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.
In accordance with the latest 10Q submitted by Quantum Materials today, on April 30th, 2021, under Exhibit 10.2:
"Thank you for finally agreeing with me that it's plausible that the deal is already dead."
Not entirely sure how you came to that conclusion, because that's false.
(:
IAW the SEC filings:
(b) Maturity Date. The “Maturity Date” shall mean March 31, 2021. The Holder shall have one (1) option to extend the Maturity Date to April 30, 2021, which may be exercised at any time prior to the then-existing Maturity Date by written notice thereof to the Company; provided that the Company has completed and filed at least one-half (½) of the SEC filings identified on Schedule 3(f) to the Agreement or the Company has substantially completed at least three-fourths (¾) of the SEC filings identified on Schedule 3(f) to the Agreement.
I can show you the SEC filings, links and DD all over again if you like.
(:
Weird...
On that SAME website, it lists Pasaca Capital as an investor for Quantum Materials, along with a funding round of $15.5 Million Dollars:
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/quantum-materials-corporation/company_financials
It also states that Quantum Materials is funded by Pasaca Capital
If you go to the "Post-IPO Equity" page, it shows Pasaca Capital as the lead investor:
https://www.crunchbase.com/funding_round/quantum-materials-corporation-post-ipo-equity--b1d2a449
If the deal is "dead", why is Quantum Materials Corp still highlighted on Pasaca's website?
https://pasacacapital.com/
https://pasacacapital.com/case-study/quantum-materials/
Or on Innova Medical Groups Website?
https://innovamedgroup.com/
https://innovamedgroup.com/qmc-healthid/
Or on MPS Medical website, under "Covid-19 Testing"?
https://mpsmedical-inc.com/
That's because the deal is very much alive
Additionally, since this seems to be forgotten everytime CrunchBase is referenced:
"Pasaca deal Is dead"
Citation needed please, because you have STILL been unable to come up with one, other than speculation.
Website, SEC filings, and past PR's prove you wrong.
(:
Innova Medical News:
I stand corrected.
Sometime in 2021 then.
There appears to have been an update on that Ted:
Not the job to tell those what they should or should not do with their investment.
Because if your WRONG, they get screwed over.
Post DD and have those decide for themselves.
"Yes, that report was filed in Februari, around the time Pasaca pulled out."
*Citation needed*
Weird, also right around the time when Sec filings were filed regarding the agreement between Pasaca and Quantum Materials.
Just a reminder, in case it was missed in the last post:
Pasaca Case Study on QMC:
https://pasacacapital.com/case-study/quantum-materials/
Pasaca's current portfolio featuring QMC:
https://pasacacapital.com/portfolio/
(:
That Press Release concerned Quantum Materials with regards to Material Research. Why would Pasaca have to be mentioned?
Sec filings already mention Pasaca:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002306/0001493152-21-002306-index.htm
Press Release already mentions Pasaca:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210202005387/en/Quantum-Materials-Corp.-to-Accelerate-Development-of-QMC-HealthID%E2%84%A2-and-Quantum-Dot-Research-Following-Equity-Investment-from-Pasaca-Capital-Inc
Pasaca's Website already mentions Quantum Materials:
https://pasacacapital.com/portfolio/
https://pasacacapital.com/case-study/quantum-materials/
Why should Pasaca have to be mentioned in each and every PR? They don't.
(:
Quantum Materials and QMC HealthID™ Featured at 2021 Materials Research Society, Spring Meeting and Exhibit
Quantum Materials’ blockchain, quantum dot solutions, and QMC HealthID™ to be featured during the MRS 2021 virtual meetings and seminars.
Warrendale, PA– April 21, 2021 – QMC HealthID, a wholly owned subsidiary of Quantum Materials Corp, announced that MRS, the Materials Research Society, will feature Quantum Materials among others in the ‘Thought Leadership’ broadcast at the Materials Research Society Virtual Spring Meeting 2021. MRS plans to showcase QMC’s nanomaterial solutions for COVID-19 testing and also how QMC is leveraging the blockchain for its planned Quantum Dot based, anti-counterfeiting solution.
