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.
Lookie here, junior. I've been invested in this company since 2006. I'm not going anywhere. I was simply posting a piece that indicates that there MAY be a new market need to capture methane gas, assuming new regulations take hold.
If that WERE to happen, then HIIT might want to take a stab at it.
You need copious amounts of valium. LOL
Maybe HIIT can address this issue, too!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/study-finds-methane-leaks-negate-climate-benefits-of-natural-gas.html
Well, think about when Toyota released the Prius. It was a totally new technology that consumers had never seen before. And while Toyota surely tested the hell out of it for years before releasing it, it took time for the public to adopt it, and buy it en masse.
And, it's in those first few years of releasing a new tech to the public that are essentially real world road tests, where problems might bubble up that didn't during testing, since testing can never fully replicate the vast breadth of situations that can occur in widespread use, under more conditions than are typically seen otherwise.
So, while I trust that it's been proven during field tests, I would still think that many companies won't be rushing to be the first to try it out, until others do, and they see real world results.
A 30-day trial period might be a good way to help spread adoption. If the customer isn't happy with it in the first 30 days, they don't pay a penny.
Thank you for clarifying. Is that a current feature, or something that is being developed?
Hopefully. And then once its been proven in the field with the first few big customers, hopefully its adoption rate hits critical mass.
The video in the link you posted, stresses the importance of distinguishing between cancer cells that will metastasize, and those that will not, so as to not unnecessarily subject a patient to treatment when none is needed.
I'm not sure how that relates to Flynn's technology, as it is simply much more accurate in detecting cancer cells than currently available screening methods, but, to my knowledge, it does nothing to help distinguish between cancer cells which may metastasize, and those that won't.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
HIIT should try to team up with CPST, and become a distributor for Capstone. CPST seems to move a ton of their microturbines to O&G customers in many of the same regions that HIIT operates in.
http://t.money.msn.com/investing/stock-price?symbol=CPST&ocid=qbes
Why do you say that? If they got a multi-year deal to provide services, why not announce it?
Agreed. Here's hoping that that they announce multiple new contracts soon!
Form 10-K for HII TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
25-Mar-2013
Annual Report
Item 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes. In addition to historical information, this discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, which could cause actual results to differ materially from Management's expectations. Factors that could cause differences include, but are not limited to, continued reliance on external sources on financing, development risks for new products and services, commercialization delays and customer acceptance risks when introducing new products and services, fluctuations in market demand, pricing for raw materials as well as general conditions of the energy and oilfield marketplace.
Overview
HII Technologies, Inc. is a Houston, Texas based oilfield services company with operations in Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio and West Virginia focused on commercializing technologies in water management, safety services and portable power used by exploration and production ("E&P") companies in the United States. The Company's total water management services subsidiary does business as AES Water Solutions and manages the logistical and transportation associated with millions of gallons of water used typically during hydraulic fracturing and completions of horizontally drilled oil and gas wells. AES Safety Services is the Company's onsite oilfield contract safety consultancy providing experienced trained safety personnel during oilfield site preparation, "rigging up" with drilling activity and related operations enhancing safety for E&P customers and providing the flexibility as outsourced safety consultants to its customers to quickly address their needs. The Company's oilfield power subsidiary does business as South Texas Power (STP) and operates a fleet of mobile generators, light towers and related equipment for in-field power where remote locations provide little or no existing electrical infrastructure.
We currently employ 8 persons and extensively use independent contractor crews in connection with our field service work. Our executive offices are located at 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77024. Our telephone number is (713) 821-3157 and our Internet address is www.HIITinc.com.
Business Development - HII Technologies, Inc.
Organization
Our predecessor, Global Realty Management Group, Inc., or GRMG, was incorporated in the State of Florida in 1997. In June 2002, GRMG reincorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware from the State of Florida pursuant to a merger with a newly formed Delaware corporation. Under the terms of this reincorporation merger, GRMG changed its name from "Global Realty Management Group, Inc." to "Excalibur Industries, Inc." in connection with merging with the Excalibur operations. In October 2005, we changed our name from "Excalibur Industries, Inc." to "Shumate Industries, Inc." In February 2009, we changed our name from "Shumate Industries, Inc." to "Hemiwedge Industries, Inc." to emphasize and focus on our valve product technology after the recent sale of assets related to our contract machining business discussed below. On August 31, 2011, we changed our name to "HII Technologies, Inc.", which name change was required in connection with the May 2011 asset sale discussed below.
