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.
Having a last look tonight. I would think that deletions would occur if the person that proposed the question (mgmoony in this instance) was convinced that their question could be answered from public domain sources. In the case of the UTAH/Florida companies the SEC returns are not very forthcoming about the relationship between the two companies IMO. I don't think personally this is a big issue in practice and suspect we might be able to precis the existing question eventually. Removal would seem premature in this instance though IMO. Given that Frog and myself were jointly tasked with this exercise, I would suggest that he be allowed the same degree of editorial control as myself.
Shareholders Meeting Questions (Draft) - Version 0.2
Company
How do you justify the wide margin between revenues ($709,638), administrative costs (i.e. payroll is approximately $3,857,925) and net loss ($7,789,905)?
Dr. Frudakis recently stated that the company plans to move from its current 7,000 square foot building to a new 20,000 square foot building at a cost of approximately $1,000,000. DNAP has 12 full-time employees as per the last 10K and not much equipment. Can you explain why the additional space if needed and in what timescale?
Does the company intend to relocate to the new research facility being constructed at the USF, as indicated by having signed a letter of intent to do so? If not, has the company selected alternative premises? What is the timescale to finalize this decision and move to the new location? Will the existing offices at Cocoanut Avenue be retained?
Can you confirm the current number of employees, their function, and whether they are full time or part time or employed on a contract basis? Do all employees work at the company offices? What are the current plans for expanding the workforce in terms of numbers and functions of prospective employees?
In the January 2003 letter to shareholders, Dr. Frudakis intimated that shareholders would be able to participate in a warrants plan that the company intended at that time to implement. Was the vote for the increase in authorized shares on the basis that such a warrants plan would be provided? Why did the company not ultimately proceed with the warrants plan as initially envisaged?
In the January letter to shareholders, Dr. Frudakis stated that the common shareholders would be given the right to vote on any further issuance of shares. Since that letter was released, DNAP has issued over 200,000,000 shares. Why have shareholders not received proxies from the company in relation to these issuances?
What is the current status of the agreement with Genomedics Inc (GMED)? Is the agreement still in force and what are the implications (if any) of this for DNAP?
Early in the companies history there was much discussion of the Orchid option agreement. It was described as a six month window of opportunity in which Orchid could obtain the exclusive rights to the first completed product. Mention was made in newsletters that the terms of the option created some hesitation on the part of potential partners/customers as they did not wish to lose their negotiated rights should Orchid chose to exercise their option. Since then we have heard that the rights to the option have transferred to Beckman and there has been very little said in regards to it lately. Does the option still exist? If not, what completed product was used to trigger the six month window and in what time frame did it occur? If it still exists, what are the ramifications in terms of any approaching project completions? Since Ancestry and DNAWitness were developed under different circumstances we are under the impression that the option agreement does not apply to them, is that a correct assumption?
Much has been made of the technology and innovation of the company and the potential value that can result from exploiting them, but in terms of material value, what are the tangible assets of the company? We are aware that the building is leased and that the actual ownership of the major piece of equipment (Orchid UHT) is questionable. Aside from the office and lab equipment, is there any other capital equipment that is the property of the company? The products themselves (Ancestry and DNAWitness) can be considered assets, but as they are 'service based' there is very little inventory associated with them. (swabs, plastic bags, printed material etc.). The major asset of the company is presumably the 'platform' from which the various products are derived, what exact form does the platform take? Is it a program/database and associated documentation resident on a computer? Is it a documented and archived set of CD-ROMS? Is it a collection of various parts that coalesces into a functional entity under the careful management of a trained individual? Is it therefore a tangible object that can be described, backed-up or duplicated at will, or is it an intangible collection of expertise and knowledge that requires the involved participation of a single, or set of, individuals? The patent applications are a growing repository of potential value that will perhaps provide a tangible asset if they are ever granted, until they are however, they must be considered intangible. What Safeguards are in place to protect the assets of the company?
Presumably the platform is protected from competitive duplication by patent application. We can see where this would prevent a competitor from reading the patent application and duplicating the platform and going into business with a competing service. How would it prevent a major pharmaceutical company, for instance, from duplicating the platform and using it in the privacy of their own lab to develop new drugs. Drugs that would come out of the drug pipeline just like countless others before them. The drugs themselves would not be in competition with DNAP so what would be the path for litigating the patent rights? How would anyone know, by what mechanism would the use of a duplicate platform be revealed?
Given that the assets of the company, while potentially valuable, are knowledge based and therefore somewhat intangible, are there any particular safeguards in place to protect shareholder value in the event of unforeseen business failure? Are the assets documented and archived such that they can be reconstituted by knowledgeable individuals? Are they listed on an asset sheet so that they can be tracked by auditors? Are there by-laws in place that would require a shareholder vote before such key assets could be transferred or licensed?
What is the legal status of the Orchid device if the company entered bankruptcy?
Can the company confirm the status of the NIH and the NIJ grant applications?
Can the company confirm the status of the company's application for forensic laboratory accreditation?
What happened to the proposed private placement?
Can the company provide an update on the civil case in the Florida circuit court involving a former employee?
Are there are other current or pending legal actions involving the company?
Has the company been, is it currently, or will it potentially be involved with DNA Phenomics in Malaysia? If not, has the company identified another partner(s) for product distribution in the Asia Pacific market?
Are there any initiatives underway or planned in relation to partner(s) for product distribution in Europe?
If the company share price reaches .025 will funding under the La Jolla Cove agreement be discontinued, be suspended until the share price recovers, or will funding continue?
Can the company provide an update in relation to its previous indications about becoming a drug company?
The company previously indicated that it would at some future stage make license fee payments to Genetic Technologies. Can you explain the context, and anticipated magnitude and timescale of these payments?
Management
Can you explain and justify the level of management compensation and how this will change upon expiration of the existing one year employment agreements for the management team?
Can you explain why it is necessary to have a Chief Financial Officer/Chief Operating Officer role at the present time? Would it have been possible to outsource these functions, possibly as an interim measure?
The securing of which co-commercialization and or co-development partner for the Company's first genomics - based patient classification test triggered the “performance condition” in the Performance Stock Agreement between the company and Tony Frudakis, that resulted in the vesting of 30,000,000 shares as per the terms of that agreement?
What is Dr. Frudakis's involvement with the Biometrics Council (renamed to Biological Threats Council)? Are there any implications for the company as a result of his involvement with this initiative?
Scientific Advisory Board
Can you confirm the current composition of the SAB? Some individuals were previously listed in SEC returns and on the company website as being SAB members, e.g. Ramin Mirhashemi, Ferenado Arena and DC Rao, but these individuals no longer appear to be SAB members. For any people who are no longer SAB members can you provide an explanation as to why they are not?
