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.
Bag, Really?
Seems like a pretty routine, regular processing of an application for patent.
If you think that a year and a half to get the application filed correctly is routine, and you think that three rejections and a request for further review after an abandonment decision is routine, then why do you think that the process should be coming to a close?
What prevents the occurance of six or seven more rejections and requests for extentions?
Are there 'routine' limits for rejections?
Those of us not as versed in the process, defer to your greater experience and look forward to enlightenment.
regards,
frog
Why?
'Muted' LOL. He's the only one we've heard from!
Sorry Easy,
Tony Frudakis was using his alter ego alias money_looser.
Is that better?
Quadro,
Has there been and update with DNAP..newsletter?
Have we heard from them?
We have heard from them tangentially.
TonyF has posted a few messages on the RB board, using his alter ego alias 'money_looser', but there has been nothing more substantial than that.
regards,
frog
DorsetE,
If you liked this yesterday;
We are identifying the next clinical group to establish a data set of patients whose test information can be reviewed by the FDA either in a filing for a 510K device application or as laboratory testing service provided to physicians. A 510K is an approval from the FDA that allows the sale of a diagnostic test in the United States. FDA's review and approval process normally takes one to two years from the start of the clinical trials to final approval. The length of a clinical trial averages a year or more. The data obtained from the trial will form the basis for a 510K filing. Once trials are completed, the data is compiled, the report is written and finally the 510K is submitted for FDA review and approval. FDA rules regarding pharmacogenomics testing are evolving, and management believes that a 510K filing may not be required in order to perform the service. We are seeking additional guidance from the FDA on this issue.
Initial research results will be the basis for our continued development. We must expand our studies and address other aspects of drug treatment performance that will likely be required before OVANOME(TM) could be used in the clinic to assist chemotherapy decisions.
We are developing a clinical trial for OVANOME(TM). We must validate our research findings further through a clinical trial in order to commercialize OVANOME(TM). The trial will use our test to predict trial participants' responses to the Taxol and Carboplatin drug therapy. Our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Hector Gomez, will lead the clinical development process and expects to enroll 250 patients in the trial. Currently, we have enrolled 100 new patients into this trial for 2005 and expect to add additional patients later in the year. We are also exploring other clinical relationships to increase our patient sample enrollment. We do not anticipate meeting with the FDA until our trials are completed.
You must have liked it just as much last year.
(From march 2004)
We are identifying the next clinical group to establish a data set of patients whose test information can be reviewed by the FDA either in a filing for a 510K device application or as laboratory testing service provided to physicians. A 510K is an approval from the FDA that allows the sale of a diagnostic test in the United States. FDA’s review and approval process normally takes one to two years from the start of the clinical trials to final approval. The length of a clinical trial averages a year or more. The data obtained from the trial will form the basis for a 510K filing. Once trials are completed, the data is compiled, the report is written and finally the 510K is submitted for FDA review and approval. FDA rules regarding pharmacogenomics testing are evolving, and management believes that a 510K filing may not be required in order to perform the service. We are seeking additional guidance from the FDA on this issue.
Initial research results will be the basis for our continued development. We must expand our studies and address other aspects of drug treatment performance that will likely be required before OvanomeTM could be used in the clinic to assist chemotherapy decisions.
We are developing a clinical trial for OvanomeTM. We must validate our research findings further through a clinical trial in order to commercialize OvanomeTM. The trial will use our test to predict trial participants’ responses to the Taxol and Carboplatin drug therapy. Our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Hector Gomez, will lead the clinical development process and expects to enroll 250 patients in the trial.
So far in the last year Hector has located 40% of the participants he needs to start the trial. Looks like he'll get it going sometime in mid 2006 if he can keep up the torrid pace.
regards,
frog
Well Good.I only slightly misinterpreted.
I heard 'Global Cospiracy' when you were actually claiming 'Nationwide-Federal Government-Big Business-Status Quo conspiracy'.
That is sooooooo much more reasonable.
bag, Sorry.
I must have misinterpreted all of those inferences of the government's anti-DNAP biases when it came to approving patents, establishing guidelines and policing the stock market.
I also must have been led astray by the suggestions that the government was marching to the drumbeat of big business in order to stifle the good Doctor.
I interpreted these inferences and suggestions as some form of conspiracy. (Based on the definition of same.)
My bad.
bag, Huh?
Why do you think they are legal?
I'm not sure what you are asking. I suppose it has something to do with the global conspiracy against DNAP, but I can't see the connection.