“MRS is excited to feature Quantum Materials in our Spring Meetings and Seminars program. Their focus on nanomaterial solutions for COVID-19 testing and using the blockchain for their quantum dot based, anti-counterfeiting solution is going to be of immense interest to our viewers and is what led us to showcase QMC in the first place,” said Daniel Henriquez, Senior Producer, MRS TV/WebsEdge.
The 2021 MRS Spring Meeting & Exhibit is the key forum to present research to an interdisciplinary and international audience. It provides a window on the future of materials science and offers an opportunity for researchers—from students and postdoctoral fellows, to Nobel and Kavli Prize Laureates—to exchange technical information and network with colleagues.
“At Quantum Materials we are taking a very interdisciplinary approach to solving complex problems involving the nuanced application of nanostructures that exhibit optimized quantum effects to enable transformative solutions across the boundaries of physics, chemistry, and biology. QMC has applied our expertise in novel materials to enable a highly differentiated solution for clinical diagnostics applicable at the point-of-care that can mitigate disease and improve health outcomes.” said John Carrano, PhD, Senior Vice President Clinical R&D and Regulatory Affairs for Quantum Materials.
An MRS video crew toured Quantum Materials facilities located in San Marcos, Texas to learn about QMC’s Quantum Dot solutions and to produce a feature video to be presented at the MRS Virtual Spring Meeting & Exhibit in April. MRS’s feature video on Quantum Materials may be viewed here.
About Materials Research Society
Founded in 1973, and headquartered in Warrendale, Pennsylvania, The Materials Research Society is a growing, vibrant member-driven organization of over 11,200. It includes people from over 90 countries around the world—from the richest of nations to developing countries.
https://www.mrs.org
Press Release:
https://www.qmchealthid.com/en/news/quantum-materials-and-qmc-healthid-featured-at-2021-materials-research-society-spring-meeting-and-exhibit
Video:
Here's your evidence of Pasaca taking control of Quantum Materials:
Quote:Quantum Materials Corp. to Accelerate Development of QMC HealthID™ and Quantum Dot Research Following Equity Investment from Pasaca Capital Inc.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210202005387/en/Quantum-Materials-Corp.-to-Accelerate-Development-of-QMC-HealthID%E2%84%A2-and-Quantum-Dot-Research-Following-Equity-Investment-from-Pasaca-Capital-Inc
Sec Filings:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002306/0001493152-21-002306-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002337/0001493152-21-002337-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221006582/0001493152-21-006582-index.htm
https://pasacacapital.com/case-study/quantum-materials/
(:
Very big takeaway (:
That's true.
Guess the bigger take away is that QMC is still it's own company, and will still operate on it's own under the leadership of Pasaca Capital.
Where does it say Quantum was sold to Pasaca?
Quantum was given a 15m investment for Pasaca to gain a 51% controlling interest. Pasaca also signed a distribution agreement with QMC to utilize QMC's Quantum Dots, hence the prior filings I linked previously discussing Quantum's flow reactors creating 4000Kg worth of Quantum Dots yearly, with more being built.
If you look at Pasaca's website, they state they specialize in "investing" into promising companies. They don't "buy" companies. If that was the case, Innova Medical Group would not be it's own company, which it is.
The lateral flow tests are being manufactured by Innova Medical Group, who Quantum Materials is supplying it's technology to. Please refer to Quantum's previous press releases and SEC filings for more information. My previous post's have them linked.
Quantum Materials is it's very own company, hence the recent video that just came out.
(:
The latest PR...the one from France?
Are you insinuating that whatever the "latest PR" is, it automatically voids the ones prior?
Again, why does the promo video have to mention Pasaca? Should Apple have to re-state partnerships, distribution agreements, etc upon releasing each new Ad or promotional video? Probably not. Their investor's would already know through public filings and press releases:
While that is correct, the deal is also considered a distribution agreement between Pasaca and Quantum.
I would consider that a partnership.
Under what reasons would they have to talk about partnerships, when the video was about Quantum Materials specifically?
