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.
You can always hear a freight train though. From a LONG way off.
I hear nothing on the RXPC tracks.
Please share the abundance of information to which you allude.
For example, why do you say that there is ANY insider ownership of this stock? And why do you think any one entity owns more than a mere handful of RXPC? The lack of SEC filings indicates the opposite is true.
Thanks in advance.
I am not trying to determine anyone's actual loss. I am merely musing along with runncoach about why anyone would sell 40 shares.
Perhaps it's someone in the Class Action group who bought in March 2011. There are certainly members of that Class who haven't sold yet.
40 shares before the 25:1 split was 1000 shares. They could have paid $1.80 PPS for those in January 2011 but let's say $1 per share in March 2011 to keep it real. That person could be FINALLY selling now to take the $1000 loss.
I don't think a market maker would record a 40-share trade to create volume. Maybe to paint the tape, but the PPS was already at .0001, so, who knows.
5000 shares in 2006 would be 40 shares today after the 5:1 split and the 25:1 split.
5000 shares at $3 would have cost that person $15,000 in 2006.
40 shares so far today are not locked up tight.
That's the sign of a healthy vital pinksheet stock: less than a copper penny's worth of stock traded by noon.
So is that a win for Radient? The company has become so insignificant that Rosen isn't even mentioning his victory in the class action?
Considering that Radient has zero equity, the award was probably rather small. I guess the whole three-year-long ordeal was something the Rosen law firm would like to forget.
Rosen seems to win a lot of class actions. The purpose of listing successes on his website is to attract more business. He doesn't have to list every win -- I think the exclusion is more of an insult to Radient than a "failure" on Rosen's part.
The Director position was "filled" by one of MacLellan's old cronies. Who else would fill a non-paying position at a company that is not operating?
I've posted this before: Christiansen has a history with MacLellan. Together they botched the PortaCom merger in 1996.
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/76137/portacom-asian-american-merger-tripped-by-taxes
Christiansen, the CFO, apparently didn't understand the tax implications. That was September 1996. Within weeks of this debacle, Christiansen quit or was fired from PortaCom.
on MacLellan's Linked-In page, it says " Mr. MacLellan left PortaCom in March 1998 to pursue multiple China based telecommunications opportunities. " That's a polite way to say it -- PortaCom filed for bankruptcy of PortaCom in March 1998.
My opinion is:
* the UNI license is a binding legal contract and will not be changed unless Radient fails to deliver, in which case UNI lost $20,000.
* Radient will never operate again, in any capacity. their only marketable product now is a license agreement. If they fail to deliver to UNI, they have nothing marketable.
* There is no takeover, no buyout, no merger.
You concur with that?
You will be asking that same question in six months.
What are they waiting on?
The answer will be the same: they are waiting on nothing. This company does not operate, they don't have office space or a manufacturing facility, they let their FDA clearance expire, and they let their European patent application expire. SRL stopped selling the test.
Any assertion that there is a takeover or merger is unsubstantiated opinion.
Any assertion that the UNI license will change is unsubstantiated opinion.
they have one. The UNI license.
No, the UNI license is a legal binding contract. It is not like the previous distribution agreements.
unsubstantiated opinion.
You think a takeover is coming.
An entity that wants to manufacture and/or sell DR-70 can license it for $100,000 per year, as UNI did. Radient has at least $18 million debt.
The choice is: assume $18 million debt and take over the company, or pay $100,000 and license DR-70.
You seriously think an entity would choose the former, not the latter?
No takeover, no merger, the FDA clearance has lapsed, and the product is NOT big in Asia or India. The product is not big anywhere on the planet.
Shouting in all caps does not make your statements true.
dcspka, you said: "These "licensing deals" are written up to be modified as is convenient for the principal parties. "
That is an unsubstantiated opinion. Therefore, you think it is not worth much. I agree.
Small-Howard has her name on the patent apps because they originated in 2009.
She knows, better than anyone that DR-70 will never be profitable. Still, it never hurts one's CV to have a patent in your name. So I expect her to communicate with the USPTO and the WIPO to at least try to get the patents approved.