They are legal for the same reason credit card companies charge 25% interest, capitalism. If people are dumb enough to hand you their money, you have the God given right to take it from them. I believe it's written right into the Constitution. lol
Bag8ger, It is you who mistakenly atributes patent gathering with intellectual prowess.
As for your intellectual powers, perhaps I'm wrong in attributing them to someone who has mentioned his patent gathering on a regular basis.
I have tried to explain it to you many times, but you insist that such activity occurs at some rarified heights of intellectual capability. The truth is, it is a fairly mundane practice engaged in by hundreds of thousands of engineers every day. It seldom provides the lucrative benefits that you dream of.
regards,
frog
Some other notable quotes from the article;
"A floorless convertible bond (a vehicle of what is sometimes called the "convertible death spiral") is a debt instrument issued by desperate or dishonest companies to raise cash.."
"It's not a deal a responsible company should enter into."
"When a company does a floorless convertible, its stock, not surprisingly, drops."
"...this is a legal strategy -- although it is hard to see why such floorless converts, devastating for existing shareholders, are in fact legal."
http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05033008.htm
Oh bag, how you twist. lol
If you want to call me a basher, go ahead. It means very little to me. I have as much respect for such accusations as I do for the 'pumper' alternative. I think they are both ludicrous labels.
If you want to twist my defering Ifida's 'personal vendetta' question into a 'lighthearted grudge', as a deep seated psychological trauma, then go ahead. You know how much I respect your 'informed' opinions on such fare.
If you can find references to my 'agreeing' with td's every comment, then more power to you. We went head to head for years.
Believe me, my ego can put up with all of that and more without much trouble. I have never had any trouble admitting my mistakes over the years here, and my ego is in fine fettle.
I have no 'grudge' with you. In fact I rely on you for much of the comic relief I get from my participation here. lol
As to being 'proud' of my intellectual powers, that's hilarious. (My wife is splitting her sides in mirth. Talk about a threat to a fragile ego!) My, so called, intellectual powers, seem to exist solely in the minds of you and your cohorts, as you are the ones who keep refering to them. I suffer from no such delusions.
Keep trying. lol
frog
Oh yeah bag, now that you mention it.
You perhaps have noticed that I get impatient....
More and more as the weeks wear on.
Can't tell if it's just advancing dotage, or deepening depression.
Try to relax.
frog
That's a good one bag.
How would it be possible for news about DNAP to be 'bad' in your eyes?
You have, so far successfully, spun every pronouncement from, or about, DNAP (whether on the surface good bad or indifferent), into part of Frudaky's master strategy.
I suspect that if the news concerned Frudaky being run over by a bus, you would immediately look forwards to three days hence, and the 'inevitable' resurrection, as the next step in the plan. lol
No one can, it is just one of the nonsensical aspects of these boards. Accusations and speculations of sinister invesment motives run rampant, but there is no (none, zero) actual evidence or proof.
DorseyE, You have the unique ability to read whatever you wish to see, into any random phrase. Where did you develop such a 'talent'?
Buying low and selling high is the underlying basic goal of ALL investors.
Every one, whether a long and faithful investor, a short seller, or a pump and dumper, wishes to buy low and sell high.
It is the tactics used to achieve that goal that determine the classification of the investor, not the actual transactions.
regards,
frog
Nope!
Personal Vendetta sounds so serious, doesn't it?
I would say that I have a lighthearted and amused 'grudge'. lol
bag, As always you misinterpret.
I will get no joy in DNAP's failure, it will be a sad waste of an incredible oportunity.
I will obtain some small satisfaction from the knowledge that I told you and your 'brethren' exactly what was happening to you. I told you politely and consistently and continued patiently in the face of your nasty and unfounded accusations.
I will gain no satisfaction from the companies decline, but I will get something out of yours.
I told you, it is not about the investment...it is personal.
You continue to accuse me of being a member of some clandestine organization, even though of course I cannot defend myself against such nonsense. (One wonders what happened to due process...) To address such, and since you are retired and don't live so far away from me, why don't you come and visit me at my workplace. I can show you around and you can see for yourself what type of 'competition' we are.lol
You can then file a report with the board and inform them as to the accuracy of your accusations. Interested?
regards,
frog
gunnabe,
I was drawn to this stock by the potential of the science. To eventually come to the realization that the science is only being adulterated to provide a plausible front for the extraction of funding from the investment community has casued me to take offense.