Acquisition of Apache Energy Services, LLC
On September 27, 2012, we consummated the acquisition (the "Acquisition") of all of the outstanding membership interests of Apache Energy Services LLC (dba AES), a Nevada limited liability company ("AES" ) pursuant to the terms of a Securities Purchase Agreement dated September 26, 2012 by and among the us, AES and the members of AES (the "Purchase Agreement"). AES is a water transfer services company serving oilfield customers. The purchase price consisted of:
(a) Cash in the amount of $290,000, of which $250,000 was paid on the closing date and the remaining $40,000 is payable (subject to a purchase price adjustment) in six equal installments, with the first installment payable on the first day of each month beginning the third month following the month in which the Closing occurs and each month thereafter until paid in full; (b) $1,300,000 in 5% subordinated secured promissory notes (the "Notes"), and (c) 6,500,000 shares (the "Shares") of the registrant's common stock. The Notes are payable in 12 equal quarterly installments beginning on February 1, 2013 and have a maturity date of November 1, 2015. The Notes are secured by the assets of the registrant and AES. The Shares are subject to a restricted stock agreement pursuant to which 500,000 shares will vest each quarter beginning December 31, 2012. The purchase agreement contains 2-year non-compete/non-solicitation provisions for Messrs. Mulliniks and Cox.
Sale of KMHVC, Inc.'s (f/k/a Hemiwedge Valve Corporation) Assets-Discontinued Operations
On May 10, 2011, we, and our wholly owned subsidiary KMHVC, Inc. (f/k/a Hemiwedge Valve Corporation ("HVC", collectively the "Sellers') consummated the sale of substantially all of HVC's assets to Chromatic Industries, Inc. ("Chromatic"). The sale was effected pursuant to an asset purchase agreement (the "HVC Purchase Agreement") pursuant to which HVC transferred substantially all of its assets and certain enumerated liabilities to Chromatic. in exchange for approximately $7,688,000 payable as follows: (a) Cash in a net amount (after reduction of repayment of the April 5, 2011 and April 29, 2011 promissory notes issued by, Asymmetric Investments, LLC) equal to $6,032,000, which cash would be paid directly to existing creditors of the Sellers to extinguish Sellers' debt obligations, with any remainder being paid to the Sellers, and (b) assume scheduled trade account payables and foundry payables of the Sellers not exceeding $1,656,000. In addition, at Closing, the 3,500,000 warrants to purchase our common stock issued to Asymmetric on April 5, 2011 were forfeited. We retained approximately $300,000 in net cash at closing.
Working capital and balance sheet issues were the primary reasons we sold the assets of our KMVHC subsidiary in May 2011. We had significant debt, much of which was secured by a pledge of our assets. Further, certain KMHVC customers and suppliers had concerns relating to the new and unique nature of our valve product line, such as the ability to procure spare parts in the future. While the product line ultimately did grow in the two years prior to its sell in 2011, it grew at a rate slower than anticipated and created additional capital constraints on us. These factors, along with the significant secured debt severely affected our capital raising efforts. Selling KMHVC's assets allowed us to repay our creditors and provided working capital for our current plan.
Accordingly, our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2012 present the operation of HVC as discontinued operations.
KMHVC's business
On October 26, 2012, KMHVC applied for a dba to do business as South Texas Power (STP) in connection with our decision to start up an oilfield generator rental business later in the year 2012.
Results of Operations for the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2012 and 2011
Revenues. We had revenues of $1,751,434 for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to no revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011. Our industrial valve sales operations were re-classified as Discontinued Operations for the period ended December 31, 2011 as a result of our sale of KMHVC, Inc.'s (f/k/a Hemiwedge Valve Corporation) assets in May 2011. The revenues for the year ended December 31, 2012 represent the revenues of our wholly-owned subsidiary, AES, from the date of acquisition through the end of the period.
Cost of Revenues. Cost of revenues increased to $973,819 for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to no cost of revenues for the comparable period in 2011. The cost of revenues during the year ended December 31, 2012 were primarily the result of contract labor of $554,000, equipment rental of $260,000 and fuel for water pumps of $105,000.
