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.
NNLX will updates the website...takes a little time.
Parents
Abig...this is my view; NNLX's new contracts with overseas distributors are different from the agreement we formerly had with the Kuwaiti company. Now we can sell directly to the distributor who then supplies their customers. Before we had the packaging patent, we had to depend on the foreign company to manufacture and distribute our products. And the agreement simply did not work out. But now with the packaging we can directly produce and sell to the distributors; the packaging patent license is a GREAT bonus for NNLX.
Parents
Eudius..good news indeed; we have great expectations for the rest of the year...as you recall, I projected the pps to be above 2 dollars before the year ends; my view/opinion
Parents
Abig - I say confidentially - NNLX's products will be marketed all over the world, beginning with Europe/Asia/Japan....Glorious days are ahead....my view/assessment
Parents
New Press Release just out:
HUBBARD, Ohio--(BUSINESS WIRE)--NanoLogix Inc. (NNLX), an innovator in the accelerated detection, identification and antibiotic sensitivity determination of live bacteria, announces that the US Environmental Protection Agency and NanoLogix have agreed to extend their existing Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) for two years, with the new expiration being mid-2015. The CRADA is focused on using NanoLogix-based technologies for development of a comprehensive water quality test kit for testing drinking and source waters in all ten EPA regions.
NanoLogix continues to develop new products and new markets. The company has advanced in a number of areas, including development of new technologies, increasing sales and customer bases, and gaining substantial recognition in published research on NanoLogix products and techniques.
The technology developments at NanoLogix are revolutionary. Improving on existing bacterial diagnostic products and protocols, the Company is achieving success in the market for its Extended-Life Petri dishes and BNP diagnostic kits, both vacuum-packed in gas-charged FlatPacks. The FlatPack technology – exclusively licensed to NanoLogix – represents a major breakthrough in supply-chain management for these products. Customers using FlatPacked Petri dishes achieve significant cost savings and supply chain efficiencies over traditional Petri dishes available from other suppliers. Our products have virtually no breakage in shipment and storage, and have a shelf life far beyond that of traditional filled Petri dishes. Tests of our select nutrient agars demonstrate a usable shelf life, stored at room temperature, of at least one year. This is four times longer than the competition's filled Petri plates that require cold storage. Not requiring refrigeration of select media in filled Petri plates is one of the most important developments in bacterial culture and Petri in decades and provides the potential for use of our products throughout the world, with cold storage, expiration, and fragility no longer the concerns they have been for many decades. Shelf life tests of our filled Petri plates that are kept in cold storage, to date, have shown a usable shelf life of at least two years. All shelf life tests have been conducted by a major independent third-party research laboratory and are continuing.
Customers to date include the US EPA, independent research and hospital laboratories, and defense contractors. NanoLogix products are at present being used on at least six classified Federal government projects, with expanded use expected this year. Those projects are funded by the US Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. In the past month, NanoLogix has hired four new production employees to cope with added demand.
NanoLogix has recently signed agreements with companies and distributors in Europe and Asia governing expansion of our business beyond US borders. The Company is currently in talks with other US and foreign-based corporations on use of BNP, BNF and Petri products. In April the Company received a granted patent in Japan for its BNP diagnostic technology. Since that event interests in Japan have approached NanoLogix regarding purchase of BNP for use in TB research.
In the past year we and our collaborators in research at University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston have made significant refinements to our existing technologies and have also developed one additional rapid test. The new test has been named the N-Assay. The N-Assay is a unique ELISA multi-well machine-readable assay that provides results for bacteria identification and antibiotic sensitivity in less than one hour with high sensitivity and specificity. Indications are that the N-Assay will provide rapid results for any bacteria for which an antibody exists. We at NanoLogix and the researchers using the N-Assay are very excited at this new development. The N-Assay is projected to provide a premier platform for Point-of–Care rapid diagnostics. N-Assay patent filings were made in 2013. It is projected that the N-Assay will be more suitable for use in some developed areas than our BNF identification technology, with the BNF useful in areas or regions that are less developed.
The Company exhibited at three professional conferences this year --- The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) BioDefense and Emerging Diseases Research meeting in Washington, DC in February, the Food Safety Summit in Baltimore, and the ASM Annual Meeting in Denver, both in May. At all of these meetings there was strong interest in our products, with sales and promise of sales as a result. At the Denver ASM meeting, the general and specific interest was far beyond any the Company has experienced at any of the consecutive ASM meetings attended since 2008.
