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.
Let me continue my spin then.
Despite the numerous delays, not just for Positron, but the entire Rb-82/Sr-82 generator market, things are turning around. Nordion/TRIUMF is back to full production of SR-82 (which began the day after the NRC issued their updated enforcement guidance).
BLIP at DOE's Brookhaven lab in June reported they met "the orders they received from the U.S. medical community", however they needed additional SR-82 from a foreign source in order to meet the demand.
AAA, (Advanced Accelerato Applications) has completed their phase 3 clinical trials for Bracco's Cardiogen-82 in Europe.
Draximage's infusion cart is currently going thru clinical trials in Canada. Although the generator was approved in 2011, the cart has to be approved separately in Canada. In the USA, it is my understanding that the cart and generator are approved simultaneously, and that just recently the Ruby-Fill generator manufacturing plant has been approved. FDA plant inspections are usually one of the final steps in an FDA drug approval. Draximage is also seeking approval for their generator in several European countries.
Both Bracco and Draximage have indicated on their web sites that their infusion carts are now capable of accurate dosing, one of the issues referred to in the NRC enforcement guidance and was of great concern to the FDA but was ouside of their jurisdiction.
With increasing demand coming from both Europe and Canada for Rb-82/Sr-82 generators in the near future, not to mention any increase in the USA, it appears that growth will be coming sooner than later.
While Bracco and AAA are privately owned companies, and the DOE is government owned, investment in the RB-82 generator market is not possible in these entities. Although Jubilant Draximage, GE Healthcare and Nordion are publicly held, the Rb-82 market is a tiny portion of their markets. Even the two companies that announced the building of cyclotrons, Zevacor and Global PET are privately owned.
Speaking of DOE, one also has to keep in mind that as commercial entities enter the market, DOE policy is to not compete against these companies. So as more players enter the market, the Bracco monopoly is coming to an end.
There are numerous entities that produce SR-82 around the world, but there are only 3 that can process. Those being DOE, Nordion and Positron. It's unknown if Nordion still processes, but if they do they just process what is produced at TRIUMF. DOE processes the SR-82 they produce and from foreign suppliers.
Positron has a 2 year contract with one of those foreign suppliers, Ithemba. They also have relationships with INR and Arronax. One of those relationships involves a worldwide and North American exclusive license on new state of the art technology to produce greater quantities of SR-82 in 70 mev cyclotrons and to increase processing quantities in both cyclotrons and older linear accelerators i.e. DOE's LANL Liniac and Brookhaven BLIP using liquid metal targets.
The RB-82/Sr-82 generator is the reason that I have SPECULATIVELY invested in Positron. I own many shares of GE, but that will never reflect movement in the their share price due to Cardiogen-82. However, POSC will move a lot, IF they are successful. the Attrius scanner will also benefit from an improved Rb-82/Sr-82 generator market.
It would appear that the positive news for this market is now vastly outweighing the negative. This surely is not the time to "RUN WHILE YOU CAN!!!".
Robert
You are correct, the SEC isn't done but the Federal Courts are. They have issued their ruling for a conditional bar prohibiting Rooney from operating another fund and which allows him to remain as CEO of Positron.
All the SEC has left, which you linked to in an earlier post is to make a determination for a bar or suspension from association with investment advisers. [Associated person of an investment adviser means any person who for compensation refers, solicits, offers, or negotiates for the purchase or sale of investment advisory services.] Obviously, this does not concern Positron.
As far as lies go, one would have to prove that they just weren't delays beyond Positron's control. For example: SR-82 shortage, manufacturing problems at the Cardiogen-82 manufacturer Nordion, unauthorized expiration date extensions on the generators at clinics, the Cardiogen-82 recall, a slow and controlled reintroduction of the generators, another SR-82 shortage due to quality standards at Nordion, AND the NRC issuing guidance on August 23, 2013 concerning the Cardiogen-82 infusion cart and radiation detector stating "every NRC licensee using the Rb-82/Sr-82 generator would be in non-compliance with the regulations in 10 CFR 35.60 and 35.63 and would be cited for repeated violations for which there would be no acceptable corrective actions."