Can you explain the role of the SAB and the services that are typically performed by SAB members?
Can you explain how the remuneration level of 50,000 shares of common stock per annum was arrived at? In the Company's opinion is this sufficient to attract and retain the type of individual that the company would want as SAB members?
As per the last 10K the company has initiated plans to expand the SAB to include "other scientists who will actively contribute to our effort in increasing the number of BGA sub-categories from our current four, to as many as 20." Can you provide an update on how these efforts are progressing? Are there any current plans to expand the SAB to include scientists in disciplines other than biogeographical ancestry?
Can you explain the difference between the SAB and the Board of Consultants, which was also mentioned in the last 10K?
Investor Relations
Does the company have any plans to enhance their access to customers or shareholders questions and suggestions?
Does the company intend to provide newsletters on a regular basis in the future?
Website
Why are the “DNAP in the Press” and the “Conferences/Trade Shows/Presentations” sections of the company website not updated on a regular basis?
Why is the January 2003 letter to shareholders the only publicly released document from the company not available on the website?
Science
[Could have some technical questions about AIMS and ADMIXMAP here. I know Doug has a potential question...]
Services/Products
The two major products in the market today are AncestryByDNA (ABD) and DNAWitness. We have heard positive things about both. Since the two products have been on the market for a number of months now can you share any market analysis that you have obtained. We have heard some fairly large estimates for the size of the market for DNA testing as it relates to the forensic space, but those estimates include such unrelated to DNAWitness categories as CODIS testing of convicted felons and backlogged rape kits. Do you have any market analysis that focuses on the specific number of applications available for the DNAWitness product? What is your projection for the growth curve for ABD, is it still growing, at what rate? Is the curve showing signs of exponential growth, linear growth or is it flattening out?
Can you confirm the current status of the development of ABD 3.0?
Can you give any details about the parental populations used in the development of the AIMs? Specifically, what is the parental population for the Indo-European category? From what ethnic groups/part of Europe were these people from?
Is it possible that some of the admixture estimates that are derived are overestimated due to their being compared to a small (narrow) parental population?
What will the 20 categories be in ABD 3.0? Who is this product being developed in conjunction with and what are their aims for the project(s)? Is there an agreed taxonomy of racial categories and what correlation is there between any such taxonomy and the categories that the company intends to use?
Can the company provide any details of the scope and progress of the project to “date” admixture? How would such work result in new products or impact current products?
What is the company’s current anticipation of the likely adoption of DNA Witness for routine use by US and foreign Police Departments and/or Governmental agencies?
Can the company provide any details on the development of additional classifiers for traits such as hair color and facial features that would be components of DNA Witness?
Why has genotyping not been provided as a service to other companies to date? What are the current plans for offering this as a service? Why did the $1,000 genome scan appear not to generate market interest?
Will the company be providing so-called “validation genotyping” services for (GMED)?
Has any interest been expressed in the paternity testing service that was recently introduced by the company?
What is the status of Retinome? This was ostensibly 75% finished over two years ago. We then heard that the data was inconsistent due to ‘self reporting’ errors introduced by the participants, but a more sophisticated data set was obtained using digital equipment. We heard in a magazine article last summer Retinome would be introduced by the end of 2003. It is now mid 2004 and we have heard nothing lately. Could you clarify? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market?
What is the status of Statinome? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market? There has been some indication that competitors are working on similar projects, can you give us any indication of DNAP’s advantages or disadvantages in regards to these competing approaches?
What is the status of Ovanome? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market?
Are there any other products currently in development or planned by the company?
Patent Applications
What is the current status of the various patent applications? What issues (if any) have been encountered in practice during the patent application review process? What is the company's expectation that any or all of these patents will be granted in due course?
Have all the inventions and patent applications been assigned to DNAP as the sole owner and assignee of those assets? If not, then who owns the inventions and patent applications?
Do all the employees of DNAP, including officers and staff members, and outside contract researchers have a written obligation to assign all of their inventions to the company as a condition of their employment or contract? If not, then how is ownership determined?
N.B. As utilized here, the term “inventions” comprise only those pertinent to the science, technology and business objectives of DNAP.
Collaborative Research
Can the company confirm the current status of the collaborative relationship with the University of Miami? Are Drs. Mirhashemi and Arena still employed by the University and are they participating in research with the company?
Is there any update on the FAMRI sponsored project on genetic susceptibility to cervical cancer in second hand smokers in conjunction with the University of Miami that was the subject of the press release in February 2003?
Can the company provide any update about the work that has been underway with New York University aimed at developing a transplant classifier?
Can the company explain what happened with the proposed collaboration with GeneLink which is apparently now not going forward?
Can the company provide more details about the relationship with H. Lee Moffitt (Moffitt) over and above what is contained in the 10K?
What is the nature of the relationship with Moffitt? Equal partners, both sharing in the costs of resources and materials of the various projects and then sharing equally in the resulting assets? Is DNAP acting as a service provider to Moffitt, being paid for their services and their expertise, but then Moffitt is the owner of any assets developed from the project. Is DNAP providing the project management or is it acting as a subcontractor taking direction from Moffit? Is there some other form for the relationship? How does the company see the process of co-development and co-commercialization working in practice with Moffitt?
Can the company provide any detail on the due diligence work that was undertaken by Moffitt before collaborating with DNAP and confirm when the projects actually started?
Can the company confirm that the following projects are currently underway in conjunction with Moffitt: Colon Cancer, Multiple Myeloma, Cyclophosphamide, Taxanes? Is is possible to provide any additional detail on the scope and anticipated timetable for these projects? Are there any other projects currently in progress or planned to be undertaken with Moffitt?
Can the company explain why they terminated the license agreement with the Penn State Research Foundation? Does this have any affect on the company’s intellectual property or on other work underway, or future work planned, in conjunction with Dr. Shriver?
Is there any update on the National Institutes of Justice Funded Project that was the subject of the press release in August 2003?
Can the company confirm the scope and status of any projects underway in conjunction with Senecio Inc?
Listing
Can the company confirm that it has applied to be delisted from the Berlin Exchange and also confirm the status of the listing on the Frankfurt Exchange? Does the company have plans to list on other foreign exchanges?
Has the company considered possible courses of action to address potential naked short-selling of its stock? These could include delisting from exchanges, removing its stock from the DTCC system and issuing physical certificates, and recalling all of its stock and re-issuing it to shareholders of record.
Does the company intend ultimately to list on NASDAQ or AMEX (or some other exchange)? Is there any timetable for such a listing?
