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.
"porgie tirebiter,"
Your first sentence made no sense to me.
I do not choose to email the plan to you. We are looking for qualified, credible investors who can be a positive part of the effort.
Daniel Gannon
"porgie tirebiter,"
That is completely false, and once again, totally unsubstantiated. ("FSDLS is not about reviving DNAG, it is about discarding it.") I have chosen to work with this specific group precisely because I believe they are friendly to the interests of the shareholders and the company. Saving DNAPrint Genomics is what this is all about. There is nothing nefarious that I have seen, or inferred, nothing whatsoever.
Daniel
"porgie tirebiter,"
Those are ridiculous allegations. Completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous.
Obviously, I want the company to succeed, and I've been putting my money where my mouth is, all along, since early 2007 when I first bought DNAG shares. (Actually, I started defending the company even before I bought any shares. I do not behave like a shark, I counter them.)
Daniel
"frogdreaming,"
An entity (group) friendly to DNAPrint, buying Dutchess' stake in DNAPrint, is hardly bad news! It was DNAPrint that put me in touch with this group.
You have no right to violate people's privacy, posting confidential information belonging to other parties.
Daniel
"frogdreaming,"
That is confidential material which you are not authorized to disseminate.
How did you get that material? Did you apply for it under false pretenses, or was it leaked to you? Also, as I said, this is not the place to discuss confidential information. It will be discussed, but not here. I will not respond to such, here.
Do not post confidential material belonging to other parties.
Daniel Gannon
Additional details of the plan will be shared and discussed with qualified, credible investors, on a confidential basis. Interested parties are invited to email me. This is not the place for disclosing all of that.
P.S., the number of interested, potential investors in this plan, has increased again. The count is now 21. (Not counting the investors the group I'm working with, already had, and not counting myself.)
Daniel Gannon
dgplexus1@yahoo.com
Thank you for your eloquent, and accurate, posts, Babe.
Daniel
"frogdreaming,"
Dodging the statement does not make the statement go away. What you claimed is baseless and unsubstantiated. If it weren't, I'm sure you would have been the first to post some form of substantiation, but I have seen no evidence, whatsoever, that Tony was using those ridiculous-sounding aliases ('money_looser' and 'stockpimpdaddy',) let alone, using any aliases for anything less than honorable. I would not be surprised if someone had impersonated Tony. Hell, even I was impersonated, recently!
You make an accusation, you substantiate it. Or there is no reason for anyone to take the accusation seriously, especially considering the history involved here. (If a dog bites me 100 times, would I be wise to trust that same dog, to not bite, the next time? I think not.)
Where is the substantiation, the evidence, that must exist to support your claims, if your claims have any merit, whatsoever? Where?
Daniel
"frogdreaming,"
You said, "Take the time to check out the aliases 'money_looser' and 'stockpimpdaddy' on those boards. They and a couple others belong to Tony." Looks like yet another baseless, unsubstantiated, claim. (Par for the course!)
Daniel
Update, good news:
In addition to the investors the group I'm siding with already had, there are 19 interested, credible/qualified parties, who have contacted me, so far. (Several times more, than when I last reported the figure.)
I think there is significant hope that DNAPrint can be saved, especially if we can purchase Dutchess' interest in the company, which would have the added benefit, of shielding the company from creditors, (because Dutchess' stake takes precedence over all other creditors, excepting the U.S. government,) until the company is able to pay down all debt -- quite an advantage. With DNAPrint thus protected, income streams can be grown (including DNAWitness and Ancestry,) and the company's potential grown into, definitely not ignoring the Pharmacogenomics / Personalized Medicine aspect.
Daniel Gannon
dgplexus1@yahoo.com
It's not necessarily the end. There hasn't been a bankruptcy, and there are more than a dozen investors who are now interested in saving DNAPrint. Part of the plan is to buy Dutchess' stake in the company. I received authorization, today, to begin sharing the business plan with credible investors, and I'm already sending it out.