These delays have piled up and lasted 2 3/4 years, and were all directly related to Bracco. Unfortunately, Bracco is the only current supplier of RB-82 generators, which is the only use for SR-82. Your suggestion about simple complaints about lies would have an uphill battle, to say the least, considering that had one done their DD, they would realize that this is what an investment in POSC is all about.
Robert
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1310/ML13101A318.pdf
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1315/ML13157A346.pdf
You suggest the filing of charges or complaints, what would you suggest? Considering the SEC investigated Rooney, Solaris and Positron, not once but twice.
First time was back in 2006 involving some of the same actions covered in the current civil action, with the SEC stating they would not seek any action in ~2009. And then this time around, the SEC has investigated Rooney, Solaris and Positron again.
In addition, the SEC did a complete review of all of Positron's quarterly and yearly reports going back at least to 2007, in 2011, resulting in numerous amendments to the 10Qs and Ks.
Despite the two investigations and the almost year long review of Positron's financials, there were not any incidents reported by the SEC showing any irregularities at Positron in the current Rooney/Solaris federal court filings.
Had there been any any issues as you suggest, the Federal District Court would not have concluded "that a permanent officer and director bar in this case is not warranted." allowing Rooney to remain as CEO of Positron.
I feel that the SEC has been all over this for years, and if they couldn't come up with anything showing irregularities at Positron, the filing of charges and or complaints will be futile.
Robert
Just thought I would mention that this continues to appear on the homepage of the Draximage web site.
>>>Jubilant DraxImage and Positron Enter Into a Strategic Collaboration on the Sourcing and Supply of Strontium-82 and Rubidium-82 Generators.<<<
http://www.draximage.com/
I hope I am right too. But I didn't become a shareholder based on hope. My discussions with you have been an attempt to refute or support my position. Your position as someone connected with the sell side of the generator, seemed like an opportunity to get information that either refuted or supported my position. Unfortunately you come across more as a disgruntled investor than a knowledgeable source. I'll make just three points on this latest post and then I'll leave you alone.
Everyone knows Rubidium is where the revenues are.
THEY HAVE NEVER DELIVERED ON ANYTHING!
They supposedly had the same type of high level agreement w/ Covidian
I don't think the issue is a lack of training as much as improper or outdated training as pointed out in these excerpts from the same FDA investigation report.
>>>During the inspection I asked Mr. L_____ to demonstrate his daily elution, calibration and breakthrough testing procedures to determine any potential user error that may have contributed to Strontium-82 breakthrough from Rubidium doses. Mr. L__ demonstrated his techniques, which were observed to be in compliance with the package insert and CardioGen-82 quality control procedures.<<
>>>Mr. L_____ stated that he has never received a breakthrough reading from the Rb-82 generator, so he has nev[e]r had to perform the additional concentration calculations, but he did demonstrate that he knew how to perform the calculations correctly should any breakthrough have been detected.<<<
[FACILITY NOTES ON CONTACT WITH A BRACCO APPS. SPECIALIST]
Thurs. 7/7/11 [BRACCO SPECIALIST #1] reviewed our QC logs and Observed [FACILITY TECH'S] technique. He asked that we allow the break through sample and calibration samples to decay for 3 minutes and 45 seconds and multiply by a factor of 8; instead of the previous 2 minutes and 30 seconds with a multiplication factor of 4 like we were trained by [A PREVIOUS BRACCO SPECIALIST]. He said the patient volume setting should remain on 50 for the break through, but should be changed to 30 for the calibration setting, instead of 50 as we were previously trained. He also stated that when we assay the break through sample 1 hour after obtaining it, not only do we make sure that the dose calibrator is set on the Rb82 setting but we need to press SPC until it beeps. He explained that this would allow this model (Capintec) to read the true uCi reading of Sr82. [FACILITY TECH] told him that this had not been shown to us. [BRACCO SPECIALIST #1] stated that “it's common for people with this dose calibrator not to know about this.” He also stated that he changed the decay time from 2:30 to 3:45 because this type of dose calibrator is known to have discrepencies around the 2 minute and 30 seconds. “The reading from the dose calibrator flips around.” ...[BRACCO SPECILIST #1] stated “most sites aren't aware of this with these dose calibrators.”