Miscellaneous
Does the company intend to implement a reverse split of its stock in the foreseeable future? If not, how does the company think that the existing level of authorized shares will be perceived by the market? Is so, what would the ballpark split ratio be?
How does DNAP Utah impact/affect its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, DNAP Florida? What's the role/structure of the Utah parent company? Do they interact with DNAP Florida? If so, in what capacity? Is there overhead to DNAP Florida for this entity? Is Utah involved in the day-to-day operations of Florida? Do they handle employment contracts, etc? How many shares does Utah hold? Based on the above, what's the float?
Comments or additions welcome.
As it is approaching midnight for me I will hand the latest incarnation of the draft list of shareholder questions (version 0.2) over to Frog for safekeeping until tomorrow. This reflects all changes suggested on IHUB and RB to date. I look forward to seeing version 0.3 suitably updated tomorrow.
bag8ger, no i think that the issue of becoming a drug company is a separate question in its own right. Perhaps:
Can the company provide an update in relation to its previous indications about becoming a drug company?
And:
The company previously indicated that it would at some future stage make license fee payments to Genetic Technologies. Can you explain the context, and anticipated magnitude and timescale of these payments?
bag8ger, this was covered in this question:
What is the company’s current anticipation of the likely adoption of DNA Witness for routine use by US and foreign Police Departments and/or Governmental agencies?
The intent being to ask relatively broad questions to (hopefully) garner more informaiton from the company...
It's a collective effort Chris. eom
Grateful, the Kondragunta case was mentioned by Nitya on RB and the following questions have been included:
Can the company provide an update on the civil case in the Florida circuit court involving a former employee?
Are there are other current or pending legal actions involving the company?
I have included it as:
If the company share price reaches .025 will funding under the La Jolla Cove agreement be discontinued, be suspended until the share price recovers, or will funding continue?
ifida, yes I will include the following:
Has the company been, is it currently, or will it potentially be involved with DNA Phenomics in Malaysia? If not, has the company identified another partner(s) for product distribution in the Asia Pacific market?
Are there any initiatives underway or planned in relation to partner(s) for product distribution in Europe?
What is Dr. Frudakis's involvement with the Biometrics Council (renamed to Biological Threats Council)? Are there any implications for the company as a result of his involvement with this initiative?
And how about:
Can the company confirm the scope and status of any projects underway in conjunction with Senecio Inc?
Can I also suggest that I hand over the updated draft list of questions (version 0.2) to Frog later on today? He can then be the custodian of the list until tomorrow.
I would suggest say until end Monday to finalize the list before sending it to the company. That gives everybody two days and the weekend to look at it. No idea when their newsletter is due, which might well cover a lot of the ground.
Shareholders Meeting Questions (Draft)
Company
How do you justify the wide margin between revenues ($709,638), administrative costs (i.e. payroll is approximately $3,857,925) and net loss ($7,789,905)?
Dr. Frudakis recently stated that the company plans to move from its current 7,000 square foot building to a new 20,000 square foot building at a cost of approximately $1,000,000. DNAP has 12 full-time employees as per the last 10K and not much equipment. Can you explain why the additional space if needed and in what timescale?
Does the company intend to relocate to the new research facility being constructed at the USF, as indicated by having signed a letter of intent to do so? If not, has the company selected alternative premises? What is the timescale to finalize this decision and move to the new location? Will the existing offices at Cocoanut Avenue be retained?
Can you confirm the current number of employees, their function, and whether they are full time or part time or employed on a contract basis? Do all employees work at the company offices? What are the current plans for expanding the workforce in terms of numbers and functions of prospective employees?
In the January 2003 letter to shareholders, Dr. Frudakis intimated that shareholders would be able to participate in a warrants plan that the company intended at that time to implement. Was the vote for the increase in authorized shares on the basis that such a warrants plan would be provided? Why did the company not ultimately proceed with the warrants plan as initially envisaged?
In the January letter to shareholders, Dr. Frudakis stated that the common shareholders would be given the right to vote on any further issuance of shares. Since that letter was released, DNAP has issued over 200,000,000 shares. Why have shareholders not received proxies from the company in relation to these issuances?
What is the current status of the agreement with Genomedics Inc (GMED)? Is the agreement still in force and what are the implications (if any) of this for DNAP?
Early in the companies history there was much discussion of the Orchid option agreement. It was described as a six month window of opportunity in which Orchid could obtain the exclusive rights to the first completed product. Mention was made in newsletters that the terms of the option created some hesitation on the part of potential partners/customers as they did not wish to lose their negotiated rights should Orchid chose to exercise their option. Since then we have heard that the rights to the option have transferred to Beckman and there has been very little said in regards to it lately. Does the option still exist? If not, what completed product was used to trigger the six month window and in what time frame did it occur? If it still exists, what are the ramifications in terms of any approaching project completions? Since Ancestry and DNAWitness were developed under different circumstances we are under the impression that the option agreement does not apply to them, is that a correct assumption?
Much has been made of the technology and innovation of the company and the potential value that can result from exploiting them, but in terms of material value, what are the tangible assets of the company? We are aware that the building is leased and that the actual ownership of the major piece of equipment (Orchid UHT) is questionable. Aside from the office and lab equipment, is there any other capital equipment that is the property of the company? The products themselves (Ancestry and DNAWitness) can be considered assets, but as they are 'service based' there is very little inventory associated with them. (swabs, plastic bags, printed material etc.). The major asset of the company is presumably the 'platform' from which the various products are derived, what exact form does the platform take? Is it a program/database and associated documentation resident on a computer? Is it a documented and archived set of CD-ROMS? Is it a collection of various parts that coalesces into a functional entity under the careful management of a trained individual? Is it therefore a tangible object that can be described, backed-up or duplicated at will, or is it an intangible collection of expertise and knowledge that requires the involved participation of a single, or set of, individuals? The patent applications are a growing repository of potential value that will perhaps provide a tangible asset if they are ever granted, until they are however, they must be considered intangible. What Safeguards are in place to protect the assets of the company?
Presumably the platform is protected from competitive duplication by patent application. We can see where this would prevent a competitor from reading the patent application and duplicating the platform and going into business with a competing service. How would it prevent a major pharmaceutical company, for instance, from duplicating the platform and using it in the privacy of their own lab to develop new drugs. Drugs that would come out of the drug pipeline just like countless others before them. The drugs themselves would not be in competition with DNAP so what would be the path for litigating the patent rights? How would anyone know, by what mechanism would the use of a duplicate platform be revealed?