Please email me if you are interested: dgplexus1@yahoo.com
Sincerely,
Daniel Gannon
"frogdreaming,"
OK, then tell us which filing you are referring to, the filing containing the first instance of such a statement. I've seen too many false claims and deceptive spin thrown at DNAPrint, to simply take every random claim as if it were established fact, without spin or other form of deception.
Daniel
"frogdreaming,"
That doesn't appear to be true. It doesn't even make sense. If DNAPrint knew, from the start, that Dutchess would obtain the funds in that way, it would have made much more sense for DNAPrint to just sell their own shares on the open market, the traditional way that publicly traded startup companies often raise money. Why would they involve Dutchess at all, with all the disadvantages that Dutchess introduced, if they knew what Dutchess would actually do? No, I don't believe that is the case. From what I am told, Dutchess said that they would hold the shares, not dump (or pseudo-short) them, and that the money loaned would be Dutchess' money, not the shareholders' money. (If the shareholders were to be the source of the funds, then DNAPrint would have ignored Dutchess altogether, and gone straight to the shareholders. Why would they do otherwise, unless Dutchess deceived/betrayed them?)
Daniel
It is instructive to know some things about Dutchess, and its behavior, concerning DNAPrint Genomics.
Dutchess has engaged in deceitful, insidious, destructive practices, which violate nearly everyone's sense of fairness and decency. DNAPrint's original agreement with Dutchess called for them to raise $43M. They only raised about $8M, and the way they raised that was extremely destructive to shareholders and to the company.
Contrary to what they promised, they did not hold DNAPrint's stock (which they received through convertible debentures,) and raise cash seperately, to fulfill their end of the financing agreement -- no, that would be too simple and honest! Instead, they took the stock, and just dumped it, and dumped it, and dumped it, on the open market. This destroyed shareholder value, driving the stock inexorably down. Further, when people found out what was happening, they stopped buying shares, and the short sellers started having parties, naked shorting DNAG to the point that it appeared on the Regulation SHO (Naked Short) list, multiple times, for extended periods. Dutchess' behavior has driven DNAG down, so unbelievably low. If Dutchess had fulfilled its part of the bargain, and raised $43 million in a decent, honest, non-destructive way -- the way that a creditor would reasonably be expected to raise the money that is supposedly being loaned -- then DNAG would not have suffered such extreme downward movements in price, and would not be in a horrendous financing pinch, today. Another note about Dutchess: They worded contracts in a way that gives them the priority in collecting any debt, and also gives them ownership of essentially all of the company and its assets. I have yet to see a more predatory lender. Not even those "Payday" loan kind of places, seem to be this noxious. The sooner that Dutchess' stake in DNAPrint can be purchased, the better.
The above is merely my opinion, based upon facts as I have ascertained them. These statements do not necessarily represent the opinions of anyone but myself. (But I know that many people feel similarly, as I have read and heard many, many complaints along these lines.)
Daniel
To anyone who hasn't yet contacted me, but may be interested:
As you probably already know, I'm interested in saving DNAPrint. There's a group that I've decided to work with, that has a plan, and they are looking for more investors.
In my opinion, the situation with Dutchess (the major creditor) is the major reason for the declines in DNAG share price. Dutchess now controls DNAPrint, but they aren't in the habit of running and growing businesses. We are interested in buying Dutchess' stake in DNAPrint, and I think the plan, presented to me, is a good one.
If you're interested, please email me at: dgplexus1@yahoo.com
I can ask them if it's OK for me to share more details with you.
Best wishes,
Daniel Gannon
dgplexus1@yahoo.com
Babe,
Well said, and I totally agree.
Regarding DNAG, I think I'm just going to be quiet for a while.
(Note, I don't know which URL you are referring to. Maybe I wasn't the one who posted it? I don't know.)
Good luck to all the "good guys,"
Daniel
Update: Five parties have responded with interest in the funding aspect. (Six if you count me.)
There is a possibility that we can combine our resources and efforts, with those of the group that wants to license DNAPrint's forensics technology. That's something else I'm going to be looking into. In my opinion, it would be a positive if Dutchess' stake in DNAG could be purchased. We shall see. I'll keep you posted.