Selling, general, and administrative. Selling, general and administrative expenses increased to $684,138, or approximately 39% of revenues, for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to $639,787 for the comparable period in 2011. The expenses during the year ended December 31, 2012 were primarily the result of payroll of $275,775, a loss on disposal of obsolete assets of $73,321 and professional fees associated with the ongoing expenses of being a public reporting company of $229,992. These expenses were offset by a credit of $23,960 due to the reduction of a state tax accrual during the period.
Gain on Sale/lease back. We had a gain on our sale/lease back of $210,273 for the year ended December 31, 2011, as compared to no gain or loss for the year ended December 31, 2012. The gain from sale/lease back during 2011 was attributable to the termination of our 7 remaining years under our prior ten year Conroe, Texas facilities lease and the resulting gain from the amortized amounts realized during the quarter. There was no comparable transaction during 2012.
Gain on derivatives. We had a gain of $225,836 on derivatives in the year ended December 31, 2011 as compared to zero gain for the comparable period in 2012. The gain in 2011 was primarily attributable to the fair value of the 3,500,000 warrants issued in April 2011 and cancelled in May 2011. The fair value of $190,513 was recognized as gain when the warrants were cancelled.
Gain on extinguishment of debt. We had a gain on extinguishment of debt of $3,838,682 in the year ended December 31, 2011 as compared to zero gain in the comparable period in 2012. The gain on extinguishment of debt for the year ended December 31, 2011 was primarily related to the settlement of certain convertible notes issued in 2007.
Gain on liability settlement. We had a gain on liability settlement of $58,975 in the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to a gain of $206,863 in the year ended December 31, 2011. The gain on settlement for 2012 was related to the settlement with AMIN. The gain on settlement for 2011 was primarily related to settlement of the outstanding break-up fees incurred with a failed acquisition in late 2007.
Acquisition expenses. We had acquisition expenses of $147,788 in the year ended December 31, 2012, which expenses are attributable to our acquisition of AES. We did not have any acquisition expenses in the comparable period in 2011.
Interest expense. We had interest expense of $63,715 in the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to $456,056 for the comparable period in 2011. The expense in 2012 is primarily attributable to the promissory notes we issued in our September 2012 financing as well as the notes issued in connection with our acquisition of AES. The interest expense in 2011 was related to various forms of financing that were all paid in full in May 2011.
Income from discontinued operations. Our net income from discontinued operations was $4,756,783 which includes the gain on the sale of the assets of $5,308,531 for the year ended December 31, 2011 as compared to no gain for the
comparable period in 2012. The net income from discontinued operations in year ended December 31, 2011 is primarily attributable to our sale of our valve division in May 2011.
Net income (loss). We had net loss of $59,051 for the year ended December 31, 2012 as compared to net income of $8,142,594 for the comparable period in 2011.The loss during the year ended December 31, 2012 was primarily attributable to the acquisition expenses related to the purchase of AES and the disposal of obsolete assets. The net loss for the year ended December 31, 2012 included non-cash charges related to a loss on disposition of obsolete assets for $73,321, and charges in connection with the issuance of share-based awards of $156,373 totaling $229,694. The net income for the year ended December 31, 2011 was primarily due to the gain on the sale of our valve division and the gain on the extinguishment of debt.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
We have financed our operations, acquisitions, debt service, and capital requirements through cash flows generated from operations, debt financing, loans from officers, and issuance of equity securities. In addition, we sold substantially all of our assets in May 2011 and used the proceeds to retire all outstanding indebtedness and retain net cash of approximately $300,000. We had cash of $379,336 and a working capital deficit of $701,345 as of December 31, 2012 as compared to cash of $76,651 and working capital of $100,965 as of December 31, 2011.
Net cash used in operating activities for year ended December 31, 2012 was $354,376 resulting primarily from the increase in accounts receivable of $1,028,756 offset by adjustments for non-cash items and an increase in payables and accrued expenses of $527,161. Adjustments in non-cash items included $128,275 in non-cash stock for services, $28,098 in amortization of debt discount and $23,442 in depreciation. By comparison, net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2011 was $1,946,114 which included $409,021 from discontinued operations.
Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $561,064 resulting primarily from the acquisition of assets. By comparison, net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011 was $3,670.
Our net cash provided by financing activities was $1,218,125 in the year ended December 31, 2012. This consisted primarily of $1,100,000 in proceeds from the issuance of notes and $115,000 in advances from a related party. Our net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011 was $2,021,995 consisting of proceeds of $1.4 million from the sale of HVC's assets and proceeds of $670,000 from the issuance of promissory notes, which amount was offset by the repayment of $49,674 in notes payable.