Given that the assets of the company, while potentially valuable, are knowledge based and therefore somewhat intangible, are there any particular safeguards in place to protect shareholder value in the event of unforeseen business failure? Are the assets documented and archived such that they can be reconstituted by knowledgeable individuals? Are they listed on an asset sheet so that they can be tracked by auditors? Are there by-laws in place that would require a shareholder vote before such key assets could be transferred or licensed?
What is the legal status of the Orchid device if the company entered bankruptcy?
Can the company confirm the status of the NIH and the NIJ grant applications?
Can the company confirm the status of the company's application for forensic
laboratory accreditation?
What happened to the proposed private placement?
Management
Can you explain and justify the level of management compensation and how this will change upon expiration of the existing one year employment agreements for the management team?
Can you explain why it is necessary to have a Chief Financial Officer/Chief Operating Officer role at the present time? Would it have been possible to outsource these functions, possibly as an interim measure?
The securing of which co-commercialization and or co-development partner for the Company's first genomics - based patient classification test triggered the “performance condition” in the Performance Stock Agreement between the company and Tony Frudakis, that resulted in the vesting of 30,000,000 shares as per the terms of that agreement?
Scientific Advisory Board
Can you confirm the current composition of the SAB? Some individuals were previously listed in SEC returns and on the company website as being SAB members, e.g. Ramin Mirhashemi, Ferenado Arena and DC Rao, but these individuals no longer appear to be SAB members. For any people who are no longer SAB members can you provide an explanation as to why they are not?
Can you explain the role of the SAB and the services that are typically performed by SAB members?
Can you explain how the remuneration level of 50,000 shares of common stock per annum was arrived at? In the Company's opinion is this sufficient to attract and retain the type of individual that the company would want as SAB members?
As per the last 10K the company has initiated plans to expand the SAB to include "other scientists who will actively contribute to our effort in increasing the number of BGA sub-categories from our current four, to as many as 20." Can you provide an update on how these efforts are progressing? Are there any current plans to expand the SAB to include scientists in disciplines other than biogeographical ancestry?
Can you explain the difference between the SAB and the Board of Consultants, which was also mentioned in the last 10K?
Investor Relations
Does the company have any plans to enhance their access to customers or shareholders questions and suggestions?
Does the company intend to provide newsletters on a regular basis in the future?
Website
Why are the “DNAP in the Press” and the “Conferences/Trade Shows/Presentations” sections of the company website not updated on a regular basis?
Why is the January 2003 letter to shareholders the only publicly released document from the company not available on the website?
Science
[Could have some technical questions about AIMS and ADMIXMAP here. I know Doug has a potential question...]
Services/Products
The two major products in the market today are AncestryByDNA (ABD) and DNAWitness. We have heard positive things about both. Since the two products have been on the market for a number of months now can you share any market analysis that you have obtained. We have heard some fairly large estimates for the size of the market for DNA testing as it relates to the forensic space, but those estimates include such unrelated to DNAWitness categories as CODIS testing of convicted felons and backlogged rape kits. Do you have any market analysis that focuses on the specific number of applications available for the DNAWitness product? What is your projection for the growth curve for ABD, is it still growing, at what rate? Is the curve showing signs of exponential growth, linear growth or is it flattening out?
Can you confirm the current status of the development of ABD 3.0?
Can you give any details about the parental populations used in the development of the AIMs? Specifically, what is the parental population for the Indo-European category? From what ethnic groups/part of Europe were these people from?
Is it possible that some of the admixture estimates that are derived are overestimated due to their being compared to a small (narrow) parental population?
What will the 20 categories be in ABD 3.0? Who is this product being developed in conjunction with and what are their aims for the project(s)? Is there an agreed taxonomy of racial categories and what correlation is there between any such taxonomy and the categories that the company intends to use?
Can the company provide any details of the scope and progress of the project to “date” admixture? How would such work result in new products or impact current products?
What is the company’s current anticipation of the likely adoption of DNA Witness for routine use by US and foreign Police Departments and/or Governmental agencies?
Can the company provide any details on the development of additional classifiers for traits such as hair color and facial features that would be components of DNA Witness?
Why has genotyping not been provided as a service to other companies to date? What are the current plans for offering this as a service? Why did the $1,000 genome scan appear not to generate market interest?
Will the company be providing so-called “validation genotyping” services for (GMED)?
Has any interest been expressed in the paternity testing service that was recently introduced by the company?
What is the status of Retinome? This was ostensibly 75% finished over two years ago. We then heard that the data was inconsistent due to ‘self reporting’ errors introduced by the participants, but a more sophisticated data set was obtained using digital equipment. We heard in a magazine article last summer Retinome would be introduced by the end of 2003. It is now mid 2004 and we have heard nothing lately. Could you clarify? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market?
What is the status of Statinome? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market? There has been some indication that competitors are working on similar projects, can you give us any indication of DNAP’s advantages or disadvantages in regards to these competing approaches?
What is the status of Ovanome? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market?
Are there any other products currently in development or planned by the company?
Patent Applications
What is the current status of the various patent applications? What issues (if any) have been encountered in practice during the patent application review process? What is the company's expectation that any or all of these patents will be granted in due course?
Collaborative Research
Can the company confirm the current status of the collaborative relationship with the University of Miami? Are Drs. Mirhashemi and Arena still employed by the University and are they participating in research with the company?
Is there any update on the FAMRI sponsored project on genetic susceptibility to cervical cancer in second hand smokers in conjunction with the University of Miami that was the subject of the press release in February 2003?
Can the company provide any update about the work that has been underway with New York University aimed at developing a transplant classifier?
Can the company explain what happened with the proposed collaboration with GeneLink which is apparently now not going forward?
Can the company provide more details about the relationship with H. Lee Moffitt (Moffitt) over and above what is contained in the 10K?
What is the nature of the relationship with Moffitt? Equal partners, both sharing in the costs of resources and materials of the various projects and then sharing equally in the resulting assets? Is DNAP acting as a service provider to Moffitt, being paid for their services and their expertise, but then Moffitt is the owner of any assets developed from the project. Is DNAP providing the project management or is it acting as a subcontractor taking direction from Moffit? Is there some other form for the relationship? How does the company see the process of co-development and co-commercialization working in practice with Moffitt?
Can the company provide any detail on the due diligence work that was undertaken by Moffitt before collaborating with DNAP and confirm when the projects actually started?
Can the company confirm that the following projects are currently underway in conjunction with Moffitt: Colon Cancer, Multiple Myeloma, Cyclophosphamide, Taxanes? Is is possible to provide any additional detail on the scope and anticipated timetable for these projects? Are there any other projects currently in progress or planned to be undertaken with Moffitt?