Daniel
It's pretty simple, I think: The acute need for funding. Would you work indefinitely for no pay?
Incidentally, there are many small businesses that are lacking the funding they could, under normal circumstances, obtain. Something about the worst credit crunch and financial downturn since the Great Depression.
Daniel
Google Scholar search on "DNAPrint Genomics":
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22DNAPrint+Genomics%22
Results 1 - 10 of about 144 for "DNAPrint Genomics".
I suppose that's a whole lot of "doing nothing"?
Daniel
"bigdrive99,"
To the contrary. Such an impressive collection of intellectual property, and products on the market (both consumer and forensic,) is not accumulated by "doing nothing." Also, your claim that, "There is no CEO in the world who could save this company, even if you could find one willing to try," is unsubstantiated.
DNAPrint Genomics and its technology has received a lot of praise, recognition, and general respect, from various parties. Its technology is routinely called "cutting edge." Only in the investment forums do you find constant negativity, coming from certain aliases. The "real world" respects DNAPrint Genomics' technology, and there have been recent, ongoing mentions of positive collaborations with the company, as well. Do some Google (and Google News, and Google Scholar,) searches. You'll see. These consistently positive references and mentions, do not paint a picture of a company that has merely been "doing nothing."
Daniel
"bigdrive99,"
Obviously, we disagree on that. At any rate, Richard Gabriel, the former CEO, is among those who resigned. Perhaps a different CEO would be more appropriate, moving forward -- that's a point I can't argue against.
Daniel
Update on the responses received so far (parties who are interested in joining a pool of investors, to get DNAPrint Genomics up and running again, and possibly buy Dutchess' interest in DNAG) --
- Four parties have responded with interest in the funding aspect. (Five if you count me.)
- Two parties have offered other forms of help.
- Another party offered contact info., for someone who may be able to help pool more investors.
I will be following up on all of this, and keeping in touch with Hector, periodically, as possible.
I wrote:
> For those who may be interested in joining a group of
> shareholders and other investors, to pool our investment
> money and provide the needed financing, and perhaps buy
> Dutchess' interest in DNAG, please email me:
>
> dgplexus1@yahoo.com (dgplexus1(at)yahoo.com)
>
> In my opinion, this is the best hope for DNAG, to keep it
> out of the "vultures'" hands, and to avoid a fire sale,
> which nobody but the "vultures" wants.
FYI, I've still never sold a single share of DNAG.
NOTE: All standard disclaimers, including forward-looking statements disclaimers, apply. The above information is accurate to the best of my knowledge, but I cannot guarantee that it is 100% free of error or misunderstanding. This message may include forward-looking statements that involve risk and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those predicted by such forward-looking statements. Nothing in this message should be taken to represent a promise or guarantee of any kind. Caveat emptor, etc.
Links to messages in which I posted relevant info:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35468796
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35492846
Sincerely, and good luck to all,
Daniel Gannon
"frogdreaming,"
I emphatically disagree. I have seen no evidence, among the many thousands of posts from "detractors," that Tony Frudakis and Hector Gomez are "vultures," in any sense. The only claims that even come close to insinuating that, have (by implication) seemed to expect them to have worked for free, all along, or for minimum wage. Such expectations are not appropriate, or realistic, for men with such talents and backgrounds.
The status quo is not something I'm interested in. I'm interested in getting DNAPrint Genomics up and running again, and certain goals are in mind, (such as, in the near term, avoiding a fire sale, and avoiding any "toxic" financing, eliminating the Dutchess debt as quickly as possible, possibly buying Dutchess' stake in the company, and of course, capitalizing on the company's strengths, including tapping into the full potential of its talents and intellectual property.) Richard Gabriel, who also resigned, has been widely criticized. I'm open to comments and suggestions, but as I see it, perhaps a different CEO would be more appropriate, moving forward. (I'm not looking to be the CEO.)