The net increase in cash for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $302,685 as compared to a net increase in cash of $72,211 for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Promissory Notes - 2012
On December 17, 2012, the registrant issued 10% subordinated secured promissory note in the amount of $150,000 and a warrant to purchase 550,000 shares of the registrant's common stock. The note is due on December 17, 2013 and bear interest at the ten percent (10%). The note is secured by the assets of the registrant. The note was issued with a warrant to purchase 550,000 shares of the registrant's common stock at an exercise price of $0.09 per share The warrant is exercisable until five (5) years after the closing date. The registrant relied on the exemption from registration provided by Rule 506 and/or
Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for the offer and sale of the notes and the warrants.
On November 5, 2012, we, and our wholly-owned subsidiary, AES issued a $600,000 10% secured promissory note to a single accredited investor. The aggregate gross proceeds from the sale of the note were $600,000. The proceeds were used to facilitate the purchase of equipment by Apache from Vanderra Resources LLC (see Footnote 5 below). The note is due on March 30, 2013 and bear interest at the ten percent (10%). The notes are secured by the Vanderra equipment purchased with the proceeds. The issuance was exempt under Section 4(2) and/or Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
On October 31, 2012, we issued a $50,000 10% subordinated secured promissory note to a single accredited investor. The aggregate gross proceeds from the sale of the note were $50,000. The proceeds were used to working capital and general corporate purposes. The note is due on March 30, 2013 and bears interest at the ten percent (10%). The notes are secured by our assets. The issuance was exempt under Section 4(2) and/or Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
On September 24, 2012, we issued $300,000 of principal amount of 10% subordinated secured promissory notes and warrants to purchase our common stock. The aggregate gross proceeds from the sale of the notes and warrants were $300,000. The proceeds were used to fund the cash purchase price of the acquisition of AES and for working capital requirements. The notes are due on September 23, 2013 and bear interest of ten percent (10%). The notes are secured by our assets. The notes were issued with "Class A" warrants to purchase up to 1,800,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.10 per share and "Class B" warrants to purchase up to 900,000 shares of the registrant's common stock at an exercise price of $0.10 per share. The number of Warrant Shares underlying each Class A Warrant equals to the principal amount of the Note subscribed for by a purchaser Subscriber multiplied by six (6) The Class B Warrants are exercisable beginning on the one-year anniversary of the Closing Date (the "Target Date") and the number of warrant shares underlying the Class B Warrant equals either (A) the principal amount of note subscribed for by a purchaser multiplied by 3 shares, if the Market Price (as defined in the Class B Warrant) on the Target Date is less than $0.20 or (B) 0 shares, if the Market Price on the Target Date is at least $0.20. The Class A Warrants and Class B Warrants are exercisable until five (5) years after the closing date. The Class A Warrants and the Class B Warrants are exercisable on a cashless basis.
Termination of Revolving Credit Facility
On March 18, 2013, our wholly-owed subsidiaries, KMHVC, Inc. and Apache Energy Services, LLC terminated their $1 million revolving accounts receivable based line of credit facility with Crestmark Bank which was previously entered into November 2012. A cancellation fee of $4,100 was paid in connection with the termination.
Liquidity and Capital Requirements - HII Technologies, Inc.
As of the date of this report, we believe that we will be able to fund our operations for the next 12 months by a combination of the continuing operations of our newly acquired subsidiary.
The closing of our sale of the Hemiwedge valve assets on May 10, 2011, allowed us to repay all outstanding indebtedness. We currently only have 8 employees and lease our office space and south Texas facility on a month to month basis.
Critical Accounting Policies
Our discussion and analysis of our financial conditions and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. The preparation of financial statements requires managers to make estimates and disclosures on the date of the financial statements. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates, including, but not limited to, those related to revenue recognition. We use authoritative pronouncements, historical experience, and other assumptions as the basis for making judgments. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Accounts receivable are comprised of unsecured amounts due from customers. AES carries it accounts receivable at their face amounts less an allowance for bad debts. The allowance for bad debts is recognized based on management's estimate of likely losses per year, based on past experience and review of customer profiles and the aging of receivable balances.