Can the company explain why they terminated the license agreement with the Penn State Research Foundation? Does this have any affect on the company’s intellectual property or on other work underway, or future work planned, in conjunction with Dr. Shriver?
Is there any update on the National Institutes of Justice Funded Project that was the subject of the press release in August 2003?
Listing
Can the company confirm that it has applied to be delisted from the Berlin Exchange and also confirm the status of the listing on the Frankfurt Exchange? Does the company have plans to list on other foreign exchanges?
Has the company considered possible courses of action to address potential short-selling of its stock? These could include delisting from exchanges, removing its stock from the DTCC system and issuing physical certificates, and recalling all of its stock and re-issuing it to shareholders of record.
Does the company intend ultimately to list on NASDAQ or AMEX (or some other exchange)? Is there any timetable for such a listing?
Miscellaneous
Does the company intend to implement a reverse split of its stock in the foreseeable future? If not, how does the company think that the existing level of authorized shares will be perceived by the market? Is so, what would the ballpark split ratio be?
How does DNAP Utah impact/affect its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, DNAP Florida? What's the role/structure of the Utah parent company? Do they interact with DNAP Florida? If so, in what capacity? Is there overhead to DNAP Florida for this entity? Is Utah involved in the day-to-day operations of Florida? Do they handle employment contracts, etc? How many shares does Utah hold? Based on the above, what's the float?
Comments or additions welcome.
I have now consolidated the proposed shareholder's meeting questions from Frog, Mike, 66fan, Spook and myself. Where I have made changes these have largely been cosmetic to enhance the readability of the question (or to correct spelling in Frog's case lol). I apologize if I have missed anybody else's questions. The revised list will be posted after this for comment. I would suggest that rather than have multiple lists of questions to be presented at different times that we just agree the list and dispatch it to the company. If there is a subsequent newsletter or other update then relevant questions can simply be removed from the list. The remaining questions would then be asked at the shareholder's meeting.
frog, the IP is assigned to the company (in the patent applications). The principals cannot just walk off with it. A more moot point would be who the IP was sold to and at what price in one of the doomsday scenarios you worry about. This is where things can potentially get a bit unfair from the perspective of the shareholders. I don't think the company is going to fail so I don't think we need worry too much about this. I will get back to you with comments on the questions tomorrow.
The reference I wanted was the one where Menzies explained how (and why) significant it would be if the company could do this. It is something that I think we will hear more about anyway.
Apart from this comment by Tony Frudakis on RootsWeb:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2319641
Mike, do you have a reference on the project to date admixture? There used to be something on the Gavin Menzies site, but they discontinued access to parts of it and I couldn't find another reference.
frog, I forgot, the debate about Moffitt then led on to the "debate" about the LJC agreement, warrants, etc which was why the list of questions got lost. Just goes to show how disruptive things can be. Do you agree to withdraw the last question about the non-competes for company principles (or do I have to go and hunt down Tony Frudakis's)?
frog, I apologize if I have misunderstood your post. I was not aware that you were waiting for my input to your list of suggested questions. In all the excitement I may very well have overlooked the fact that the ball was in my court. I will look at your list again and offer some suggestions. This will be tomorrow my time to allow the questions to receive the due consideration that they deserve. In the meantime if anybody else wants to suggest questions we can ensure that these appear on the list. A couple of people have suggested individual items on both boards. I will try to make sure that I track all of these down.
66fan, I'm used to fiscal year ends being end Q1. We'll just have to wait and see what it is. It won't be long...
As an example, I refer to spook's original question #2 from his post on RB. I have provided some answers, some clarification, and some suggested rewording (in italics). Spook's original wording is first in bold and my contributions are below in normal text. Spook might wish to review the suggestions and agree to withdraw or amend the question accordingly.
2) According to the filing, Dr. Frudakis received 30,000,000 free shares as a "performance bonus". Considering the above mentioned net loss (-7,789,905) how was this justified? What "milestones" were met?
The "net loss" is IMO not directly relevant to the subject matter of the question which is the justification of the stock award in terms of "milestones". Some background - from the last 10K we can see the basis for the award:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000095014404003262/g88133e10ksb.htm
"...we previously had an agreement to award 30,000,000 shares of our common stock to our Chief Science Officer when certain performance measures were met. At December 31, 2002 and March 31, 2003, it was not probable that the shares would ever be issued and accordingly no stock based compensation was recorded through such date. During the second quarter of 2003, the Board of Directors approved the immediate vesting of these shares as the criteria the Board of Directors had set had been met..."
So what were the previously agreed criteria? These were described in an agreement that was an attachment to the 10K filed in April 2002:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000107087602000030/stockagmt.htm
There was a "performance condition" specified ("Grantee" is Tony Frudakis):
"It shall be a condition to the vesting of the Performance Shares that the Company, through the efforts of the Grantee, secures a co-commercialization and or co-development partner for the Company's first genomics - based patient classification test. Upon completion of such condition, all performance legends shall be removed from grantee's stock."
There was also an "administration" clause:
"The Board of Directors shall have the power to interpret this Agreement and to adopt such rules for administration, interpretation and application of the Agreement as are consistent with the Plan and to interpret such rules. All actions taken and all interpretations and determinations made by the Board of Directors in good faith shall be final and binding upon the Grantee, the Company and all interested persons. No member of the Board of Directors shall be personally liable for any action, determination or interpretation made in good faith with respect to this Agreement or any similar agreement to which the Company is a party."
And, incidentally, a potential bar on disposition:
"Upon receipt of any of the Performance Shares as a result of the satisfaction of all conditions to the Grant, the Grantee shall, if requested by the Company, hold such Performance Shares for investment and not with the view toward resale or distribution to the public and, if so requested by the Company, shall deliver to the Company a written statement signed by the Grantee and satisfactory to the Company to that effect."
So, assuming that there was no relevant "interpretation" by the Board, and going back to the performance condition, what happened during the second quarter of 2003 that might be a relevant event? This is about the time period when the relevant NYU committee agreed to proceed with the transplant classifier after dithering for a year. In any case the original question is to my mind partly answered, and a suitable replacement might be:
The securing of which co-commercialization and or co-development partner for the Company's first genomics - based patient classification test triggered the "performance condition" in the Performance Stock Agreement between the company and Tony Frudakis, that resulted in the vesting of 30,000,000 shares as per the terms of that agreement?
An obvious secondary question is why the Ovanome work with Miami didn’t satisfy the performance condition?
Comments welcomed. I did try to post this on RB so that Spook could see it there but RB is down again.
66fan, allow me to clarify. That means that grants from Government entities relating to fiscal year 2005 might potentially have been awarded...