But there is NO WAY she participated in a symposium panel in San Francisco and worked "DR-70" into the panel conversation. She is the President of International Biotechnology Solutions. She represented that organization, not Radient. DR-70 revenues mean nothing to her now.
Gartner pitched DR-70 at the AZBio because he is 72 years old, is looking for one last score, and has nothing else going on, IMO. I think he surprised everyone at AZBio and I can guarantee he damaged his professional reputation. I repeat, there is NO WAY Small-Howard did something like that at the China, India, & US Life Science Markets Symposium.
but didn't you notice that IN is not in that list of states?
But that is the European patent app, not the WIPO.
Not that it matters -- DR-70 is not going to be profitable anywhere, ever, IMO. But if the WIPO app expires or is rejected, UNI won't have to pay Radient anything.
Yes I know Howard-Small's name is still on the patent apps.
My question is, did she mention AMDL, Radient, DR-70, or onko-sure at that symposium?
I doubt it very much. That's what I mean by "moved on."
I don't understand why the WIPO updates that "status report" once a week, even though nothing changes.
http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010114514&recNum=1&tab=PCTDocuments&maxRec=1&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=FP%3A%28WO%2F2010%2F114514+%09+%29
But did Small-Howard speak about DR-70?
She is President at International Biotechnology Solutions. Looks like she has moved on from Radient.
http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Norwalk/international-biotechnology-solutions-llc/103414688.aspx
Sure is hard to find anything about that symposium, other than it was in San Francisco and it lasted 4.5 hours (one afternoon). Small-Howard was a "featured panelist."
Here is a brief description:
https://baybio.org/china-india-us-life-science-markets-symposium/
Try to follow the links for more info on that Symposium, and you hit a dead end.
Looks to me like Small-Howard participated on a panel, but she was not there as a Radient representative. I think Radient is a distant (and maybe not fond) memory for her.
They update that WIPO page on a regular basis -- but the patent status has not changed. Unless you see something I do not?
"Your WIPO Information is valid as of: 15 September 2010. "
That patent application is long in the tooth. Why is that? Why no action taken?
yes, exactly, that is why he personally got up on stage and pitched it.
In Summer 2012 he thought he had an investor lined up -- they called it "a Midwestern investor" -- but that investor backed out. We have to assume he kept looking for funding but in April 2013 he went on stage at AZBio and delivered his sales pitch.
Think about it. A sales pitch at AZBio? Cheapens the event, IMO. Gartner is on the BOD of AZBio and one of their success stories -- otherwise I don't think they would have let him do it.
The class action lawsuit named Radient and MacLellan, and insurance covered it. That did not hold up anything, IMO. But we will know, won't we, since that is over as of yesterday.
I seriously doubt that Gartner got funding from his sales pitch at AZBio. That audience was not there to invest. And Gartner's Fundable attempt was jut embarrassing, IMO -- he got two people to pledge $100 each and he quit long before the end of the contest. Why did he even try? If you think it was because he wanted "exposure," then why did he quit? I think he was that desperate for $20,000.
You ask "why leave the GCDx website up?" but I ask "for $5.99 per month, why take it down?" He's not monitoring that site or updating it -- just paying the $5.99 monthly fee to GoDaddy. Have you tried contacting GCDx from the contact info on that website? I have -- no answer.
It's easy and cheap to put up a website today. Nobody audits them. If you want to pay $5.99 per month for the site and about $20 for a domain name, YOU can have a website that pretends to sell DR-70. Remember Guar Diagno? Remember the fake doctor testimonials on the Guar Diagno site? The white vans?
DFRANK and goldseeker, thanks for the enlightenment.
I learned something about 23andMe. I seriously thought they were trying to sell ancestry ONLY.
I don't see how Gartner could sell a blood test for "various types of cancer" when 23andMe can't sell a spit test for "various types of everything including cancer."