7/20/11 … I told him [BRACCO SPECIALIST #2] that we were unaware of pressing SPC when assaying the break through sample. “You would not believe the number of sites that have said the same thing. Probably half our sites use this dose calibrator and they didn't know this.
Robert
“...why are we putting so much emphasis on the PET and rubidium market...”
PosiRx
Indium
“hide behind the legal speak “
“...sites went past the 42 day expiration,...“
“...they didn't have the letter...lost I guess for convenience.”
“Both sites in question no longer offer PET..”
It's not really that ridiculous.
A few rogue customers who misused the product by label forced the recall, so to say it was Bracco who screwed it up is ridiculous
I guess we agree that customers were upset.
The reason that the customers were so pissed off with the recall was because of the tremendous investment they made in PET, only to have the monthly expenses without the revenue stream at a time when their SPECT moneymaking machine continued to take big cuts.
It's interesting that you personally know "of at least 10 new customers they started in 2013". But, do you know if they have received any deliveries, and if they have, do they receive them on a regular basis, and/or are there any delays in a steady monthly stream of generators. Another question is, has Bracco lost customers? These customers sign contracts for a specified period of time, and I would assume that over the last 2-3 years, a number of these contracts would have expired. Based on the the numerous problems I've mentioned repeatedly and Bracco's poor communication, I'm assuming that some customers have not renewed their contracts. They may be waiting for confirmation that these scheduling problems are behind them, or maybe even Draximages generator, which as you stated, Drax hopes to have available in 2014.
Signing on new customers can only be a positive for the market, if the new signings totals a number greater than existed at the time of the recall, which was reportedly around 160. A bigger question is, how many customers have they lost? An even bigger question, is how many will cancel after Ruby-Fill becomes available.
Here is a link for the law suit article. It will only get the first two paragraphs. Instead google " Bracco sued" and you will see the entire article.
http://www.law360.com/articles/475215/bracco-sued-for-contract-breach-over-contrast-dye-product
Not Dr. B
Robert
Sorry Jacker, I'm not in the imaging industry.
“You are still getting your monthly generator from Bracco, right Robert?”
“Bracco has created the industry”
“If you take a look at Bracco's portfolio you will see that Rubidium is not their main offering by far.”
“I am guessing that Bracco, like the rest of the industry was hoping that Positron would come through with the 70 mEv they proposed in 2011 to be operational next year to help with the supply issue,...”
“...to be in a meeting with DraxImage and industry leaders at the most recent ASNC and they are confident they can increase generator opportunities at some point in 2014...”
“...I look forward to the revenues Positron has promised in Feb this year from isotope sales. “
I couldn't agree with you more.
"...the medical community is always looking for better cheaper fast ways to diagnose health problems."
Could you please elaborate on this "new technology". I would appreciate any information to help me keep up to date with this market.
Robert
“What I can tell you is that the rest of the industry continues to move forward without the proclaimed leader in the industry. “
BRACCO
Your scenario for liquidating the preferred "S" shares owned by Solaris, all of which Rooney disavows ownership of would result in penalizing the accredited investors who make up the hedge fund. Those shares gave them controlling interest in Positron for which they paid $3.6 million. At the time the civil action was commenced, the market cap was somewhere around $10-$12 million. Keep in mind also that these accredited investors have been aware of their full investment in Positron since March of 2009, long before the civil action which was filed in November, 2011. Other considerations are the lack of a private law suit, no account freeze or preliminary injunction, let alone, no receiver being named. The forced liquidation of these shares will harm the investors, contrary to the SEC's main mission of protecting shareholder value. This case is to hold Rooney and Solaris management (again Rooney) responsible for any disgorgement, interest, or civil penalties, not the investors of Solaris. Depending on the outcome, Rooney may no longer be able to control those shares, and how that will be resolved, I have no idea.