SEC filings and due diligence provides information about partnerships, which they have provided:
QDX HealthID Signs Distribution Agreement with Innova Medical Group Inc. Adding Antigen, Molecular and Antibody Tests to its COVID-19 Test Ecosystem
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/12/2077212/0/en/QDX-HealthID-Signs-Distribution-Agreement-with-Innova-Medical-Group-Inc-Adding-Antigen-Molecular-and-Antibody-Tests-to-its-COVID-19-Test-Ecosystem.html
Quantum Materials Corp. to Accelerate Development of QMC HealthID™ and Quantum Dot Research Following Equity Investment from Pasaca Capital Inc.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210202005387/en/Quantum-Materials-Corp.-to-Accelerate-Development-of-QMC-HealthID%E2%84%A2-and-Quantum-Dot-Research-Following-Equity-Investment-from-Pasaca-Capital-Inc
Sec Filings:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002306/0001493152-21-002306-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002337/0001493152-21-002337-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221006582/0001493152-21-006582-index.htm
(:
What should we believe? Either:
1.) SEC documents confirming flow reactors are operational with KG's produced:
How can anyone here check reactors? (:
Quantum Materials Corp recently did a company interview going over quantum dots, their role in nano-materials and Infectious disease's, and their blockchain platform mentioning QMC HealthID and Anti-Counterfeiting:
Mon 19 Apr 2021
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/19/lateral-flow-tests-uk-covid?__twitter_impression=true
Lateral flow tests still have a vital role in the UK’s fight against Covid
Infectious disease modelling shows that if everybody could do a coronavirus test twice a week and self-isolate if positive, the pandemic would collapse. Capacity for widespread PCR tests, which look for genetic material from the virus in samples, was built up through the UK’s Lighthouse labs, but initially limited to people with symptoms. Because they are relatively expensive, equipment-intensive laboratory tests, turnaround was often several days, by which point it would be too late to prevent onward transmission.
Then along came the apparent godsend of the cheaper lateral flow tests (LFTs) that use a swab twirled in both nostrils and the throat, seeking coronavirus proteins that bind to antibodies on the stick, and give an answer in 30 minutes. Epidemiologists suggested that, if combined with adequate income support for self-isolation, this could be a critical tool in Covid control. Six months later LFTs are still controversial, with some saying they are “a complete waste of money”.
The first round of complaints about the LFTs, when the virus prevalence was high late last year, was that they missed too many cases compared with the PCR test and thus provided false reassurance. It is now clear that many people who test positive by PCR do so many days or even weeks after they have ceased to become infectious. The LFTs on the other hand detect 80-90% of cases in the days when people are most infectious, and then rapidly become negative when they are unlikely to transmit the virus. This characteristic made it look like the LFTs gave a lot of false negatives compared with PCR – but from an infectiousness point of view, it is the latter that is actually giving a lot of false positives.
With the virus prevalence much lower, the criticism now is that a high proportion of the LFT positive results are false positives. It is a characteristic of any test that produces occasional false positives that when the number of true cases in the population is low, a higher proportion of the test positive cases will be false positive. Thus, if one in 1,000 LFTs are graded as a false positive, when the prevalence of the virus is one in 100 – and if LFTs detect 80% of these – there would be one false positive and eight true positives detected.
The Office for National Statistics report on 16 April put the prevalence at about 1 in 500 in England and Scotland. This should mean that now for every 1,000 people tested, we should see 1 false positive and 1 or 2 true positives. Critics complain that too high a proportion of test positives have to be unnecessarily asked to self-isolate when the virus prevalence is low.
The obvious solution is to quickly do a confirmatory test. This could be PCR, but it could probably also be another on-the-spot LFT. Technology may eventually help out, as many of the false positives appear to be mistaken or inexpert reading of the lines indicating positivity on the LFTs, and the development of smartphone apps that use artificial intelligence to process a photo of the LFT may considerably reduce the number of false positives reported.
The UK government has now agreed that a negative PCR test taken within two days of a LFT positive releases someone from self-isolation. There are still problems with the test, trace and isolate and Lighthouse laboratory systems, but turnaround has improved. If the private sector is used it needs to be better regulated: I have personal experience of not receiving a test in time to be useful from a company on the government’s list of approved providers.