Another article on the London rapist:
http://www.voice-online.net/content.php?show=4000&type=1
DID NOT AGREE
BY Dominic Bascombe
Police use controversial genetics techniques in search for rapist
A Voice investigation has revealed that the Metropolitan Police are covertly attempting to obtain DNA samples of black men in the south London area.
The Met has been trying to track down a serial rapist who has attacked 84 frail and elderly women over the past 12 years.
They claim that DNA evidence shows the man is of Caribbean origin.
The Met has been seeking voluntary DNA samples from 200 police officers in the Caribbean in order to trace which island the attacker’s family are from.
However, in the course of the investigation – dubbed Operation Minstead – it has also targeted African-Caribbean men aged between 25 and 40, particularly those with a south London accent.
Andy Holder, 39, told how he was wrongly caught up in the investigation and even threatened with a court order. The electrician received a letter from the Met asking for his assistance in the case.
SUSPECTS
“There was a hand-delivered letter waiting for me at home,” he said.
“When I called, a woman police officer asked me if I was black and I said yes. She said they were looking for this rapist and for some reason the computer has put me in the top 1,400 [of suspects].
“That evening they phoned and asked if I wanted to meet to give a sample, but I told them no. The police said: ‘You sound like you’re having seconds [thoughts] but I said: ‘I never had firsts!’
“I don’t feel comfortable about giving my DNA or for them to have a bank of DNA from black males,” he said. “They kept telling me if I was not guilty I had nothing to fear.”
Police tactics escalated the next day when Mr Holder was threatened with a court order to obtain his DNA.
He explained: “Five minutes before leaving for work I got a phone call asking me if I had thought about giving the sample. Again I said no and the policeman said if I didn’t, they could get a court order for me. He said if they had to get the order, they would put my sample on the national database, but if I volunteered they would destroy the sample.
“This is harassment,” Holder fumed. “I have nothing at all to do with this man [the rapist]. This is bully-boy tactics by the police.”
“I feel if I had to give a sample it would be a form of violation – almost like a form of rape.
“Are we going to see a future where a team of people would take a swab from a baby as they are born?” he asked.
A spokesperson for human rights group Liberty said: “It is very disturbing that a man who is under no suspicion of committing this crime should be asked for his DNA.
“We will be looking at the details of this very carefully and consider whether he can bring a legal case.”
The police investigation has stirred a furious debate in the media. Many question whether a DNA sample can be used to trace ethnic background.
But the Home Office says that under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, police can retain DNA samples if a suspect has been charged on a recordable offence – one punishable with imprisonment – and held at a police station.
DATABASE
At present police hold over two million DNA samples on a database and access is strictly controlled. This is separate from the police criminal database.
A Met spokesperson said: “Ancestral testing has concluded [that the rapist’s] origins are from the Caribbean. We are trying to rule out a group of islands at least.
“The police can use their powers to take DNA samples if the person is arrested, or in particular if they fit the description, or if the officer has any concerns.”
The US genetics company assisting the Met, however, has refuted claims that it can identify the island that the attacker may hail from.
A spokesperson for DNA Print Genomics in Florida said it is impossible to be that precise. He said current technology can only show whether someone is from one of four population groups – East Asian, European, native American and African.
The Met claim their samples reveal a mixture of European, American and African strands, a type exclusive to the Caribbean.
The rapist has been categorised as a ‘gerontophile’, someone who seeks sexual gratification from older women.
Have you been asked to give DNA samples to the police?
Contact The Voice on 0207 737 9521 or email newsdesk@the-voice.co.uk.
frog, I agree that "there will be some significant announcement made at the meeting or during the run up to it". We might perhaps differ in our perceptions of what the substance of such an announcement(s) might be!
I do not think that there will be any "confrontation" at the shareholders meeting personally. The company officers are professionals, and the people that have indicated that they are going to attend are all reasonable folks. I believe that it will be a civilized and informative affair. There are a number of issues that people would like to understand further and a number of valid questions have been raised (using nitya's criteria). Are you still pulling together a list of the questions to be sent to DNAP or has this exercise fallen somewhat by the wayside? Would you like me to do this or to help you with it? I am quite prepared to include spook's questions (with some subtle revision that would not alter the semantics but would assist with conformance to the aforementioned criteria). In the absence of such a list I would imagine that the meeting attendees will raise questions themselves, but there might not be representation of all of the issues that some people would like addressed. Let us know how (or if) you would like to proceed.
Hey Joy, good to hear from you (and Retro). Hope you are well.
OT Midas, as you are I think aware there is a long history with this particular individual at RB. We cannot do anything about RB, other than point out blatant attempted manipulation and untruths for the benefit of genuine shareholders or potential shareholders. I personally do not want to participate in any form of debate in this forum with this individual as a matter of principle. I suspect that a number of other long term shareholders hold similar views, which is why you do not see them post in either forum. Good luck to you.
GE, thanks for this. If the company have not listed themselves on any foreign exchange I find it slightly odd that they have not done anything about the Frankfurt listing to date, given that this has been known about for some time. Perhaps this one is genuinely innocuous and they were not concerned about it. In any case it demonstrates the value of contacting investor relations to point things out to the company.
A couple of other things. We have suspected for some time from previous comments made by them that the Genelink initiative was not going anywhere. Personally I am not too concerned about this as the value proposition was questionable from the start IMO.
As far as the shareholder's meeting is concerned this could be a normal event, something associated with a "negative" development (such as the dreaded reverse split), or something associated with a "positive" development. Of course it could be a venue to conduct multiple pieces of company business both "positive" and "negative". In the absence of an agenda we do not know and can only guess. I personally tend to side with Twelks and suspect that we might well see something positive occur ahead of the meeting which relates to the meeting being called. We will see soon.
Given that TonyTox is posting here I will not in future be participating in this forum. Good luck to genuine shareholders.
Racialization of Populations, Society and Science
Here are a presentation by Mark Shriver and Q&A from the above conference which was held in October 2002. Some of the examples that Mark Shriver uses are the subject of very recent papers. Some interesting details in the documents.
http://crchd.nci.nih.gov/meetings/conf/template.php?conference=Racialization%20of%20Populations,%20S...
Kondragunta case
There was a little flurry of activity at the end of last week in the civil case against Kondragunta. We cannot see the details as the Florida Supreme Court has terminated internet access to court records. These were the events that occurred:
5/18/2004 NOTICE OF HEARING
5/18/2004 MOTION - COMPEL
5/19/2004 REQUEST - PRODUCTION
5/19/2004 NOTICE - INTERROGATORIES
5/20/2004 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
In case anybody didn't see it, and for the avoidance of doubt (not to mention fear and uncertainty), this is the discussion of the case from the "Litigation" section of the last 10K:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000095014404003262/g88133e10ksb.htm
We are involved in certain legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. We are defending these proceedings. While it is not feasible to predict or determine the outcome of these matters, we do not anticipate that any of these matters or these matters in the aggregate will have a material adverse effect on our business or our consolidated financial position or results of operations.