The series "H" convertible shares that Rooney holds mature at the end of December, 2013. There are 3 options available: conversion, POSC retuning the amount loaned, or extending the maturity date. In a very short time, we can delve into how those shares may be treated going forward. Until then, what I have found in one SEC ruling is that to accommodate an SEC action the convertibles were surrendered back to the issuing company and removed from the share count. The value of the convertibles was then counted towards the amount of disgorgement owed by the holder of those convertible preferred shares.
Wishing all here a happy and safe holiday season.
Robert
I have found that reading between the lines is not as effective as reading the volumes of information that is available. In this particular case, SEC Rule 144: Selling Restricted and Control Securities.
Rule 144 allows public resale of restricted and control securities if a number of conditions are met.
Control securities are those held by an affiliate of the issuing company. An affiliate is a person, such as a director or large shareholder, in a relationship of control with the issuer. Control means the power to direct the management and policies of the company in question, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.
Trading Volume Formula. If you are an affiliate, the number of equity securities you may sell during any three-month period cannot exceed the greater of 1% of the outstanding shares of the same class being sold, or if the class is listed on a stock exchange or quoted on Nasdaq, the greater of 1% or the average reported weekly trading volume during the four weeks preceding the filing a notice of sale on Form 144. Over-the-counter stocks, including those quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and the Pink Sheets, can only be sold using the 1% measurement.
Filing a Notice of Proposed Sale With the SEC. If you are an affiliate, you must file a notice with the SEC on Form 144 if the sale involves more than 5,000 shares or the aggregate dollar amount is greater than $50,000 in any three-month period. <<<
http://www.microcapcompany.com/2011/09/rule-144-selling-restricted-and-control.html
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm
I would really doubt that the SEC would allow anyone to violate one of their own rules, to satisfy a court order. IMO, the dumping of millions of shares on the market as you suggest is not allowed.
One other point I would make is that although the agreement states that the settlement can not be appealed, the court rulings can be. Even if the district court issues a bar and disgorgement, there have been several instances of appeals, after settlement, with some being overturned by the circuit courts.
Robert
You will notice that the motion filed by the SEC shows that Rooney and Solaris are the defendants, and that they also indicate that they are ALL of the defendants. Positron is not a party in this case and will not be subject to disgorgement. Ill-gotten gains are repaid by the defendants, no matter how, or to who, they were dispersed.
Robert
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Case No.: 11-CV-8264
Judge Charles P. Kocoras
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK G. ROONEY and
SOLARIS MANAGEMENT, LLC
Defendants.
AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
OF PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) respectfully moves this Court for entry of the proposed agreed judgment for permanent injunctions against Defendants Patrick G. Rooney (“Rooney”) and Solaris Management, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), a copy of which is attached as exhibits to Defendants’ signed consents...
Your comment “sounds slightly ominous” is suggesting that something bad is going to happen in a meager, minor, negligible, superficial, trivial, petty, remote, trifling, insubstantial, and/or an unimportant manner. Since “slightly” reduces “ominous” to a trivial degree of importance, I'm inferring that what you really are saying is a permanent injunction sounds considerably encouraging. In that case, we are in agreement. The permanent injunctions are really just a warning, stating if one does these particular things again, the court now has authority to penalize the offender by implementing contempt of court penalties.
As far as the hearing on an officers/director bar and disgorgement goes, yes that is still on the table, but not necessarily “likely”. For the court to issue the bar, they use the following 6 point test in making that determination.
