tone of their voice and jump to conclusions not supported by the words spoken or the historical facts.

I agree this exploration could take months, and I also agree the biggest issue for the company right now from the investor's perspective is the lack of clear funding as we move forward. But if this exploration and delay in licensing deals for LymPro results in significantly larger funding, investors with a long-term outlook be much happier, even if we have to deal with the short-term undervaluation until the deal is announced.