LFTs, combined with rapidly available confirmatory tests are important tools in Covid control. They are not, however, the “cheap and cheerful” alternatives to laboratory tests they are sometimes depicted to be. They are actually quite sophisticated medical devices, and care has to be taken to evaluate the offerings from different manufacturers and monitor their performance over time and from batch to batch. Just like the PCR tests, a change in the chemical reagents used in their manufacture can lead to poorer performance. Fortunately, the government has established testing for these kits at its Porton Down laboratory, whereas many other countries, including the US, rely on test performance being reported by the manufacturers.
So would I feel safer on a crowded plane in which everyone had tested negative by PCR or by an LFT at the airport? The easy answer is that I would certainly feel better in either scenario compared with doing nothing – and the same applies to buses, trains, indoor dining, theatres, sports events, hospitals and any shared workplace. Given the cost of PCR tests, failing to take advantage of the lower cost and quicker turnaround of the LFTs is often the equivalent of doing nothing. And the full answer is that that both approaches might miss some cases. A PCR done three days prior to a flight will not detect someone who turns infectious in those three days. The LFT is up to date, but may miss some people with low viral loads.
As a passenger however, I would much rather take the very small risk of being turned down at the airport because of a false positive LFT than face an anxious wait wondering whether the provider of my PCR test would get the result back to me in time. If admitted to hospital, I would feel reassured that twice-weekly LFT testing of NHS staff has resulted in tens of thousands of potentially infectious staff remaining at home rather than coming to work.
For population-wide screening, we will never be able to build enough laboratory capacity to test a high proportion of the population twice a week by PCR one sample at a time. If we could do so with LFTs, now provided for free by the government, and optimise the PCR capacity to provide rapid confirmatory testing (that will also allow us to monitor for new virus variants), we would put a substantial part of control of the epidemic in the hands of the people.
Some of the same critics who were sceptical of our compliance with lockdowns think we will not follow through on self-testing. However, public engagement remains high. Effective use of LFTs, along with vaccines and social distancing, should help us get closer to the goal of a zero-Covid UK and to keep infection rates as low as possible.
David Hunter is the Richard Doll professor of epidemiology and medicine, University of Oxford
March 17, 2021, 5:07 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/US/companies-mull-home-testing-options-return-work-vaccine/story?id=76395708
Companies mull at-home testing options for return to work as vaccine supply soars.
A new study is underway to see if at-home COVID-19 tests could pave the way to reopening America's workplaces.
Citigroup, a U.S. multinational investment bank and financial services company, is launching a pilot program with Chicago-area bank branch employees and its traders, headquartered in New York, aimed at allowing their personnel to utilize a rapid antigen test, provided by Innova Medical Group, before coming into the workplace.
"This at-home COVID-19 testing program uses a rapid antigen test, which provides highly accurate results within 20 minutes," said Dr. Lori Zimmerman, corporate medical director at Citi. "The science is clear: frequent use of low-cost, simple, rapid tests is highly effective in identifying people who are currently infectious, even if they are asymptomatic."
Employees involved in the pilot administer the test to themselves by swabbing their noses three times throughout the week -- Monday, Wednesday and Friday -- and are guided through the testing process by Bella Health, a health assessment app. In a matter of minutes employees can learn their test results. The app directs employees to notify an immediate manager in the event of a positive test result.
Citi has invited a thousand of its employees to participate in the pilot program, with the goal of eventually expanding it to all of its branch workers, which would increase the program's participation to more than 6,000 workers.
A Citigroup spokesperson told ABC News that the company does not plan to disclose details of the expenses related to launching its rapid-testing pilot program.
The tests, which are part of a larger study with Harvard University researcher Dr. Michael Mina, have yet to receive emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration, so are not available for consumers in the United States.
"Frankly, I don't fully understand the hold up, I've seen the data from these companies," said Mina.
The FDA has authorized other rapid antigen tests and does not specifically speak about products under regulatory review.