Goodwill acquired in a business acquisition is initially measured at cost being the excess of the cost of business combination over the net fair value of the identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities. Following the initial recognition, goodwill is measured at cost less any accumulated impairment losses. Goodwill is not amortized but instead, it is reviewed for impairment, annually or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may be impaired. The Company elected to have goodwill reviewed for impairment as of December 31, 2012, by an outside party which resulted in no impairment of the goodwill as recorded.
Revenue is recognized when all of the following criteria are met: 1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement, 2) delivery has occurred, 3) the price is fixed and determinable, and 4) collectability is reasonably assured. A job ticket that is completed by AES or STP and signed by the customer's local representative includes the date of services, the type of services and the agreed upon rate for the services. This document meets the requirements for Items 1, 2 and 3 above. Collectability is proven over time with any customer, but assumed to be reasonably assured unless history proves differently.
The Company accounts for share-based awards issued to employees and non-employees in accordance with the guidance on share-based payments. Accordingly, employee share-based payment compensation is measured at the grant date, based on the fair value of the award, and is recognized as an expense over the requisite service period.
Additionally, share-based awards to non-employees are expensed over the period in which the related services are rendered at their fair value.
Discontinued Operations
On May 10, 2011, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Chromatic Industries, Inc. pursuant to which we agreed to sell the assets of Hemiwedge Valve Corporation, subject to certain closing conditions. This transaction closed on May 10, 2011.
The results of operations are presented under the caption "Income (loss) from discontinued operations" in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
None.
I'm curious as to why a company this small needs to hold out until the last minute to file. This is a small operation, that, back in January, released un-audited financials, on their own. So unless the auditors they are working with (Malone and Bailey, iirc) are swamped, or have found items of concern, I find it a bit disconcerting that they have not yet filed.
Remember, back in 2010, when they were HWEG, the quarterly filings suddenly stopped, and it was a LONG time before any explanation was given. In fact, it wasn't until the Form 15-G was filed in December of 2010, that any indication was given of what was going on: http://marketbrief.com/shmt/1512g/termination-of-registration-of/2010/12/8/7466636?secwatch
Sorry, but that experience, and the lack of communication, soured me a bit.
That's swell and all, but, let's assume that MithralMax doesn't get to market for, say, another 10 years. Until that time, what does MHTX gain? Basically, if it takes another decade for it to get market, how does MHTX survive in the meantime, more dilution?
HIIT's wastewater management services are what's needed, here!
Fracking performance standards would offer accountability as studies continue
A consortium of unlikely partners — environmentalists, philanthropies and energy companies – has set out to hold shale-drilling companies to higher performance standards.
With members including former Environmental Protection Agency chief and N.J. Gov. Christie Whitman, the consortium also may create a bridge between two very polarized camps on the issue of fracking.
On one side, industry has moved full steam ahead on extracting the natural gas pocketed deep within the Earth with a high-pressure injection of water and chemicals to fracture surrounding rock and release the deposits. With expectations of an economic jolt and abundant supplies of fuel, regions rich in shale formations have not done due diligence on the environmental impacts of drilling.
While industry has largely been left to regulate itself, environmentalists may be too quick to denounce every aspect of fracking. With vigorous regulation and environmental vigilance, natural gas harvested through fracking could indeed be a stopgap between fossil-fuel dependence sustainable-energy production.
Findings of an EPA study on fracking won’t be available until next year.
In the meantime, however, the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (sustainableshale.org) has offered demonstrable measures of accountability. In the same way the LEED certification program has become the gold standard for green buildings, the center aims to create a rigorous environmental designation for companies developing the Marcellus Shale running through Pennsylvania and New York.
Companies seeking certification must adhere to 15 performance standards based on state-of-the-art methods to reduce air emissions and wastewater from drilling. An independent contractor will audit the companies.
While New Jersey has no lucrative shale deposits, it is accepting wastewater from fracking operations in Pennsylvania since Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill to ban that practice.
Lawmakers had discussed attempting an override of that veto. Instead, we suggest a new bill that would prohibit the treatment, discharge, disposal, or storage of any fracking by-products that do not meet the new standards set by the center.
We also urge the Delaware River Basin Commission to forestall any decision on opening the river basin to drilling at least until it has a sense of whether companies that may respond to that opening will rise to the center’s criteria.
The DRBC would do better to continue the ban on fracking near the river, the source of drinking water for an estimated 15 million people, unless the EPA concludes there is no danger to that vital resource.