This is the PR and the remaining part describes the company
Parents
A magnificent post, Rail; thank you for your contributions to this board and you will be missed here; best to you always.
Parents
Then you cannot comment negatively on our studies or compare your paper with ours because ours included ALL. If we had thrown out the alleged "non tests" then our results would appear even more brilliant, with higher specificity and sensitivity.
Parents
fulcrumgavel...did you read more than the abstract because the test you cite is not that accurate in sensitivity or specificity as it seems?
The study you cite is a very nice paper published in 2009, from a french group. This was a large study in which over 900 patients were enrolled. The test did show a very high degree of specificity and sensitivity, for a certain portion of the tests. If you read more than the abstract, you would have seen that the real data is actually very different. Out of 968 patients enrolled, more than 10% were "not available." this was due to things like mucous being present (which is present in a lot of these samples), or user error. So what the authors did, was to omit these results from analysis.
UTHSC Houston chose to include samples which did not give exactly what they wanted, for the purpose of being candid and accurate. (They were under the impression that users would presumably want to know how the test truly performs, ie, it's accuracy, as well as its sensitivity and specificity.)
I believe the accuracy/credibility of the study you cite is in question.
Parents
PCR? That is the best you have? How does PCR determine antibiotic sensitivity [AST];? the best treatment that will hit the infection, whether the GBS is penicillin resistant. You must have a culture based test that determines the AST. Which is one of many reasons Dr. Faro [and the TMC] now has studies/publications on our tests; PCR is not adequate.
Parents
Name another test that is more accurate. Tests always have a degree of error, but ours is excellent and the innovation, of the test, the multi-assay, yields tests results in .5 hours with a high degree of accuracy. So name another test more accurate.
Parents
You are mistaken; NNLX's current tech performs magnificently according to published papers; how would you know otherwise?; makes sense to gather all the profits by selling directly rather than licensing in my view....
Parents
I agree with you johnny canuck and, at the least, the SEC should ban the shorting of pink sheet companies or any company trading under 5 dollars; I believe Ameritrade and other brokerage firms have that or a similar policy.
Parents
I do hope the SEC at the federal or state level [states have "blue sky laws which also regulate securities] will step in; that would stop the manipulation by raising public awareness that such tactics will not be tolerated; in any event, I expect the storm to be quite temporary and the pps will rise as our company grows and becomes profitable. My view
Parents
Hi shabby; nice to see you here: it is a no brainer that a PIPE or any person who had shares in exchange for services, would sell at the bid price not drop the pps to five cents for that would jeopardize the value of his remaining shares. No this is market manipulation in my view; anyway glad you are here and cheers this is just a temporary storm in my view.
Parents
kcheung...yes the short volume has been heavy for days according to reports from you and another investor who emails me similar figures. So the shorts had to sell at five cents to scare investors to sell so they can recoupe their short shares at a lower price and profit. That is another theory, and it is market manipulation also.
Parents...just my view/opinion
I am sure I do not understand the dynamics in play but I doubt a PIPE investor would sell his shares for five cents...so far below the current bid/ask...In my view it is enmity against NNLX for whatever reason...we are eroding market share of suppliers, former NNLX associates with a grudge against the company or whatever.. but I do believe there is market manipulation going on that is causing the swings in pps...just my view/opinion
Parents
Agree kphone and machievelli...now the SEC will have the evidence it needs to prosecute in my view/opinion
Parents
Davein...lots of information on the website and Mr. Barnhizer, CEO, usually does periodic updates so watch for the next one; the company has transitioned to a manufacturing revenue company; we will all know more at the next update; also check out the year-end summary for 2012; that is on the website and summarizes where we are at the year's beginning. I am long and confident in the prospects.
Just my view/ opinion
Parents
My reply was only an effort to understand your post, nothing more. Thank you for the link. That is what I needed to know.
Regards Parents
Abig, Andre, How do you know the amount of production per month that NNLX is producing? None of this information has been made public and I am unaware of the amounts of BNP being produced or number of kits being produced? Thank you...
Parents
I am not sure as to the accuracy of your dates but the patent was issued in Mr. Barnhizer as sole owner. It is his,
Parents
dhw, thank you for your post; if you feel the need to, then I would email Mr. Barnhizer your concerns for clarification; he is accessible to sincere shareholders... Best to you.
Parents
leawood; Mr. Barnhizer became CEO in March of 2007; it was at this time that he signed a standard CEO contract. As you recall Dr. Felder became the CTO in the transition period. Perhaps this is the same contract Dr. Felder had. I do not know the details. Then, no one imagined that Mr. Barnhizer would invent; there is no devious plan here; NNLX however reaps the benefit of Mr. Barnhizer's patent in its exclusive license that catapults NNLX into a superior market platform in selling products with the packaging license.
Parents
No leawood...I do not believe you understand...I am not defending Bret; I sincerely believe that legally, morally, ethically, the patent belongs to the inventor unless there is a contractural obligation to assign it to the company as when my husband worked designing new integrated circuits that were patented by his company; NO resources of NNLX were used for any patent costs. But you are free to pursue this if you wish...This is my view, opinion
Parents
Yes kcheung...I am getting the same figures from another investor who privately emails me the short percentage volume; thanks
Parents
Andre...I got this impression from posters on the Y MB who mocked the packaging patent, and not one investor here made a big deal of it that I recall. The only fuss came with the knowledge that Mr. Barnhizer owned his own patent. It was an idea that required no company time or resources; you are mistaken here and, as I stated before, the patent application was corrected as we see in the patent issuance. The Court will uphold Mr. Barnhizer's right to his own patent, that is legally clear to me. I do not wish to reargue the law, but we can amicably agree to disagree; the law triumps over opinion. Furthemore I would not want to be in the shoes of any person who would challenge the patent in court...Chris Novak will be crushed in California for the attorney representing NNLX is a brillant magna cum laude graduate with long experience in federal practice at the HIGHEST levels as well as being a brillant litigator. If Chris proceeds, the day of reckoning will be like a nightmare he hopes to wake up from. My view and assessment.
Parents
painvest and johnny, thank you for your posts and analysis. I have a different view; I believe that NNLX is heavily shorted, but the company is still moving forward. The packaging patent was never considered a big deal and it should have minimal effect now; NNLX is a pink sheet company and is subject to the daggers of pink sheet traders who short these types of stocks. As long as the company's development is forward, the pps will ultimately correct and rise. Just waiting like other longs. With the advent of manufacturing and sales, the need for PIPE money lessens because the revenue is taking care of expenses.
My view/opinion
Parents
Thanks Longpicker; the article is excellent and I emphasize that our BNP can simultaneously test for the pathogen and determine the AST - antibiotic sensitivity test for the correct treatment.
Parents
Thank you johnny....the last thing on my mind this morning was Julius Petri's birthday and it is good to be reminded of it.
Parents
Update on the filings regarding the Novak vs NNLX lawsuit in California; apparently NNLX has filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction according to another yahoo poster who has downloaded the filings...The poster also confirms the amount in dispute as 100K
"The claim is for $100,000! You would know that if you could read the Amended Complaint. The most interesting document is the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See the retainer agreement and where it specifies arbitration in Warren, OH"
Yes I expect the Motion to Dismiss to be granted and Mr. Novak will have to face Ohio District Court and a hostile jury /my view/opinion
Arbitration agreements are enforceable in California unless the agreement "shocks the conscience" and is unfairly weighted..The arbitration agreement here as I understand it is fair and will be upheld. My view/opinion because there is always the possibility a court ruling could change the standards.Also I have not personally downloaded the retainer agreement yet and reviewed it.
The sum is given in the Amended Complaint:
Case No. 5:13-cv-01971-PSG, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Breach of Contract. See Prayer for Relief on page 5 of 6.