>>> a six factor test to determine if the bar should be entered. Under that test the Court considers:
(1) the egregiousness of the underlying securities law violation;
(2) the defendant's repeat offender status;
(3) the defendant's role or position when he engaged in the fraud;
(4) the defendant's degree of scienter;
(5) the defendant's economic stake in the violation; and
(6) the likelihood that misconduct will recur." <<<
http://www.secactions.com/sec-officer-director-bars-by-what-standard/
In cases that I have read, any one of the 6 points is enough for the courts to refuse to impose the directors bar. Several months ago, Rooney filed motions with the court to have the directors bar decided during the motion stage. The court refused to do so at that time, but did indicate an interest in some of the points relating to the directors bar that were raised by Rooney's defense. To the best of my knowledge, the court stated that the motions portion of the hearings was not the proper venue to make that determination and indicated that additional documentation should be considered and the court would not do so at that time. This is what the court will be deciding, in addition to any disgorgrment, at the future hearing date.
Robert
SEC and Pat Rooney settle on permanent injunctions. The court will make a determination on an officer/directors bar and/or disgorgement, if any at a future hearing. Next status hearing scheduled for Feb. 18, 2014.
A permanent injunction, is a type of order issued by a court after a full trial on the merits of a case has been conducted. Alternatively, a permanent injunction may be handed down if a default judgment is entered in a case or if the opposing party agrees to the injunction. A permanent injunction order is typically issued for the purpose of requiring a person or entity to permanently stop acting in a certain manner. By and large, a permanent injunction remains in effect as long as the conditions that compelled the injunction exist. If a person violates the terms of any type of injunction, he or she may be held in contempt of court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1
Eastern Division
Securities & Exchange Commission
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 1:11-cv-08264
Honorable Charles P. Kocoras
Patrick G Rooney, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, December 19, 2013:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras: Status and motion hearing held on 12/19/2013 regarding motion for permanent injunctions (Doc. [59]).Plaintiff's agreed motion for entry of judgment of permanent injunctions against all defendants (Doc [59]) is granted. Status hearing continued to 2/18/2014 at 9:30 a.m. to report about time on other submissions. Enter Judgment as to Patrick G. Rooney and Solaris Management, Inc. ...
www.ilnd.uscourts.gov
That sounds about right.
My understanding is the "pre-approval evaluation" is the evaluation of the "pre-approval inspection" of the cGMP facilities that are involved with the manufacture of the drug products. The inspection is one of the final steps in the drug approval(NDA,ANDA)process. I believe that due to staffing and budgeting restraints, the FDA does these inspections only when everything else is acceptable.
Robert
Well, actually it seems that they updated their information in the latest quarterly report.
CC Transcript 10/29/2013
Q2 H1 FY 2014
for Quarter ended Sept. 30 2013
>>>Regarding Ruby-fill, we are subsequently accelerating the pre-approval evaluation for Ruby-Fill that was included as part of the cGMP which is expected by the end of Q3 FY’14. The current PET Cardiology US market size is US$70 million which has a very good growth rate going forward. We have a superior product which has been filed under 505(b)(2) and expect sizable market share in US. We expect to launch Ruby-fill in US, Canada, Germany, Switzerland and India in FY2015.<<<
http://www.jubl.com/pdfs/transcript-q2fy2014.pdf
They just reported Q2 of fiscal year 2014, which means Q3 2014 is the end of this month, December 2013!!
Robert
Everyone will NOT have to go thru POSC to get Sr-82, they will continue to use current technology especially the older linear accelerators currently in use. However, these new 70 mev cyclotrons that will be coming on line will have the OPTION to use a newer technology which “simplifies the production process while increasing the yield and quality” of SR-82 resulting in more profit. My reading of the PR about the licensing agreement with INR leads me to believe that there are at least 2 different technologies involved. One for Isotope Processing and the second for SR-82 production in the cyclotrons. I also believe that by using the word “utilize” POSC has the right to license other trons to use the new technology to increase SR-82 production, not to mention Isotope Processing.
