AI
Monday, July 02, 2007 1:12:20 PM
More on the Shareholder's Meeting (by Ebo/IV):
"A little more from the meeting:
I have some more time now that I’m relaxing in Philadelphia. Watched some fireworks last night. They celebrate the 4th of July all week here.
Some more answers to the questions about the annual meeting:
“Did Gabriel talk about why he thinks DNAG can get non-toxic financing when have not been able to do so in the past?”
As I mentioned before, the financial environment is getting better and the bankers more friendly. PIPEs are out; RS's are out. The SEC wants eliminate those toxic finance schemes. They are changing various rules such as rule 144: http://reverseshellmerger.com/2007/06/26/sec-rule-144-proposal-for-sale-of-shell-shares/
That’s all we can say about that.
“Can you tell us how many people attended the meeting?“
There were six DNAG employees. The number of shareholders were, by my estimate, about 30.
“Did you get a sense of how much financing they need and by when they need it before DNAG can not continue?”
You have read PL1 ‘s explanation of $30 million needed, which was expressed to him by Gabriel. I have every reason to have faith in that explanation. During the actual meeting, he answered what the minimum he would need and by when. I will reiterate my take as: They think that $5 million will finish the Protectin [CD59] diabetes test by 2008. They think that $10 million will finish the marvelous Super EPO [PT 401] and provide an NDA by 2010 with revenues flowing in 2011. This $15 million will be from the Spin-outs of the two entities (unless any of you could offer to invest that much instead). Those spin-outs could not happen before the end of the year, it is thought. They were asked, how much longer till you run out of money if you don't get the new funds? Answer: around November. Then, how much do you need to bridge you over until you can effect a spin-out and get the need funding? Answer: $3 million but bridge loans also carry a very high interest.
“Is there a timeline for spinning off DNAPP?”
The timeline is as soon as possible but, the environment necessary time to put it together and the necessary rule changes will not all come together until the end of 2007. That is why you hear of running out of money by November and the need for a bridge loan, etc.
“Does DNAG feel big pharma is trying to stall DNAG into bankruptcy?”
That was never stated as such. However, Tony did relate to us about the next article he had submitted to a peer reviewed journal to be published. It was supposed to be published a few months ago and he kept asking about it. Finally they said they were waiting for his response to questions that they requested a while back. He had sent the response immediately after they requested it in the first place, so he resent it to them. They said they had “lost” it. Since that had never happened to him, he did wonder why and if there was any one trying to influence the editors? The article is about Statinome and we should see it in the next month or so. Then, judge for yourself if you think a big pharma might have tried to keep it out of publication.
“Why does DNAG feel a deep pockets partnership has not yet occured?”
Tony is as frustrated as we are that there has not been more interest in partnering on one product or another. They have tremendous technology and have been able to do/show everything they said they could. My opinion is the same as PL1 has talked about. Tony & Co. has been so “leading edge” that most do not understand the potential. The FDA is just now coming around to understanding and finally trying to encourage the industry to use pharmacogenomics. Finally, I believe, as many of you, that big pharma really is trying to ignore/cover up anything like this. They absolutely do NOT want to focus their drugs on one part of the universe of potential patients. They have proven that they would rather have everyone use/try their drug (which ever one) and “maybe” pay for the ones who are killed or injured by it in return for the multi-billion dollar per year revenues.
”Is DNAG willing to be bought out?”
Everything is for sale at the right price. That being said, Tony knows what he has. He is NOT going to let it be bought out for pennies on the dollar. This is not a share of stock that he will sell for 50% or 500% over this extremely depressed and manipulated price; that’s trader mentality. Just as most of us did not get in this for a 100% profit, neither did he. We took the risk, it is high, and we expect a high reward. If you happen to be a trader then you don’t need to be reading this. This stuff is for “investors” as I prefer to call them. Buy, hold, get paid. Low risk, low reward; high risk high reward. I’m not leaving until I get my high reward.
Between PL1 and I, I think you have heard as much as we can say about the annual meeting. If there are other questions, I will be glad to answer them.
Keep in mind again:
1) The financial environment is getting better and the bankers more friendlily. PIPEs are out; RS's are out.
2) The FDA environment toward DNAG and genomics in general has become much better. The FDA is now on the same side as DNAG.
Ann
"A little more from the meeting:
I have some more time now that I’m relaxing in Philadelphia. Watched some fireworks last night. They celebrate the 4th of July all week here.
Some more answers to the questions about the annual meeting:
“Did Gabriel talk about why he thinks DNAG can get non-toxic financing when have not been able to do so in the past?”
As I mentioned before, the financial environment is getting better and the bankers more friendly. PIPEs are out; RS's are out. The SEC wants eliminate those toxic finance schemes. They are changing various rules such as rule 144: http://reverseshellmerger.com/2007/06/26/sec-rule-144-proposal-for-sale-of-shell-shares/
That’s all we can say about that.
“Can you tell us how many people attended the meeting?“
There were six DNAG employees. The number of shareholders were, by my estimate, about 30.
“Did you get a sense of how much financing they need and by when they need it before DNAG can not continue?”
You have read PL1 ‘s explanation of $30 million needed, which was expressed to him by Gabriel. I have every reason to have faith in that explanation. During the actual meeting, he answered what the minimum he would need and by when. I will reiterate my take as: They think that $5 million will finish the Protectin [CD59] diabetes test by 2008. They think that $10 million will finish the marvelous Super EPO [PT 401] and provide an NDA by 2010 with revenues flowing in 2011. This $15 million will be from the Spin-outs of the two entities (unless any of you could offer to invest that much instead). Those spin-outs could not happen before the end of the year, it is thought. They were asked, how much longer till you run out of money if you don't get the new funds? Answer: around November. Then, how much do you need to bridge you over until you can effect a spin-out and get the need funding? Answer: $3 million but bridge loans also carry a very high interest.
“Is there a timeline for spinning off DNAPP?”
The timeline is as soon as possible but, the environment necessary time to put it together and the necessary rule changes will not all come together until the end of 2007. That is why you hear of running out of money by November and the need for a bridge loan, etc.
“Does DNAG feel big pharma is trying to stall DNAG into bankruptcy?”
That was never stated as such. However, Tony did relate to us about the next article he had submitted to a peer reviewed journal to be published. It was supposed to be published a few months ago and he kept asking about it. Finally they said they were waiting for his response to questions that they requested a while back. He had sent the response immediately after they requested it in the first place, so he resent it to them. They said they had “lost” it. Since that had never happened to him, he did wonder why and if there was any one trying to influence the editors? The article is about Statinome and we should see it in the next month or so. Then, judge for yourself if you think a big pharma might have tried to keep it out of publication.
“Why does DNAG feel a deep pockets partnership has not yet occured?”
Tony is as frustrated as we are that there has not been more interest in partnering on one product or another. They have tremendous technology and have been able to do/show everything they said they could. My opinion is the same as PL1 has talked about. Tony & Co. has been so “leading edge” that most do not understand the potential. The FDA is just now coming around to understanding and finally trying to encourage the industry to use pharmacogenomics. Finally, I believe, as many of you, that big pharma really is trying to ignore/cover up anything like this. They absolutely do NOT want to focus their drugs on one part of the universe of potential patients. They have proven that they would rather have everyone use/try their drug (which ever one) and “maybe” pay for the ones who are killed or injured by it in return for the multi-billion dollar per year revenues.
”Is DNAG willing to be bought out?”
Everything is for sale at the right price. That being said, Tony knows what he has. He is NOT going to let it be bought out for pennies on the dollar. This is not a share of stock that he will sell for 50% or 500% over this extremely depressed and manipulated price; that’s trader mentality. Just as most of us did not get in this for a 100% profit, neither did he. We took the risk, it is high, and we expect a high reward. If you happen to be a trader then you don’t need to be reading this. This stuff is for “investors” as I prefer to call them. Buy, hold, get paid. Low risk, low reward; high risk high reward. I’m not leaving until I get my high reward.
Between PL1 and I, I think you have heard as much as we can say about the annual meeting. If there are other questions, I will be glad to answer them.
Keep in mind again:
1) The financial environment is getting better and the bankers more friendlily. PIPEs are out; RS's are out.
2) The FDA environment toward DNAG and genomics in general has become much better. The FDA is now on the same side as DNAG.
Ann