Another thing that needs to change, about the status quo, is that the SEC needs to do its job, and stop allowing microcap companies to be driven down into the ground by unethical short sellers and "vultures." Securities manipulation, whether direct or indirect (such as through propaganda,) is something we've seen directed against DNAG very constantly, for years. That needs to stop. I suggest everyone contact the SEC, to complain, whenever they see such activities in connection with DNAG, or any security, for that matter.
SEC Complaint Center
http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml
The whole scandal with the Madoff whistleblower, and the SEC not listening to his very credible evidence for 10 years, may provide the opening needed, for force _real_ reform at the SEC. But we, the public, need to be very forceful about it, in order to have any chance of success. A sleeping watchdog? The SEC is more like a dead watchdog.
Daniel
Thanks, Fox, and mbmun. I'm compiling a list, and I've added your notes to it. Hopefully, we can save this company, and keep it out of the "wrong hands."
Daniel
jpslots,
I agree, it was funny.
It's very clear that there is significant "lurking" money interest, in the Personalized Medicine (Pharmacogenomics/Theranostics) intellectual property.
As people have realized what DNAPrint Genomics holds, in the Personalized Medicine space, and they see the "fire sale" share price and distress (serious financing pinch,) the stealth attack begins -- keeping as quiet as possible about Personalized Medicine, and sneaking up on the target of their avarice. As in Poker, "vultures," (and most investors,) don't seek to tip their hand, when they're after something like this. The more they sneak and scheme, the more value they think there is, in the thing they're trying to buy up. This is the same old story, nothing new.
Google: Obama personalized medicine
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Obama+personalized+medicine&aq=f&oq=
Pharmacogenomics is another way of saying, Personalized Medicine.
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/corporate/
Check out the intellectual property. (I've posted links to it, previously.) I'm reminded of the old adage, of ignoring the elephant in the room. In this case, the elephant isn't a problem, it's the intellectual property, in its entirety, including the property in the Personalized Medicine space.
Daniel
I spoke with Hector again today. I asked if they would be willing to return to the company, if adequate funding was secured. Hector said that he and Tony would be willing, and that it's in line with what they've been trying to do all along (secure funding to continue operations.)
For those who may be interested in joining a group of shareholders and other investors, to pool our investment money and provide the needed financing, and perhaps buy Dutchess' interest in DNAG, please email me:
dgplexus1@yahoo.com (dgplexus1(at)yahoo.com)
In my opinion, this is the best hope for DNAG, to keep it out of the "vultures'" hands, and to avoid a fire sale, which nobody but the "vultures" wants.
Sincerely,
Daniel Gannon
"frogdreaming,"
I rather doubt that. Dutchess already expressed that they wanted to keep DNAPrint's doors open. Also, the intellectual property is, in my opinion, worth considerably more than what the debt (primarily to Dutchess, incidentally,) is. A fire sale does not appear to be what Dutchess was planning.
Daniel
Thanks, Fox.
If you don't mind my asking, what kinds of things could your agency potentially do, in this situation? (I'm not aware of the nature of your agency.)
Daniel
"frogdreaming,"
I don't think the names of those parties is material (part of the criteria, for being material nonpublic information.)
Also, when people or groups talk to me, using my contact info. in my SEC filings, those names and phone numbers are immaterial, as well, and those third-party conversations are not insider information (unless insider information happens to be possessed, and passed on, during one of the conversations.) What non-insiders talk to me about, while not exchanging any inside information, is not material nonpublic information connected to DNAG. I'm still not selling, by the way.
Daniel
I no longer have inside information. I disclosed it all publicly, everything I had.
Daniel
You're welcome.
Daniel
Here is the information I obtained, from my recent phone calls with Hector Gomez (starting on February 2, 2009, up until today.) This is all of the material nonpublic information I possessed, concerning DNAG.
Note: There was no nondisclosure agreement -- I had avoided posting this information publicly, until now, mainly to be polite and not damage any relationship that I may be forming with DNAPrint Genomics. Now, it appears the time is right for me to release all of this info.