Lastly, we call on lawmakers to revive the stalled measure on a moratorium on fracking in New Jersey.
We can’t afford to be Luddites, but we’ve no wish to be canaries in a coal mine. These new fracking standards could be the start of striking that middle ground.
http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/03/editorial_fracking_performance.html#incart_river_default
A crowded field? (MithralMax)
In addition to MHTX, I own shares in another speculative company, Liquidmetal (LQMT), that is trying to bring their alloy to the aerospace, automotive, surgial, dental, electronics, and sporting goods markets. So I'm left wondering, just how many groundbreaking, proprietary alloys are out there that are all going after the same pie? If CRS has exclusive rights to MHTX's nano-structured titanium, then wouldn't it make sense that CRS competitors would also be working on either their own in-house alloys, or licensing some new groundbreaking alloy from a university or private company, in the hopes of competing against CRS' Mithral Max?
Bottom line for me is, I'm just not sure what the competition is for MithralMax. As great of a product as it is, for all I know, there could be a dozen other new alloys out there that offer the same characteristics at a similar price.
Anyone have any insight on the competitive landscape for Mithral Max?
It's accidents like this that concern me: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22817087?source=pop
I'm all for the expansion of natural gas, but along with that, I would like to see tighter oversight of the industry. Perhaps HIIT can get into the spill remediation business, too?
It's a start.
Indeed. Hopefully the 10-K will be out soon and shed some light on what the plan is.
Is there a pulse here, still?
It would be great if Dr. Flynn's technology could get some more media attention, say, a write up on Ars Technica, or in Discover magazine. Or heck, even a feature on an episode of Dr. Oz, 60 Minutes, etc.
Please refresh my memory, when and if CRS begins selling Metallicum's nano structured titanium, what % of the sales or profits is MHTX entitled to? How long is the licensing deal in effect?
I can't find any mention of Dr. Flynn's/Senior Scientific's device on http://clinicaltrials.gov/
Shouldn't it be listed?
No. Once, I asked when the 10-K would be available. And once, I asked when the 4th qtr 10-Q (which I didn't realize was superseded by the 10-K) would be out.
Thank you!
Where's the 4th quarter 10-Q?
Why did Matt refuse to give you the share structure???
Thank you for the info, I suppose that is from a CRS statement? BUT - that still doesn't answer anything in regards to the delays with Senior Scientific.
Investors are owed an explanation as to why time lines put forth as referenced by SSC have not been met.
Why the hell would MHTX not license/sell/partner the 1st gen Flynn machine, which is so much more powerful than currently available cancer detection techniques, as well as so much less expensive?
I understand that the 2nd gen device is even more sensitive, but that's true of all technologies as they mature - they get better! But Gen1 Flynn is already game changing, it makes no sense to wait to market it until Gen 2. Get Gen1 out there, make loads of $$$$ and fund the development of Gen 2, 3, and beyond. Businesses upgrade equipment, hospitals included.
I completely understand your skepticism.
Holding MHTX definitely requires MUCH patience. They have licensed their patents for nano-structured titanium to CRS, a big name in the specialty metals industry, and that has produced some rewards for them.
Check out MHTX.
Agreed, looking forward to it.
I think they all accumulated as much as they're willing to until we see the audited financial statements :-p
Form 8-K for REGENICIN, INC.
Just keeps getting better and better...
21-Feb-2013
Other Events
Item 8.01 Other Events
On November 19, 2012, our prior attorneys, Stevens & Lee, filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of New Jersey claiming $70,527 in legal fees and costs. We have accrued in our financial reports for amounts owed to Stevens & Lee.
We have not yet responded to the complaint and a default has been entered with the court. We intend to move to set aside the default and respond to the complaint.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/130221/rgin8-k.html
Thank you.
The 10-K should be out by today, correct?
Why the recent drop in price on massive volume?
LOL, oh no, I'm not selling!
Nor did I imply that HIIT is advocating poisoning anyone. I was replying to stlogic about the roadblocks to fracking and oil drilling - the environmental concerns, which are valid.
I'm all for fracking and drilling, but companies should have to provide full disclosure on the chemicals they are using and they should be fully responsible for cleaning up any spills, leeching into groundwater, etc. of the chemicals they use.
This is basic Kindergarten stuff - clean up after yourself.
I'm all for using the energy we have here at home, but for the love of God, let's not poison ourselves in the process of extracting and burning it!