Perhaps you missed the PR about the licensing agreement with INR in Russia, so here are some excerpts:
>>> Positron Corporation (OTCBB:POSC) is pleased to announce it has entered into a licensing agreement with the Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Science (INR), Moscow, Russia, for its know-how, inventions and technology related to the production of radiostrontium. Under the agreement, INR grants Positron Corporation a worldwide license to the proprietary technology, including the EXCLUSIVE rights to utilize the technology in the production of strontium-82 in North America, in return for royalty payments. <<<
>>>The developed technology has significant economic benefits, as it simplifies the production process while increasing the yield and quality of the product derived from rubidium metal.<<<
>>>This improved rubidium metal Sr-82 production process, currently practiced in Russia as well as by a French radioisotope production facility, will be applied to future rubidium metal target processing at Positron’s Lubbock, TX<<<
>>>This proven technology will allow a substantial increase and scalability of Sr-82 supply, which is necessary for the industry to sustain the projected double-digit growth. The increase in Sr-82 will help meet future demands and fortify cardiac PET as a sustainable and preferred modality for cardiac imaging.<<<
You ask what the frigging holdup is, well, I could dump on Bracco, but let's just say Draximage RubyFill, which is making progress. Jubilant Draximage reported in their most recent quarterly reports >>>“Ruby-fill filed under 505 b(2). Successful in accelerating the pre-approval evaluation for Ruby-fill, Expect to launch Ruby-fill in FY2015[APR 2014 – MAR 2015] in US, Canada, Germany, Switzerland and India”<<<
This is one of the final steps before approval .
Robert-
You don't have to imagine any more.
I cant imagine anybody is taking them seriously as a solution provider.
It's not a matter of WANT, it's more a matter of capacity, and it is my understanding that DOE is near maximum capacity without interfering with other isotope supplies or maintenance schedules.
”Who said DOE is doing all they want? And they have been doing this for a long time. If it aint broke dont fix it? “
It's not about the scanners!
“Nobody will be naïve enough to invest in Positron's cyclotron project without POSC having some skin in the game.”
“...Positron has very little capital mechanisms beyond dilution.”
It looks like another source of SR-82 for POSC/MIT to process and sell to Bracco and Draximage. With Canada, and Europe entering the RB-82 generator market down the road, the world will need a lot more of these 70 MEV cyclotrons to keep up with demand.
Robert
Wait a minute, yes, there are rules!
There are no rules restricting/guiding the timing of news release
It is much more likely for the share price to hit $0.05 from current levels with the announcement of financing, than to climb to $5 from $0.30
It looks like Bracco needs more SR-82. If only we knew where to get some?
>>>In September 2013, Positron will receive relevant volumes of strontium-82 for qualification and will commence with commercial availability beginning in February 2014.
http://www.positron.com/press/post/positron-and-ithemba-labs-enters-into-radioisotope-supply-agreement
taking a cautious approach to adding new customers so as to not get into a supply shortage issue.
I don't have the ability to post a valid link here, but Google has filed a motion to strike VRNG's reply (doc 986). The motion does not mention being late, instead it refers to VRNG not keeping a promise not to file a reply if Google filed their brief by 9/4.
Is this what you are referring to? The Establishment Registration and Device Listing pertaining to the Attrius product. Or are you referring to something else?
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/Cfdocs/cfrl/rl.cfm?lid=219573&lpcd=KPS
Since Bracco is now supposedly adding new customers, all of positron's Attrius customers should be up and running. Meaning service revenue should begin appearing on the quarterlies. For the 2nd quarter of 2012 POSC reported service & warranty revenue of $557,000, I would think that most of that was for the Attrius and we will possibly see a good portion of that amount appear as revenue in the upcoming Q2 10Q and possibly more in the following quarters. If that is the case, were looking at $2 million+ a year in revs from service & warranty alone. Throw in one Attrius sale every two months and we have another $4.5 million per year. We could easily be looking at $6.5 million in revs over the next 12 month period.