"If a test comes to us with good data, we will authorize it as quickly as our scientific review allows," said an FDA spokesperson when asked about the authorization status of the Innova rapid antigen tests. "The FDA has and will continue to authorize tests when the data supports authorization. The FDA will not authorize tests where the data is incomplete or does not otherwise support authorization."
The FDA issued additional guidance on Tuesday for test developers seeking emergency use authorization of tests screening large groups of individuals for COVID-19 infections. It is guidance that could come in handy for employers and school administrators looking to stay a step ahead of asymptomatic cases and protect their workforce from bouts of coronavirus infection.
According to a study conducted at the University of Liverpool, researchers found the Innova Medical Group's test to demonstrate a 40% sensitivity rate. Other studies conducted by Oxford University and Public Health England found the test to be about 77% accurate.
"In general, antigen tests are very specific for COVID-19, but are not as sensitive as molecular PCR tests," according to the FDA. "Positive results from antigen tests, while generally highly accurate, may be subject to false positive results especially in areas where there are fewer infections."
Rapid antigen tests provide the advantage of lower costs, fewer supplies and speed that molecular PCR tests, which take one to two days for laboratory processing, still do not.
Another rapid test, the Abbott BinaxNow, is FDA authorized and available in the United States. The $25 test can also be done from home, but requires a prescription and virtual telehealth proctor to watch the process. Abbott has been conducting a similar workplace pilot program to the one Citi is starting with their own employees -- already distributing 400,000 test kits.
Early results have found more than 7 in 10 of the positive cases were discovered in asymptomatic patients using the BinaxNOW kits. Those people without symptoms likely could have returned to work and possibly spread the virus.
And in California, public schools in Fresno are now open for classes by regularly testing students and staff as they start the day with the Abbott BinaxNOW tests.
That quick turn around on the rapid antigen tests is also part of the reason why companies like Citi are eager to utilize them as part of their strategy to return employees back to work after months of having shut down hundreds of local Citibank branches.
With only about 12% of Americans now fully vaccinated according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus testing remains an important tool in tracking new cases and putting a halt to spread.
"We know this will help us protect our workers," said David Chubak, head of U.S. retail banking at Citi. "But even more than that, it will help us protect our clients, will help us protect and create greater safety, and a greater awareness in our communities as the vaccine is rolled out and help us restart businesses even faster than we are today."
Let's revisit some FACTS, shall we?
We have a distribution agreement between Innova Medical Group and QMC:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/12/2077212/0/en/QDX-HealthID-Signs-Distribution-Agreement-with-Innova-Medical-Group-Inc-Adding-Antigen-Molecular-and-Antibody-Tests-to-its-COVID-19-Test-Ecosystem.html
We have a distribution agreement between Pasaca and QMC:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210202005387/en/Quantum-Materials-Corp.-to-Accelerate-Development-of-QMC-HealthID%E2%84%A2-and-Quantum-Dot-Research-Following-Equity-Investment-from-Pasaca-Capital-Inc
We have SEC filings concerning the partnership between QMC and Pasaca:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002306/0001493152-21-002306-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315221002337/0001493152-21-002337-index.htm
All these are publicly presented either through PR's or government SEC filings. Innova Medical Group's website, MPS Medical Website (who Innova purchased) and Pasaca Capital all feature either QMC, or QMC HealthID:
https://pasacacapital.com/case-study/quantum-materials/
https://mpsmedical-inc.com/
https://innovamedgroup.com/qmc-healthid/
All public files and agreements can be viewed above.
It's as if this needs to repeated:
Quote:"Exits will only appear on a profile if the person or organization was an investor in a funding round of a company that went public (and has the IPO listed on their company profile).
To be more specific, an exit will appear on person profile if the person was an individual investor in a funding round. Partner investments made on an investment firm’s behalf will not appear as exits for the partner.
Additionally, exits will only appear on an organization profile (company or school) if the organization was an investor in a funding round."
Quantum is public already, which is why the exit occurred. My prior post's proves Pasaca deal is in effect.
I think the the term "Projection" is adequate here (:
Oh, so you agree that post was opinion and not fact, as I stated?
(:
Great point.
Again, completely false.
Let's give everyone a clearer idea of the whole "crunch base" thing that you keep mentioning: