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.
Can a company that has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy declare existing shares worthless, then restructure to emerge from bankruptcy and issue new shares for purchase at the restructured value? If so, then existing shareholders might lose everything!
I understood what you were saying and that is why I sent my post to help clarify our position. Thanks for your posts. If anyone disagrees, please explain your thoughts since my posts are my opinion and I could be wrong (but I do not think I am wrong in this case).
As I see it, purchasers (last week) of the $1.40 unit offering were receiving one share of the company while regular shareholders were purchasing one share for $3.00 to 4.00. In addition, unit purchasers are entitled to buy another share for the next 2 years at $1.76 per share by exercising the warrant. The stock could go to $50.00 per share and they would still be able to buy an identical share at $1.76 until August 30, 2024. I do not see how the price of the units could already be factored into the current share price. Therefore, the share price drops as we see today.
Share price probably dropping because the $1.40 price for each unit offered is significantly below the current share price. Also see Post 177.
It seems to me that each of the 2.8 million units sold for $1.40 per unit was comprised of one share in the company plus one warrant that is exercisable any time during the next 2 years (until August 30, 2024) for an additional share at an exercise price of $1.76 per share. In other words, the purchaser immediately received one share of the company and ,with each warrant, can buy one additional share for $1.76 any time during the next 2 years. The price for both the immediate share and the share that can be purchased with the warrant until August 30, 2024 are considerably below the current share price. Please correct me if I am wrong.
In my post 32569, I meant to reference your post 32549 in which you responded to my post 32545. Sorry for the mistake.
In your message 32545, you talked about how upset I would be if Revive set deadlines for various actions and did not meet them. So you did mention the word "deadlines" (which are normally specific dates or time frames). So I am not making up "tales". In addition, if Revive was responsible for helping establish or hiring the team for evaluating the data and preparing the EUA application, then normally the scope of work statement would include dates for accomplishing the various stages of work to be performed. There is no reason why Revive could not at least give investors some idea of these time frames. Most investors know that any date is subject to unanticipated delays caused by the FDA or some other reason. When that happens, the dates or time frames would be adjusted accordingly and investors would be notified of the revisions. I do not think this is too much to ask of Revive management, particularly since each investor is a partial owner of the Company.
This will be my last message on this topic. I have other things I need to accomplish to try to satisfy time frames my wife has set for me. (Ha! Ha!)
I did not say anything about setting definite deadlines for actions Revive is currently taking. But they ought to be able to enlighten shareholders a little better than just continuing to use the words "soon" or "in the near future" for efforts that Revive has some control over (such as an estimated timeframe for evaluating data on hand). Nobody can say what delays may be created by the FDA once the data or EUA application is submitted.
Please don't "shudder" to think about my future posts based on what I said in my current one. Maybe I should have said I am a little frustrated instead of very frustrated. I dare say that probably most shareholders have some degree of frustration at this point, particularly when every PR statement just seems to repeat what has already been told previously.
I agree with CW. PR tells us nothing new. Basically restates what they told us one month ago about actions to be or being taken. At least they could give shareholders some idea of a projected timeframe for actions that Revive is responsible for accomplishing such as completion of data evaluation and EUA submittal. Very frustrating, yet I will continue to wait!
Same feelings here. I just hope they do not decide to do a reverse split (one new share for every two shares held) and then sell additional shares. I have had that happen before and it is not good for shareholders. Have a great day!
I fully agree, but I thought CW was mistaking your mention of a 1:2 reverse split for a 2:1 split when he implied that your 292,500 shares would become 585,000 shares. Maybe I misunderstood what he was trying to say. Thanks for your reply.
If a Reverse 1:2 split (R/S) was performed, the 292,500 shares mentioned in Post #31,988 would become 146,125 shares at double the pre-split price. A reverse split is not usually favorable to shareholders. A 2:1 split ending in 585,000 shares would normally end up being favorable for shareholders but this is not what was addressed in the Post #31988. In addition, neither type of split generates additional "working" cash for the company unless additional shares are approved and sold.
You were correct in your original message. Only 33,333 people would be fully treated over 5 days. 1,000,000 pills/30 pills per person equals approximately 33,333 people.
While it appears good that Revive is expanding research to address new variants and add new "markers", it seems that this prolongs the Phase 3 study and we never get to the "finish" line. The study will not benefit anybody if results are never published and an EUA or drug approval keeps being delayed to accommodate additional study criteria. I am interested in hearing other comments regarding this. Y'all have a great day/weekend.
40 study locations for Bucillamine shown on Clinitrials.gov as of 7/13/2021!
RVVTF has added another Bucillamine testing site to now have 27 sites!
Please explain for everyone how your post 80881 is correct when it says that ".9 cents is 90 cents". That was the reason for this entire discussion. Posters can read the entirety of our messages and form their own opinion on who is more sensible. Most won't care, but all I was initially doing was pointing out that post 80881 was incorrect and it evolved because you would not acknowledge that your statement was incorrect. Have a great night!
It depends on the units of measure. For example, if the .5 is referring to .5 cents, then it would be half of a cent. If referring to .5 dollars, then it would be 50 cents. But you cannot assume everything refers to dollars unless dollars is stated as the unit of measure. Now, go ahead and tell me I am wrong again for everyone to see! I think they know who is right regardless of what you say.
If everything is based on parts of a dollar, then why do you mention .9 cents in post 80881? That is .009 dollars which is not equal to the 90 cents you yourself stated. In fact, it is less than 1 cent!
.9 equals 90 cents if you are referring to the .9 as ".9 dollars". In your post 80881, you say ".9 cents is 90 cents" Again, .9 cents is not 90 cents but is less than 1 cent. Look back at your post 80881 (which was the basis for all this discussion) and tell me I am incorrect. Other posters, if interested, are welcome to check it also.
Thanks for acknowledging that my math is correct! I am holding my shares. The reference to the .9 cents in my messages was not based on the increase in value of OPTI shares but was expressing a difference of opinion to a comment made by another poster. Thanks again.
Let's just agree to disagree. I think I am right and you think you are right. It would be interesting to know who others think is right. Rest assured that they have common sense to know who is right or wrong.
They can't explain it to me because they all know that .9 cents is less than 1 cent and not 90 cents. .9 dollars is 90 cents! When you say ".9", it is not necessarily referencing dollars as the unit of measure unless you say ".9 dollars"! I think most people understand what I am saying and know that your post 80881 is incorrect and your other posts regarding this are confusing.
Again, and for the last time, .9 cents is NOT 90 cents as you claim in post 80881! It is 9 tenths of 1 cent. .9 DOLLARS is 90 cents or 100 times greater that .9 cents. The terminology does make a big difference. You nor anybody else can disagree with that.
If you look back at your post 80881 that started this debate, you plainly say that ".9 cents is 90 cents". The fact is that ".9 DOLLARS (not .9 cents) is 90 cents". You surely cannot disagree with that. I have been correct on all I have said! Have a great day!
For clarification, your saying .9 cents is .009 is correct but it is .009 DOLLARS! 1.0 cent would be .01 DOLLARS. I was correct in saying that .9 cents is 9 tenths of 1 cent. Think about it and eventually you will see that I was right! Have a great day!
.9 dollars (not .9 cents) is 90 cents! .9 cents is 9 tenths of 1 cent.
I would not support a cannibals stock either, but I would support a cannabis stock for medicinal purposes. Please pay attention to the spelling of your words!
Thanks for the info. I strongly believe that Bucillamine should be effective and have invested in RVVTF accordingly. Does anybody have any ideas as to why recent independent medical articles have failed to mention Bucillamine as a potential treatment for Covid 19? While waiting for trial results, it would be comforting to see Bucillamine at least be mentioned in some of the recent news articles regarding possible treatment techniques.
Bucillamine trials are for those with mild to moderate cases of Covid. Apparently, many people recover from mild cases just by quarantining for 14 days. Question - How are trial administrators and evaluators supposed to know whether people taking Bucillamine actually recovered because of Bucillamine or whether the person just recovered on their own regardless of Bucillamine? Any responses are appreciated.
I see where the referenced article talks about NAC and I also know that Bucillamine is supposed to be 16 times more effective than NAC. But I have seen nothing that specifically mentions Bucillamine in recent "medical" articles. Have I missed something or is Bucillamine specifically mentioned in any recent articles other than company sponsored ones?
I think his problem is that he along with others are tired of hearing people "brag" about how much money they have invested or the number of shares they own.
Anybody listen to the Canadian news conference regarding Covid scheduled at 11:30 EDT today? If so, can you summarize what was said? Any mention of RVVTF or Bucillamine?
I agree with septmike09! This firm is being paid handsomely to publish this information. It would be nice to see some independent analysts/newsletters recommend RVVTF. Maybe that will occur when RVVTF is uplisted.
It was just updated to say "enrolling by invitation".
Why do you keep saying "trail"? The correct word is "trial".
I thought both IRB and FDA must approve compassionate use authorization for Bucillamine. I have not yet read anything about FDA approval, but only IRB approval. Has approval been issued by both?
If Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is normally only approved for drugs to treat severe cases of COVID-19, do you think the FDA could/would approve EUA for Bucillamine, which is proposed as a treatment for only mild to moderate COVID-19 cases?
Thanks for the clarification! Hope we hear something soon!
The CoPVN mission is to establish trial sites for studying vaccines and monoclonal antibodies according to the website you reference. Therapeutic treatments are not mentioned as part of their mission. So could the trials for Bucillamine be conducted through CoPVN?