However, as I have stated before, I don't think Gartner thinks GCDx will make a profit selling DR-70. He is close to DR-70 -- he knows how it has failed globally, he knows it doesn't have FDA clearance for his proposed use, and he knows that a positive result from a DR-70 screening test would be problematic for the patient and for the doctor. I think he just wants to run a startup company for a few years that pays a salary to him and a couple of his ex-Provista friends.
The trick is to find investors who think they will profit from investing in GCDx. Gartner has been unsuccessful in that respect. I don't think that should surprise anyone.
Why call Rosen?
He'll post it on his website eventually. But why do you care? You are not getting any of that money. Radient isn't paying it. It's a non-event.
Except that insurance company is never going to cover MacLellan again.
I thought the only use for the DNA tests was to see which kings were your ancestors on ancestry.com.
That's the funny thing about ancestry.com -- everyone is descended from royalty.
it may be a joke, but there might be a profit in going along with the joke.
I don't think SRL is going to provide the catalyst because I think they stopped selling the test. I also don't think UNI will provide the catalyst since their success or failure does not affect Radient much.
But anything is possible down in the pinksheets. I notice the fly-by-night "longs" who were predicting a penny or dime PPS have given up... but judging from the rise to .0003 in February 2013 based on hype from SRL.... who knows, .0002 or .0003 might happen again.
Not my kind of gamble, personally. But I didn't like the gamble on Garza either, in April 2010 OR in December 2010, and those were EPIC windfalls for a fortunate few, because Garza played the shorts like fools and created a short squeeze each time.
I was unaware that Genway was selling DR-70 that way.
I think 23andMe could have continued selling their DNA test with no interference from the FDA if they could have kept it under the radar -- but it got a lot of publicity and the FDA felt they had to step in.
It seems to me that a DNA test doesn't hurt anyone. The FDA should have just stayed out of that arena.
Cancer screening though.... that could hurt a patient if, based on the test result, they took action that affected their health.
23andMe was shut down because they failed to get FDA clearance for their medical device.
Simply having a device registered does not allow you to market that device. You need FDA clearance.
23andMe did not submit applications to the FDA until the FDA told them they needed to in 2009.
23andMe needs to submit a 510(kor PMA and get it cleared. Gartner will need to do the same.
Who says Gartner is trying to take over RXPC?
That seems absurd. He would not have pitched GCDx at AZBio if he were trying to take over RXPC -- that makes his AZBio pitch look like fraud.
He would not have subjected himself to the humiliation of Fundable to try and raise $10,000 if he had resources to take over RXPC.
He would not have put up the GCDx website if he were trying to take over RXPC - that looks like fraud.
It's absurd to say that any entity is taking over RXPC, IMO -- the debt is prohibitive, and anyone wanting to manufacture and/or sell DR-70 can simply license it for $100,000 annually. But GARTNER? Usually a takeover rumor has a big mystery player as the buyer, like JnJ or Bayer or Astellas or Gates -- but GARTNER?
but Genway and AMDL only sold it for lab use (other than CRC monitoring).
Gartner wants to sell it to the masses as a lung cancer screener. I can almost guarantee the FDA will shut him down.
You'd think the FDA would allow DNA testing -- 23andMe certainly assumed so. If the FDA cracked down on DNA tests, they most certainly will crack down on cancer screening tests.
I realize that DR-70 is not a valid cancer screener. I think Gartner knows it too. MacLellan certainly knows it - he admitted that in a conference call, as you know. But that doesn't matter. If Gartner gest funding, he will start up GCDx. Gartner is 72 years old. I don't think he cares whether he ever sells a DR-70 test as long as he gets a couple years' salary out of GCDx. Call me cynical, but that is my opinion.
I don't think the FDA will allow DR-70 under its Home Brew designation. I could be wrong. And actually I don't think it really matters because I don't think GCDx revenues will amount to much -- if a potential customer asks their doctor first, the doctor will say "don't buy that test," IMO. So it really won't matter much whether the FDA shuts Gartner down or not, IMO.