- DNAPrint had 3 people still in the lab (but obviously not full time)
- 2 people in drug development group. They received a grant from Ireland, for research into IBD (inflammatory bowell disease,) and the work was completed. The initial grant was for around $150,000, and the second grant (for the next phase) was expected to be "2 to 3 times that" amount.
- Three parties/groups have expressed interest in DNAPrint Genomics, or parts of it. (I won't name any names here, for privacy reasons.) One group wants to license DNAPrint's forensics technology. Hector said that, if this deal was signed, they would have the funding they need to be financially stable, and continue operating. Another group is interested in AncestryByDNA and DoggieDNA. A third group is interested in the lab and equipment (not the desired deal, from DNAPrint's perspective.)
- Also, there had been some dialogue with Beckman Coulter, and with Illumina, but those companies hadn't moved on anything, yet.
- The key patent application was answered satisfactorily, and they should have an answer in the next few weeks or months. If/when granted, several companies will have to go through DNAG for their ancestry testing.
- They still owe money to Dutchess (the main creditor.)
- Dutchess expressed that they want to keep DNAPrint Genomics' doors open, and offered to pay salaries for a few part time people, as an interim measure, until something else was secured.
- They had immediate funding needs of around $300,000 (including paying bills, the IRS is owed $75,000, and getting the reagents needed to continue processing the DNA samples.) Longer term funding sought is $3M+.
- The idea was discussed, that I could attempt to pool a group of shareholders and/or other investors, including myself, to raise some of the money they need. (By myself, I didn't have sufficient funds to commit, to meet all of their immediate needs.) I expressed interest, and suggested I might be able to commit $100,000 as part of a group effort, but I said the other investors would need more information about what's going on. Hector said the PR firm in New York they had been using, was owed money by DNAPrint, so that was an issue. I suggested various alternative ways to get the information out, including me posting it, with permission from the company, or me paying the PR firm in New York (the amount already owed, plus fees for preparing a new letter.) I was frustrated in this line of inquiry. Finally, today, I am resorting to posting this message, to release the information I have.
- Hector invited me, as the largest shareholder, to become a board member. I didn't make a decision on that, but I will say, I felt honored by the invitation.
- In 2006, as is already known, income was around $3M. That income declined in 2007, and again in 2008.
- Hector did give me the OK to disclose Richard Gabriel's resignation.
Today, Hector told me:
- He and Tony Frudakis resigned last Friday night, as they couldn't take it any more. (Hector had previously told me that Tony, the company's founder, had been very depressed.)
- DNAPrint Genomics' management is now in the hands of Dutchess. Hector is offering to help Dutchess with this (arranging things, talking to parties that are interested in the company...)
- Said he will get back to me in a couple days.
Those are the substantial details that I have. FYI, I'm still not selling my shares, and I am still interested in participating as part of a group of investors, to help DNAPrint Genomics get through this financing pinch, during the worst financial/credit crisis since the Great Depression, providing that Tony and Hector, other other suitable management, would be willing to manage the company.
NOTE: All standard disclaimers, including forward-looking statements disclaimers, apply. The above information is accurate to the best of my knowledge, but I cannot guarantee that it is 100% free of error or misunderstanding. This message may include forward-looking statements that involve risk and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those predicted by such forward-looking statements. Nothing in this message should be taken to represent a promise or guarantee of any kind. Caveat emptor, etc.
Sincerely,
Daniel Gannon
"frogdreaming,"
Good grief! The company told me Richard Gabriel announced his resignation last week. If that isn't something "going on," to you, well... I haven't alleged or implied anything that could even remotely be considered material nonpublic information. "Going on" is a general term... "what's going on there?," etc. I mean, clearly, what I said -- that I am not disclosing anything further at this time.