Robert
My two cents worth:
Before the recall two years ago, Bracco had around 160 Cardiogen generator customers. Each customer required around 12 generators per year, resulting in the sale of 1920 generators each year. Some sources report it will take 10 recyled generators to create SR-82 for a new generator. That works out to another 192 generators (16 additional customers) that can be supplied with SR-82. And that is based on no increase in 2011 SR-82 supplies.
Also, we are using samples from overseas to validate SR-82 processing, but that is the only place to get new supplies. Ithemba and INR have both been used to help maintain the current supply of SR-82 while facilities at the main producers were shut down for maintanance. Both would like to sell on a regular basis instead of as needed.
INR has been trying to improve production levels (in cooperation with Arronax) by improving targets. Ithemba can increase production right now, but hopes to have a 70 MEV cyclotron dedicated to isotopes by 2015. In addition, the Italian National Laboratories (INFN), in Legnaro, Italy expects delivery of a 70 MEV cyclotron in the first quarter of 2014. This cyclotron in Italy, just like Arronax will be dedicated to research and only produce limited quantities of SR-82 for revenue. Arronax has stated that their max production of SR-82 will be 600 generators (50 customers) per year. I'm guessing that Ithemba and Italy will be capable of the same numbers.
In my mind, there could be a doubling of the supply of SR-82 by the time Positrons cyclotron should be completed. The commercial 70 MEV cyclotron is going to be primarily dedicated to SR-82, and I believe it will be able to produce SR-82 for an additional 2400 generators (200 customers). So by 2016/2017 Positron could be supplying SR-82 for 350 out of 510 RB-82 generator customers. Wait, forgot recycling, 452 out of 612, before the cyclotron even goes on line.
One other point, demand for the generators will increase the need for an increased supply of SR-82 globally. In Europe, Bracco's Cardiogen generator is supposed to finish phase 3 clinical trials thru AAA in 2013. And Canada should see sales of the Ruby-Fill generators to begin sometime in 2014. Ruby-Fill is also supposed to be going thru approvals in Europe. All this bulk SR-82 has to go thru IMF at Los Alamos or MIT at Positron before it can be used in a generator. Nordion in the past has only processed for their own generator production, their future is unknown.
I have no idea how much additional production that Los Alamos, Brookhaven and Nordion/TRIUMF can achieve. But in early 2011, Los Alamos had to forego a maintenance shut down to help alleviate an SR-82 shortage at just 160 customers. One article stated that Los Alamos would have to invest large sums of money on equipment in order to increase production. Something that DOE is unlikely to do considering there is now a new commercial source for SR-82, and don't forget budget cuts.
IMO, this is what should get the attention of those interested in investing in a commercial cyclotron.
Robert
From page 9 of the 938 Google response:
"The change in the date of the hypothetical negotiation is of exceptional importance in this case because, during that intervening period, Google developed and began launching its non-infringing replacement system. By the date of the jury verdict, Google removed QBB disabling from Google.com and was in the process of, and now has, removed it from all accused services...I/P Engine and Google would have entered the 2012 negotiation knowing that the asserted patents could readily be designed around"
Probably in reference to this line in the 2012 10K;
Research and Development
...We are also developing additional software and hardware for our PET and PET/CT scanner for additional functions that enhance performance and diagnostic efficacy and also in preparation for new cardiac radiopharmaceuticals that are in a pipeline of a major radiopharmaceutical manufacturer.
If you know anything about civil proceedings or complaints, you will know that 95% of them end up being settled before the judge has to make a decision or take a litigation to trial. Many of you here even said that Rooney was going to settle this months ago. Which it did not. So, no, I am not sure if a settlement has occurred because we would be the last to know...after everything was done...including the reimbursement of money,
Anyone ever stop to think that the SEC is making Rooney refund all of that money to the Solaris investors? I mean, when someone does something wrong, there is retrobution that occurs. If POSC has to give back the money to Solaris, that is a good reason for such enormouse shares to be sold. Get ready for a crash in my opinion. #17628
A lot of shareholders who currently have positions in POSC understand that the SEC issue does not impact the company directly. But future purchases of the stock by new shareholders can be hindered by such information. The sooner this issue is resolved the better. The SEC is seeking a Director and Officer Bar as part of the action. If they're successful, POSC will need a new CEO. That in itself is a big issue for those investors that feel a change in management is bad for stocks. Getting the D&O Bar resolved can only be positive for the stock.