There isn't anything else to talk about. Apparently, MacLellan will never file for bankruptcy. Sheesh. I can't understand why the lenders allow this zombie status. Seems like they couldn't write off the full loss until Radient goes BK.
dcspka, you have stated in the past that you think there are additional royalties in the UNI agreement other than the $100,000 per year.
Do you still believe that? If so, provide your evidence. Thanks in advance.
This licensing agreement was written because Radient has no other way of getting any money.
UNI has no incentive to renegotiate. They will not, unless they decide that they can not profit from DR-70.
RXPC cannot chuck the whole thing away if UNI pays the $100,000 annual royalty on time. There is no loophole that benefits Radient if they want out, other than refusing to transfer the technology -- in which case they will have defrauded UNI and they will have only received $20,000, because UNI does not have to pay the other $80,000 for 2013 until "after tech transfer training and commercial-scale trial-run production for Onko-Sure (DR-70)."
Is that what you think Radient intends? Get $20,000 and then fail to deliver? Because that is the only way they can "chuck the whole thing away."
Also, please describe a "Worst Condition Basis" that is worse than the current condition. Thanks in advance.
Gartner couldn't sell DR-70 in the USA as he intends because the FDA won't allow it.
23andMe has Google money backing their fight with the FDA over the DNA tests, and they are failing. Gartner would not have the luxury of big money backing his play. The FDA would shut him down so fast I doubt he'd be able to make a sale.
But, yes, I understand your point: Radient is giving away the farm, if they can find any takers.
Very true, Jim.
Everything we are saying on this message board is pure speculation.
No. The licensing deals are binding legal contracts. You are not reading the agreement's termination provisions with comprehension.
Neither party can modify the agreement. It's not disposable. Radient can't terminate the agreement as long as UNI makes the royalty payments.
UNI can terminate the agreement if they want, simply by refusing to pay the annual royalty payments. If the patents expire, they will do that.
Specifically, and this could really not be any clearer, the only ways either party can terminate the agreement is if:
11.1.i The last patent expires (UNI would not need to pay Radient anything at that point);
11.1.ii UNI decides to stop selling DR-70;
11.1.iii UNI stops making the $100,000 annual payments;
11.2 the other party commits a material breach or fails to perform.
The US patent doesn't mean much, IMO.
The important patent is the WIPO patent that would prevent UNI from manufacturing and selling DR-70 in India without paying Radient any royalties.
There are currently no patents that prevent UNI from doing this, but in the UNI Agreement, they agree to pursue and prosecute the patent apps. It's odd that UNI did not pay the renewal fee for the European patent app in October. Is that evidence that the UNI deal is going sour?
The US patent might be important if Gartner paid for a license that let him manufacture DR-70. But even then, I think the FDA would shut Gartner down the same way they shut down 23andMe and all the other DNA Test vendors.
the last UNI deal was merely a distribution agreement.
UNI bought DR-70 from Radient and tried to re-sell it. They failed.
In this new agreement, UNI gets access to all the IP and technology and equipment, and will manufacture DR-70 themselves.
"No point in trying to convince anyone that RXPC is positioning itself for a Takeover."
Agreed. No point whatsoever. Unless you have evidence, proof, or a logical argument that explains why an entity would take over, merge with, or acquire RXPC -- but apparently you do not.
An entity that wants to manufacture and/or sell DR-70 need only license it from Radient for $100,00 per year. If the patent applications are rejected, there is no reason to even do THAT.
Radient allowed their US FDA clearance expire and their European patent application expire, both for lack of paying the annual renewal fees. If there was a takeover entity, that entity would not have allowed either to happen.
The UNI deal is a signed contract. UNI has no motivation to cancel that contract. UNI gets the manufacturing equipment and processes. Their CEO said he is going to manufacture and sell DR-70. The only way he abandons that plan is if Radient fails to deliver. That is, of course, possible, since Radient has failed to deliver on everything else -- is that what you believe will happen? You seem to think that Radient entered into the contract with that intention? That appears to be a libelous assertion on your part.