J Fernando Arena
One of the people who was previously on the DNAP Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), but who is now not listed as such in the 10K or on the company website, is Jose Fernando Arena MD.
We knew that Jose was (is) Director of Translational Research, Familial Ovarian Cancer Center, Jackson Memorial Hospital & University of Miami:
http://um-jmh.org/fobcc/arena.html
Now, according to this NCI Cancer Bulletin from February 10 2004 he is also at the NCI:
http://www.cancer.gov/NCICancerBulletin/NCI_Cancer_Bulletin_021004.pdf
RFA-GM-04-002
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: July 19, 2004
Application Receipt Date: Aug. 19, 2004
Applications are invited for an open recompetition of the Pharmacogenetics Research Network and Knowledge Base. This is a network of multidisciplinary, collaborative groups of investigators that contribute their data to the publicly available knowledge base PharmGKB, which is an open research tool accessible to all scientists. NCI is interested in projects that can potentially lead to meaningful improvements in clinical and survival end points and in studies of genetic variability in human populations that may influence risk of preneoplastic conditions or primary and secondary malignancies after exposure to medications, including cancer therapies.
For information see http://cri.nci.nih.gov. Inquiries: Dr. Ken Kobayashi, kobayashik@ctep.nci.nih.gov; Dr. J. Fernando Arena, arenaj@mail.nih.gov.
Here is another reference to Jose:
http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/staff.html
J. Fernando Arena, M.D., Ph.D.
Program Director
Clinical and Genetic Epidemiology Research Branch (CGERB)
I can see that this role might perhaps prohibit being a member of the DNAP SAB, as there would be a potential conflict of interest.
The Pharmacogenetics Research Network and Knowledge Base is something I have posted about before. Here it is:
http://www.nigms.nih.gov/pharmacogenetics/
Here are the details of the RFA mentioned above:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-GM-04-002.html
There is a commitment to provide $25 million in FY 2005 to fund approximately 10 to 12 new and/or continuation grants in response to this RFA. As far as I can see private companies such as DNAP are eligible to apply for this.
It seems that Jose is still with the University of Miami as well as the NCI:
http://medgen.med.miami.edu/research/ongoing_projects.asp
CANCER GENETICS
Title Genetic Investigations of African-American Breast Cancer and Cancer Education and Prevention in the African-American community.
Abstract Breast cancer (BC) incidence and mortality rate in African-Americans (AA) exceeds that in Caucasians in women less than 50 years old. This may be due to increased exposure to known or unknown risk factors, decreased exposure to protective factors, and/or due to genetic factors. With the discovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2, associated with increased risk for breast cancer, technology exists to analyze the distribution and prevalence of gene alterations in at-risk groups. Our group is focused on three aspects of breast cancer in the African-American community:
Increased efficiency in detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in at-risk AA patients.
Investigation of other possible contributory genetic factors specific to AA breast cancer.
Dissemination of information on cancer to the underserved communities of South Florida.
Funded by The Department of Defense, the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the Woman’s Cancer Association.
Team Lisa Baumbach Ph.D. (P.I.), Luis Gayol Ph.D. (Senior Research Associate), Genetics Associate- TBA.
Collaborators Fernando Arena M.D. Ph.D., University of Miami and the National Cancer Institute.
Recruitment Criteria Confirmed diagnoses of breast and/or ovarian cancer or a family history of these cancers.
This work previously involved Myriad Genetics, as this abstract from 2001 shows:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v27/n4s/full/ng0401supp_41d.html
Completed BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation analysis reveals a low rate of germline mutation in at-risk African American families
Lisa Baumbach-Reardon1, Luis Gayol1, Tom Scholl2, Hugo Basterrechea1, Selina Smith1 & J. Fernando Arena1
1. University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
2. Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
The incidence of BRCA1 germline mutations in at-risk individuals is controversial. In Caucasians the rate of detection of BRCA1 mutations varies from 5% to 40%. The incidence of BRCA1 mutations and genetic variants in at-risk African Americans has been reported to range from very low to levels equal to those in Caucasians. We report the results of completed BRCA1 and BRCA2 analyses in 20 African American families at risk for breast or ovarian cancer. Families were selected on the basis of a history of breast cancer or breast and ovarian cancer and further subdivided into the following categories: high-risk (three affected first-degree relatives; ten families), moderate-risk (two affected first-degree relatives; seven families) and undetermined-risk (single affected first-degree relative, with medical information being updated). BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline alterations were first detected using a series of exon-specific polymerase chain reaction primers for single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis; this was followed by DNA sequencing of polymorphism variants. A limited number of BRCA1 polymorphic intronic variants detected as a result of these studies were also analyzed for their effect on BRCA1 mRNA splicing using an assay developed by Myriad Genetics. In this cohort we detected one protein-truncating mutation in either BRCA1 or BRCA2 (1/20; 5%). However, we detected splice mutations, missense mutations and several polymorphic variants in both BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a much higher frequency in BRCA2. Many of these variants were both new and specific to African American patients; they also occurred in the absence of another disease-causing mutation. Moreover, a new BRCA1 missense mutation in one of the high-risk families, exon 19(W1718C), seems to co-segregate with breast cancer. We will report the relative frequencies of these BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants in patient and control populations. These results agree with previous observations that deleterious mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are uncommon in at-risk African American patients. They indicate that more benign variants should be further evaluated for their potential role in the disease process in these patients and that additional, as yet unidentified, genetic factors may contribute to breast cancer risk in African American families.
For the avoidance of doubt, the following are reasons why posts may be removed from IHUB:
Duplicate – an accidental duplicate post by a member
Personal Attack – when someone attacks a person, with name calling, or relating to the messenger and not the message.
Spam – a message that is being posted promoting other sites, stock-related or not, that has no use in the discussion (for example, if your board is about Ford Motors, a link promoting amazing returns running a home-based business is worthless to the discussion).
Vulgarity – cursing of any kind unacceptable on your board
Violation of Privacy – posting of any personal identifiable information (email, real name, phone, address, etc)
Threat – someone threatening another member in some fashion
Now with regard to the latest discussion, a couple of you are right on the edge of the envelope in terms of relating to the messenger and not the message. Discussions about the subject of ethnicity/race/ancestry (circle as appropriate) tends to get as heated as discussions about politics or religion. I personally quite value the contributions of both Terry and Mike. Please try to debate within the guidelines which, after all, are what differentiates this board.