I intend to remain here as a voice of scepticism and counterbalance. Not as many have inferred to 'save' anyone, although perhaps some will consider alternative viewpoints when making their decisions. I am, in reality, perfectly content to watch many of those here throw more and more money into the chasm. It gives me a certain satisfaction, given the reception I have received over the years.
There are many unanswered questions here and many factors that do not make sense. I will continue to ask the questions and be a thorn in the side of anyone trying to embellish the facts in these forums. I will be here at the bitter end, I will not say, I told you so, but you will be able to tell from my ear to ear grin that I am thinking it.
It is no longer about the investment, it is about the amusement...and it is personal.
regards,
frog
Bag, Your metaphorical village with a wall around it is surprisingly apt, given the siege mentality that many of you share.
Unfortunately your numbers are diminishing steadily and the number of those outside the walls is increasing. Even some of your stalwart cronies, have taken a brief lap around the outside lately.
DNAP is only getting closer in the sense that it they five years further along the path than they were at the start. It is still questionable if they are gaining on what appears to be a miving target.
I'm good at what I do bag, and my employer is happy with my work. In reality it doesn't take all that much time to respond to you. Today I have reupholstered the cushions in my boat and laminated the new countertops for the galley. I have just returned from atrip to the store for wood trim supplies and dinner fixin's. All without missing a beat here. lol
I'll get to Gennaisance when I'm good and ready, especially now that I have your attention.
regards,
frog
Bag, Your disappointment is displaced. We'll get to Gennaisance, don't worry.
My involvement in health care has been a well known fact on these boards for years. Ifida has mentioned my workplace numerous times, as well as his 'DD' as to the possibility that we might have some competetive reason to influence the discussion. Even he could not make such a connection, so I am afraid that you are barking up a very tired tree.
Your 'trust' has eroded as a result of your growing paranoia, not due to anything I have done. That you now doubt that I forwarded those questions is a sad commentary on your deepening withdrawal from reality.
You hae evidently forgotten my own suggestions that anyone who was not confident in my motives should take the opportunity to send a duplicate email to the company. I knew there would eventually be some small minded individuals that would make such accusations. I just never expected it to be you.
sad, sad ,sad...
regards,
frog
Ahh, Bag8ger, If only that were true.
You know how much I enjoy learning new things.
After all of my significant efforts over lo these many years, you have learned absolutely nothing of value. Although you have in the past years added significantly to your own personal 'knowledgebase', those additions have proven to be illusory and unsubstantiated.
Take for instance your allegations regarding political influence and 'bought and paid for' government agencies being responsible for the less than stellar performance of DNAP. I must say that as a participant in the 'front lines' so to speak of the interaction between the healthcare industry and the various agencies in question, I find your imaginary machinations quite laughable.
...at all levels of the process from grants to patent issuing.
Spoken like a seasoned expert in such processes, but unfortunately, as one who has actually been involved in such processes (and as a representative of a company with what 'should be' significant clout) I can assure you it is nonsense.
As we speak (during the week day of course) barely 30 paces from my office is a conference room that has been the domain of the FDA for the last month or so. They are performing a full up 'QSIT' audit of our facility and processes. Many of my collegues and myself have spent time with them regarding questions they have about the various aspects of our little kingdom.
The entire place has been on 'pins and needles' as the weeks have worn on, as this is one of the most critical events that periodically occur here. They are quite capable (and have in the past) of shutting our doors instantly should they find even the most insignificant issue out of place.
I have offered your assessment of the relationship between the FDA and the large players in the healthcare industry to my associates during our conversations. Believe me, the notion that the FDA is 'in our pocket' is highly amusing to all of us.
Since every move I make professionally is open for review by the FDA, every process that is developed, every design that is validated, every 510K that is submitted, are all done to the exacting standards of the FDA, I believe that I have a more reasonable perspective in this department than you do.
Also, since I have actually participated (successfuly)in both the patent and the grant processes, I feel that your input in these areas is unfounded and lacks any objectivity.
As to the 'slithering room' comment, Bag8ger you are getting very nasty lately. COuld it be your growing realization that your pipedreams are not going to coalesce into substance, is affecting your previously well mannered demeanor?
regards,
frog
Bag8ger, You know how much I relish an opening...are you sure you want to go there? lol
Cosmic, Don't worry, no harm done. You brought up the subjects and I was only responding to your inquiry. You are correct in that if you didn't want to hear the answers, it is perhaps better to not ask the questions.
I have made it quite clear over the months that my motives for participating here are NOT specifically investment related. Therefore your condemnation of my investment practices is irrelevant.
I have many things in my life that bring me great joy, so don't worry on that score.
You continue to 'bet' away and I hope you enjoy great satisfaction from the experience. I expect it is very much like buying a lottery ticket, a VERY inexpensive and quite satisfying interlude of daydreams and possibilities that continues until the actual drawing.
Best of luck to you.
regards,
frog
Whew, Robert, I evidently hit a nerve. Sorry
I am not about to respond in kind as I don't have the energy, but I will try to summarize.
Perhaps it is limiting to restrict the forensic products to just serial killers, but it is incredibly unrealistic hype to suggest that it will apply as a standard to all crimes. That is nonsense.
First ONLY crimes that justify such expenditure can be considered, so all petty thefts and misdemeanors are out. Second only crimes with DNA evidence and no known suspects (eliminates 90% of all violent crime)can make the cut and unfortunately the first DNA test will ALWAYS be a CORBIS screen. ONLY after that comes back negative will other tests be needed. No matter how easy it becomes, the number of uses will be small. Furthermore as the CORBIS database grows the market will continue to decline.
has not yet met our company’s standards for a product launch..
Trnslates directly to 'does not yet meet design requirements'. Sorry
If it does not meet... our internal FDA standards for discussions with the U.S. government
Then it does NOT meet FDA standards and cannot yet be in clinical trials. Sorry
As to accomplishments you can imagine that the textbooks are changing if you want (samples would be appropriate) but as a business and not a charitable philanthropy, accomplishments are products that generate revenue in excess of their development cost. BTW anyone can make money selling something for less than it cost, that is NOT an accomplishment.
BTW, Ancestry and DNAwitness are the only thing generating even minimal funds and they are both minor enhancements of Shrivers work that they 'purchased' from him and enhanced using his data. (read his commentary as to the accuracy of the results in todays news).
You can extrapolate clinical trials via the Moffit relationship if you want but you have absolutely zero evidence that DNAP has anything in the works in that arena. In fact you have nothing but your reading between the lines to support any of your conjuctures.
I'm sorry but that is not enough to support your claims.
regards,
frog
Cosmic, How much do you pay?
I have often talked about the possibilities of the technology, but since I do not blow it out of all reasonable proportion, those messages are ignored.
Moving the forensic stuff to a microchip is an improvement in process and should increase the efficiency of the technology but it is a very limited market and will never produce significant revenue. There are a very small number of serial killers out there, that's why they are so notorious and generate such headlines.
Ovanome and Statnome are STILL in development, regardless of all the speculation that they are imminent. They have not even entered clinical trials yet, in fact they do not yet meet their own design requirements according to Gabriel.
DNAP has 'successfully accomplished' nothing of significance since it's founding. While there are still vast and unfulfilled promises in abundance, there are no accomplishments yet.
I'll take real innovative products producing real multi-stream revenues with potential global sales any day myself.....where are they?
The doctors and research scientists at Moffit have so far said nothing about DNAP's discoveries, apart from the blurb from the initial PR which must be taken with the grain of salt that should accompany every press release.
As far as comparisons to my arguments.....perhaps you would like to submit a scenario which fits the available evidence, lord knows there's nothing else around here to talk about.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Since you brought up the subject of "malfeasing, scheming, lying, scientific tortoises, screwing shareholders for their own benefit.."
What do you think of the possibility that management is NOT selling control of the company to Dutchess but has another motive?
Imagine for a moment that DNAP has, in fact, discovered something of economic value that transcends their present business method of extracting their profits from the investor base. Suppose they discovered something surprisingly valuable.
Consider that this speculative value will never support the shareholder base of thousands of investors but might provide a tidy little income to a select few.
How could they exploit such a discovery?
What if they arranged with Dutchess to buy enough shares at a discount, to establish a majorty ownership in concert with current management. They could then take the company private, giving all investors a 'premium' on the market price of the stock, say 50% (or .007 + 50% = .0105 at present). Dutchess would get a nice little profit for their participation and management would get the company lock stock and barrel for less than $10 Million.
Would such a scenario explain the present situation.
-Dutchess inexplicably willing to buy lots of shares with no apparent profit.
-The pps dropping, seemingly at counter purposes to any favorable financing.
-No information from the company, even about reasonable things permitted by the SEC during a 'quiet' period, such as the Orchid deal.
What do you think? lol
bag8ger,
Can you rephrase that?
I'm not sure if the climax will squeeze out the tortoises or the rocks they live under, or squeeze out something else from the rocks the tortoises live under.
Let's bet on a climax first somehow squeezing out from the rocks these nonsensical, ridiculous, lacking in common sense, dishonorably perpetrating lies, scheming for their own benefit, screwing shareholder,
malfeasing, scientific tortoises, claiming to be more than they are, live under.
TIA
retro, It would be very close to the edge, so close as to be unreasonable, even ridiculous.
However, the alternatives seem to be just as unreasonable. $35 Million from the sale of shares with a current pps of less than one cent (assuming that the pps WON'T drop due to the dilution) will require three and a half billion shares. That's unreasonable.
The purchase of any number of shares by Dutchess at a discount of only 4% (to sell for a profit), is unreasonable, as the pps drops more than that as a direct result of the dilution from the issue of those same shares.
The purchase of only $5 Million dollars worth of shares at present prices (0.007 x 96% = .00672) converts to about 750 million shares, or 50% of ownership.
The purchase of only $2.7 Million dollars worth (the initial payment in the Biofrontera deal) yields 400 million shares, more than all of senior management combined.
I obviously don't know if there is an agreement to transfer ownership, I just can't see how even a fraction of the announced financing can occur without ownership transfering whether planned or not.
It is all well and good to suggest (as some have done) that a rise in pps will occur and answer all the nagging questions, but if that is the plan why are they talking about another 1.5 billion share authorization?
Too many questions....zero answers.
Is it just my imagination or is there the sound of a clear but faint drumroll in the background as we all wait for the denouement?
regards,
frog
retro,
I'm not sure I understand the question or how it applies. If you are saying that DNAP cannot go ahead with the distribution of it's unissued stock to Dutchess until the quiet period is over and the registration is approved by the SEC, then I would agree.
However, there has been a significant movement in stock occuring on a daily basis on the open market as a result of the LaJolla distribution and all of those shares are legally available to anyone. Do you find it interesting that even though there is no information available that would prop up the price in the face of quite heavy selling pressure, yet the price decline has been fairly modest under the circumstances.
It would seem that there is some level of buying pressure in play as well. Do you think that Dutchess is constained by these regulations from accumulating on the open market?
I was noticing that in the filing for the Biofrontera deal at the time it was filed, there were still over 700 Million shares left to issue. (Close to half of the authorized number) of those, 300 Million were to be allocated to Dutchess but 400 Million were already destined for LaJolla. Those laJolla shares are definitely in play at this time as evidenced by the latest reports from the transfer agent. Since the filing was announced the OS has increased at a rate that seems to be greater than the pps has dropped. Such behavior seems to indicate buying pressure.
I suppose it is not very cheering to try to see anything positive in the premise that the pps is not falling as fast as it should, but perhaps it is an indicator of something.
regards,
frog
retro,
I only offered it as a possibility...but yes there are other, more conventional ways of transfering ownership.
The more conventional approaches however, require stockholder approval. Approval might be hard to obtain if it appears that management is selling the company out from under the shareholders.
In most corporate takeovers, the acquiring company pays a premium to the current stock price, and thus the shareholders see an advantage to the transaction. In this instance Dutchess is getting their ownership at a discount to market. If it was presented as a buy out the shareholders might not be so sypathetic.
Don't take this suggestion too seriously, I was only presenting a light hearted response to your question. It might explain the present circumstances, but even I, think it is a bit of a stretch. lol
regards,
frog
retro,
I'm sure there are some who could come up with reasons why DNAP would want to keep the share price low
How about...they are currently trading majority ownership of the company to Dutchess, they have agreed to a price and Dutchess will back out if the price goes up?
'Victims' who lie and cheat, are not victims.
bag8ger, You are getting quite hateful in your dotage.
It must give you great satisfaction to infer that DNAP has been edged out, that the large pharmas will remain in power, and that their noble commitment to personalized medicine will save mankind.
If you must know, it pisses me off!
I came to this company based on the obvious possibilities that unfolded from the Genome project. The ability to compare individual genome data sets and determine the statistical relevance of the data was a can't miss proposition that a few years ago had untold possibilities. Given the resources available in terms of equipment and manpower it would have been possible for a chimp to make money.
Instead they have squandered away their opportunities and turned their focus from exploiting the technology to exploiting the investor base. Such contempt for earning an honest dollar has infuriated me.
I don't know if it was his huge ego that prevented him from providing his services to the customer base that existed at the time or whether he never intended to exploit the technology and only intended it as a plausible front for his true intentions. In either case the race looks to be close to the finish line now. The fat lady is tuning up.
regards,
frog
ifida,
Hmmmm....who might have some new tools to bring back shelved products?
Every company with a multi-billion dollar product on the shelf now has the tools and the motive to continue the product.
You can bet that they have been waiting for these guidelines in order to move forward.
I predict that there will be a tsunami effect from big pharma now that the guidelines have been released and all of their previously developed and 'shelved' drugs are now in play.
Most of the work will already be done, all they will need to do now is tweak the applications and the data to conform to the letter of the guidelines.
The effect on health care should be profound as there are numerous drugs that have been developed that showed extremely favorable trial results in curing major diseases, only to be shelved due to severe side effects in a fraction of the population.
It should get very interesting, very soon.
regards,
frog
bag,
Honorable people that do not intend to deceive, retract their statements as soon as they realize their mistake and apologize for any misunderstandings that may have arisen.
It is one of the hallmarks of honesty.
bag, LOL
Facts and common sense vs emotional attachment bag.
I think they're honest, you don't.
Honesty is a testable attribute. It is not subject to opinion. They are NOT honest, that can be demonstrated. That YOU personally have chosen to forgive them their disgressions may speak well of your own outlook but it does not change the facts.
Lies have been told and NOT retracted. Mistakes can be forgiven upon receipt of contrition, but unretracted lies stand on their own.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
You're going to have to do better than that.
I've been wrong many times. Both here and on the other boards. I have 'fessed' up to numerous mistakes and I will in the future. Being wrong on occasion is the price you pay for thinking for yourself. (You should try it.)
If you need me to get specific about this incident, I was wrong when I suggested that evidence existed that pointed to the completion of the Biofrontera deal. I based that assumption on the fact that Biofrontera altered their web site to include DNAP's participation in their Board of Directors. This occured closer to the end of the transaction period than the beginning. (contrary to your claim).
On to the next subject. You still are distorting my words, even after being corrected. What is your motive for such behavior? Are YOU uncomfortable with being wrong? It is interesting that on the many occasions that you have put your foot in it, you have never admitted your mistakes. Do we have a little Pot and Kettle interaction going on here?
For clarity I will reiterate.
Common sense suggests that the 'story' put forward by DNAP/Biofrontera/Dutchess in regards to the purchase of Biofrontera by DNAP, using funds contributed by Dutchess, in exchange for shares of DNAP, is patently ridiculous.
On the other hand the possibility that 'something' is cooking regarding those three participants has a significant probability, and has seemed obvious from the beginning. Gabriel's insider status at Biofrontera, The carefully worded statements about majority ownership that avoided any reference to 'control', the discrepency of majority ownership vs. a minority position on the BOD, the 'loan', the farcicial episode of Frudakis being 'amazed' by Biofrontera's pipeline as he did his DD AFTER the deal had been announced, the unexplained addition to DNAP's BOD, the negotiation by Biofrontera to sell off some of it's assets while still apparently waiting for the DNAP purchase to close, all infer 'something' is going on.
However, due to the questionable strategy being employed by the parties involved and the misdirection and stonewalling in regards to the public, it is doubtful that 'something' will be welcomed by the investors.
regards,
frog
Bag, How do you jump to such an erroneous conclusion. You constantly amaze me with your flights of fantasy.
Part of our discussion has you charging the managers of DNAP and Duchess with lacking common sense.
I defy you to make such a connection from what I said.
I assume that DNAP and Dutchess are moving forward on a specific and well planned course. I have expanded on my analysis on this topic many times.
The common sense side of the argument applies to those gullible audience that swallowed such nonsense hook line and sinker.
It is your contention that some imaginary factors make such a story plausible.
My speculation that the deal had closed was based on my assumption that Biofrontera would not be so stupid as to publish the changes to their BOD until the deal had actually closed. Imagine my surprise to discover that they were willing to risk being investigated for manipulative practices in order to support the story.
regards,
frog
ps. The registration probably failed because the SEC can do simple arithmetic.
Bag, Don't change the subject.
The topic of the moment is the common sense aspects of the Dutchess/Biofrontera deal.
I am quite willing to move on to the next topic if you have nothing left to add to this one.
Realize of course that if you wish to open up another can of worms regarding the questionable behavior of Biofrontera in this deal, they will most probably prove to be very difficult to get back in the can.
regards,
frog