I'm only an insider in the sense that I own more than 10% of the outstanding shares, which merely burdens me with filing requirements with the SEC (Forms 3/4/5, and 13D,) and because I've been talking with the company, in recent days. When the company tells me something, anything, that isn't public information, I regard that as inside info. Whether it is "material" inside info., or not, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and assume that it might be considered "material." Hence, my precautions and disclaimers. I do not need to invoke any "boilerplate." I am not employed by the company, I am not on the Board, nor do I control the company. I am treating the information I do have, with utmost respect, as any investor with (potentially) material nonpublic information, is required to. There are no assumptions that are warranted. I've made that perfectly clear in my previous postings.
Daniel
Thanks, Mike.
It's good to know that the unit that's available, isn't DNAPrint Genomics' space. (False allegations to the contrary, were among the many thrown at DNAG. There have been so many false allegations, in the last couple years alone, that I've lost count!)
I hope you, and everyone connected with DNAPrint, shareholders included, have a great weekend!
Daniel
"Porgie Tirebiter,"
That is an absolutely false allegation and personal attack. I have sold none of my shares, even when I could have, recently, sold millions of shares, for several times the average price I've paid for them!
You said:
> ... the whole purpose of keeping us waiting for the
> insider's dope is to try to coax share price upward, in
> anticipation that 'something is up'.
Now that I have, as I previously mentioned, some nonpublic information, I'm merely maintaining my pre-existing trading plan, which does not include selling. One could argue that I can't sell, until the information I have becomes public information.
I'm in DNAG as a long-term investment, as I've always stated.
Daniel
If you are confused about what chiggah wrote, re-read it, in context (including the messages he was replying to,) please.
What I can point out, has already been pointed out by myself or others.
I'm not implying anything about what's going on. Of course there are things going on. There is always something going on. You won't be able to milk any details out of me, early. You know what they say about assuming.
Daniel
I still believe that, ultimately, the fundamentals (the value of this company and its intellectual property) will prevail over the manipulation. That's the primary economic reason why I'm a DNAG investor. There are personal reasons I support this company, as well, but I don't make investment decisions based on personal reasons.
I'll disclose what I can, when I can, re: what's going on.
Daniel
chiggah,
Agreed, and you're most welcome. Thank you, as well.
Daniel
"frogdreaming,"
That is a classic case, of much ado about nothing.
When Mike called me, I already knew (from PL1's report) that Sarah and a lab worker had been seen in DNAG HQ, recently. I was also very aware of the many negative and false claims that were being thrown around. Mike called and asked me for information. He wanted to know where they were. The _only_ information he gave me was, that they weren't there, (up until that time, on that day, I presume. I didn't ask for more details.) In the context of all the negative false claims flying around, I seem to have misinterpreted what was probably his genuine curiosity/concern/surprise, for false concern designed to scare me. I thought the circumstances were suspect. I didn't take him seriously, (which I suppose is why he repeated himself a bit,) I told him I was busy, that I didn't know where they were (but I knew they had been seen there recently,) and I didn't speak with him long, only about 1 or 2 minutes, if I recall correctly. Anyway, now we know the rent _is_ paid up (contrary to the unsubstantiated claim,) and they are still around. As I said before, I don't expect DNAG HQ to be fully staffed 100% of the time, in the midst of a difficult financing squeeze. Fully staffing during such a time, can be suicidal for a company.
As for the insider information I now have, and my ability to trade, I have not acted on any of the information I have recently come across. My pre-existing trading plan (in the form of my buy limit orders) has been in existence, unchanged, for quite a while now, long before I obtained anything even remotely resembling inside info., and my brokerage is executing that plan for me. They have a record of when I set those limit orders up, and it was long before I obtained any inside info., whatsoever. As long as I don't change my pre-arranged trading plan in any way, it doesn't matter what information I obtain. If I get hits on my buy limit orders, that's allowed under the pre-arranged trading plan. (Yes, limit orders are allowable under such plans. I looked it up, previously.)
Daniel
"frogdreaming,"
Contrary to your totally unsubstantiated claim, he mentioned nothing about rent being "months behind." Nothing of the sort was said. Also, as Fox just reported, and Mike confirmed here, "Mike stated that they are still in business and the rent is paid to date."
Daniel