Some more information on the London rapist:
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0225croydon/tm_objectid=14260079&method=full&s...
Impersonator hampers law in search for serial rapist
By Ross Lidbetter
A BOGUS caller has been trying to hamper police in their bid to catch a serial sex attacker who preys on the elderly.
It is believed the phone pest is attempting to send officers out on wild goose chases in a bid to capture the suspect, who has raped four victims and indecently assaulted 27 others in areas including Croydon over the past 12 years.
The malicious caller claims to be Det Supt Simon Morgan, who is leading the hunt, code-named Operation Minstead.
The impersonator has been ringing several forces in London and the south east, including the Met.
His telephone calls have been made since the latest developments in the investigation were publicised in the press last month.
The hoax calls are now being investigated by the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards specialist investigation unit.
Meanwhile, dozens of people rang the Operation Minstead team after the latest publicity on the Met's largest ever manhunt for a rapist, when police revealed they were closer to catching the rapist thanks to a groundbreaking DNA technique.
Det Supt Morgan said: "We received about 60 good phone calls afterwards, with quite a lot of names mentioned."
The ancestral testing of DNA has enabled detectives to trace bloodlines to discover his family background and then narrow the number of suspects.
They have established the attacker is of Caribbean origin.
A number of police and civilian staff from West Indian backgrounds are still being asked to provide samples to help build up a DNA map to predict which countries are the most likely birthplaces for both parents of the attacker.
A £20,000 reward has been offered for information leading to his arrest.
Police believe the attacker is now aged about 35.
He is black, possibly light-skinned and he may have links to the offending areas and possibly Brighton, a place he mentioned during one attack.
He is known as a "gerontophile" - someone who is obsessed with the elderly - and hallmarks of his attacks include cutting telephone lines and electricity.
All his victims are aged between 68 and 93 and more offences have occurred in Shirley than anywhere else.
The first offence identified by DNA profiling was carried out in October 1992 in the Shirley area.
The suspect was also linked to eight burglaries last summer, five of which were in the borough.
Gurinder Shahi
http://www.asiasociety.org/events/calendar.pl?rm=detail&eventid=14518
Asian Biotech: Beyond Wall Street
Co-Organized by Asia Society and New York Society of Security Analyst's International Committee
Date: June 3rd
Time: 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Location: New York
Asia Society and Museum, 725 Park Avenue, New York
Cost: $65 members/collaborating orgs; $95 nonmembers
Phone: 212-517-ASIA
Confirmed Keynote Speaker: Gurinder Shahi, CEO, Bio Enterprise Asia
From Bangalore to Tokyo, governments, corporations and venture capitalists are pledging more than $10 billion to support global biotechnology advances for pharmaceutical, agricultural and industrial applications. This presentation introduces investors and biotech professionals to the world of Asian finance--exploring the different investment deal structures and opportunities, combined with the national perspectives on entrepreneurship and intellectual property. The costly challenges facing the biotech community in responding to the impact of HIV/AIDS and SARS will also be highlighted.
The PR was again picked up by News-Medical.Net:
http://www.news-medical.net/view_article.asp?id=1679
This is the same text as the PR. There is also an article in the St Louis Business Journal:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2004/05/17/daily38.html?jst=b_ln_hl
GenoMed inks genotyping deal with Genome Quebec McGill University and the Genome Quebec Innovation Centre in Montreal will provide genotyping services for St. Louis-based GenoMed under a new deal announced Wednesday.
Financial terms were not disclosed.
The Genome Quebec Innovation Centre's Illumina genotyping solution allows for the screening of a large number of single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, which are DNA sequence variations that occur when one nucleotide in the genome sequence is altered. Scientists believe SNP maps will help them identify the multiple genes associated with such complex diseases as cancer, diabetes, vascular disease and some forms of mental illness, according to the Human Genome Project's Web site.
Genome Quebec supports researchers from academic, industrial and government settings and manages a portfolio worth about $220 million.
St. Louis-based GenoMed Inc. (Pink Sheets: GMED) is a medical genomics company working to find genes that cause disease.
End of article
As I noted before:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3080492
GMED have earmarked $800,000 for genotyping over the next 12 months, and an unknown percentage of this amount will be devoted to "screening" rather than "validation genotyping". Perhaps we will get some details of the agreement in the 10Q.
OT This is of interest because it is relevant to the work being done at Nanobaclabs, where Hector Gomez is on the Scientific Advisory Board:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3729487.stm
Shareholder's meeting questions
The way I would personally see this working would be as follows. Shareholders agree a list of questions that they would like submitted to the company. The agreed list is then submitted to the company prior to the meeting so that they have a chance to review it and prepare answers. Perhaps at the meeting they could then have a session ahead of any Q&A where they provided answers for the questions raised that had not already been covered in e.g. previous presentations. The company may well not want to do adopt such a process, but in the absence of an agenda for the meeting it is difficult to tell. There is no harm in preparing the list anyway, as it would give the company some idea of the issues and concerns that they might want to address in their presentations.
As an example of the "valid, intelligent, and polite but yet probing questions" format suggested by Nitya, I submit the following questions related to the Scientific Advisory Board for consideration.
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)
Can you confirm the current composition of the SAB? Some individuals were previously listed in SEC returns and on the company website as being SAB members, e.g. Ramin Mirhashemi, Ferenado Arena and DC Rao, but these individuals no longer appear to be SAB members. For any people who are no longer SAB members can you provide an explanation as to why they are not?
Can you explain the role of the SAB and the services that are typically performed by SAB members?
Can you explain how the remuneration level of 50,000 shares of common stock per annum was arrived at? In the Company's opinion is this sufficient to attract and retain the type of individual that the company would want as SAB members?
As per the last 10K the company has initiated plans to expand the SAB to include "other scientists who will actively contribute to our effort in increasing the number of BGA sub-categories from our current four, to as many as 20." Can you provide an update on how these efforts are progressing? Are there any current plans to expand the SAB to include scientists in disciplines other than biogeographical ancestry?
Can you explain the difference between the SAB and the Board of Consultants, which was also mentioned in the last 10K?
If you recently purchaed 1000 shares you are looking at expenditure of some $40 plus commission. If you don't mind me asking, what's your endgame?
Mike, can't help with making them reply I'm afraid. If I could I would have a few questions ahead of yours in the queue lol.
John, as an interim measure I've added the link to the iBox (board header). I'll have a talk with IVRT about what else we might want to do with the header in due course.