Parents
NNLX investors: the following is a discussion of the Chris Novak lawsuit in California and the NNLX vs. Chris Novak lawsuit in Ohio...As I previously stated, Mr. Novak's case has no merit in my view as the following discussion illustrates... posted by an attorney I know who has reviewed the record and the filings:
[originally the lawsuit was for 600,000 but was reduced to 100,00]
"The lawsuit is ...for $100,000 plus interest and court costs. It is a simple breach of contract case. Chris Novak claims that NNLX failed to pay him the entire sum due under his retainer agreement. Novak has requested punitive damages but, if California law mirrors most other states, punitive damages are not recoverable in a basic breach of contract action. I can tell from the face of this suit that Novak has serious issues. First, he filed in California but he may have trouble keeping the venue in California. His retainer agreement that is attached to the petition contemplates that disputes arising from the contract will be resolved in Ohio, not California. And, second, Novak does not allege that he performed work and services to justify payment of the entire sum due under the contract. He just alleges that the contract was breached because NNLX failed to pay him the entire sum due under the contract. The contract states that it is terminable "at any time" at which time NNLX is liable for "the balance due ... for costs and services rendered to the time of termination." In other words, NNLX does not owe him the entire balance due under the contract if it terminates the contract; it only owes him for the sevices and costs provided throught the date of termination"
In addition the attorney posts on yahoo that NNLX, in Ohio, is requesting reimbursement for all costs from Mr. Novak, because Mr. Novak failed to disclose a conflict of interest to NNLX during the contract period. I personally discovered the conflict of interest and it was serious, certainly entitling NNLX to terminate its relationship with Mr. Novak. My view/opinion
As I also stated, apparently Mr. Novak did not read the contract before filing suit on the contract for he would have filed in Ohio as the contract requires AND his suit has no merit...A grave error in my view...
Parents
Abig: this is my opinion: obviously, a correction was made between the patent application and the patent issuance: This is my theory : the patent attorney used older patent application forms which uniformly assigned the patent to NNLX and forgot to designate Mr. Barnhizer as the sole owner; the PR was based on this error which has now been corrected. Mistakes are made and can be corrected; I know because I have made a few and had to execute corrections. The fundamental question is who has the ownership rights?: since Mr. Barnhizer invented the packaging and has no contractural obligation to assign his rights, he owns it clear and simple. All shareholders should be grateful Mr. Barnhizer has given an exclusive license to NNLX for the use of his patent. In this regard, patent law rules over opinion. My view and interpretation of the events. Also, since no one apparently thought the packaging patent any big deal, I doubt anyone purchased shares in reliance upon the PR or patent application. Did you? Are you acquainted with any investor who purchased in reliance upon the PR regarding the packaging patent? I know of none and I am in contact with a number of investors. My view
Parents
machiavelli and Petro...thank you for expressing exactly why my shares representing about 1 percent of the company are fiercely supportive of the CEO; I firmly believed he rescued NNLX from an untenable situation and without that rescue, my investment today would be zero. Furthermore, how amazing Mr. Barnhizer invented a revolutionary packaging that puts our products in a superior market position.
Parents
AGREE kachingpdx and machiavelli and well expressed!!!!
Parents
I have the same recollection as eudius; shareholders would clog the emails and call all the companies/entities Bret mentioned; in addition, a friend of mine experienced the same when that investor inadvertently mentioned his workplace/ occupation ....his company was flooded with calls. It is sad indeed that shareholders could behave in this fashion.
Parents
weege...where did you view these figures? Thanks
Parents
Today I discussed the Marathon liquidation with NNLX's CEO Mr. Bret Barnhizer. This is his perspective: although, Mr. Barnhizer does not know the specifics about the liquidation, he does know that Marathon was displeased that NNLX did not do a reverse split and uplist. At the time Marathon communicated its mandate, a reverse split may have qualified NNLX for the uplisting, BUT: 1. A reverse split is NOT an option or consideration the CEO would ever agree to. 2. NNLX did not have the revenue stream to justify uplisting.
Rather, the strategy Mr. Barnhizer is taking will grow and utilize the resources/patents/products NNLX has to justify its sharenumber and uplist when it is advantageous to do so. This is the essence of my understanding of our conversation. Note: a decision not to do a reverse split made in the past is not "insider information" for the purpose of SEC regulations.
Parents
When Marathon began selling, I did a bit of research and discovered that Marathon was raising funds to take a strong equity position in another company so, I assume, that Marathon could not wait for NNLX to sufficiently develop. Biotech is a marathon not a sprint as the old saying goes. Just my opinion/view
Parents
Sorry I misread the link; this trial has already been completed.
Parents
YES This is great news; a new study for GBS including antibiotic sensitivity for GBS using our new technology approved and begun by UTHSC in the Texas Medical Center in Herman Memorial Hospital, one of the most prestigious hospitals in the nation; just a note - My father, formerly a Doctor, assisted in pioneering the TMC; his offices were in Herman Memorial Prof. Bldg.
Parents