The purpose of posting the article was not to rehash old information, rather, it was to inform the board that actions are underway to resolve the D&O Bar issue. Rooney's attorneys have filed with the court, a Motion for a Partial Judgement on the Pleadings. This means that the judge will make a determination on this matter only, leaving the remainder of the issues to be determined at a later date. The next step will be a reply from the SEC to state their case for the D&O Bar. That will be followed by a response from the Rooney team elaborating on every point of the SEC's reply. A ruling on the matter is scheduled for May 16, 2013.
For the record, I am not in the legal profession,
Robert
http://www.law360.com/articles/422710/hedge-fund-creator-decries-sec-s-attempt-at-d-o-ban
Hedge Fund Creator Decries SEC's Attempt At D&O Ban
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission wants to punish Patrick G. Rooney — who allegedly didn't inform investors that he had used $3.6 million from his Solaris Opportunity Fund LP to prop up his struggling microcap company, Positron Corp. — with a director-and-officer bar.
Rooney urged an Illinois federal judge Monday to dismiss the SEC's request, saying the alleged fraud from 2005 to 2008 occurred in his role as owner and managing partner of Solaris — not as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Positron. Rooney argues this would be the SEC's first such director-or-officer bar, a punishment typically imposed upon an individual who commits securities fraud in the role of director or officer.
“This would constitute a totally unprecedented and excessively harsh application of the court's power to impose [a director-and-officer] bar,” Rooney and his attorneys alleged. “[We] cannot find any case where a court imposed an [director-and-officer] bar for conduct that was separate from the defendant's role as an officer or director.”
The Oakbrook, Ill., resident formed the Solaris Fund in mid-2003. According to the memorandum Rooney filed Monday, he continues to serve as its sole owner and manager.
The SEC complaint, which was filed in November 2010, said that between mid-2003 and December 2008, Rooney changed Solaris Fund's nondiscretional investment strategy, unbeknownst to the fund's investors. He made the adjustment so he could use the fund as a “piggy bank” for Positron, his financially troubled molecular imaging company, the SEC claimed.
Positron allegedly had no other source of funding, never turned a profit and was saddled with a $102.3 million deficit by the end of 2010. According to the last Solaris Fund financial statement cited by the SEC in its complaint, the fund had about 30 investors and reported assets of roughly $16 million as of December 2008.
The SEC claimed Rooney and his company Solaris Management LLC violated the Investment Advisers Act, the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. In addition to the director-and-officer bar, regulators asked an Illinois federal court to prohibit Rooney from future violations and force Rooney and Solaris to turn over any ill-gotten profits.
Rooney's filing Monday specifically seeks a dismissal of the director-and-officer bar request, saying his case is unique because the SEC imposes such a punishment only on individuals who violated securities laws at the company where they were a director or officer, and his alleged violation occurred in his role at the Solaris Fund, where he held neither position.
The memorandum adds that such a punishment would be excessively harsh because it would be a “stigma ... [that] would essentially end his professional career.”
Timothy Stewart Leiman, one of the attorneys representing the SEC in the Rooney case, said the agency “plans to respond to the motion in due course [and pursue the] relief we are entitled to.”
Attorneys for Rooney did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
The defendants are represented by Gerald M. Miller and Matthew M. Showel of Vanasco Genelly & Miller.
The case is Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rooney et al., case number 1:11-cv-08264, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
--Additional reporting by Ian Thoms. Editing by Kat Laskowski.