It has come to my attention, as an interested party in Biocentric, that many rumors are floating around concerning the status of the company property and materials at the Santa Ana office as a result of the resignation of the remaining staff on December 10,2010. These matters were discussed with both the property management and other persons in a position to be well informed.
After the two directors resigned effective the end of business December 10, 2010, there was no ransacking of the offices, no theft of company property or destruction of the algae inoculant. When it became clear that persons responsible for securing funding for the continuation of company operations were not able (or were unwilling) to provide funds to address the two months worth of past-due payroll and other payables, the remaining staff, which had shown a remarkable loyalty in the face of personal hardships, felt they could no longer continue with the company.
The matter was then discussed with the landlord in his office on the premises, who voiced concerns regarding "rotting algae". He was informed that the algae would be OK for a few days without being tended. He stated he would dispose of it, if the company missed it's agreed payment on rent arrears on December 15th or if it became a health hazard. Some inoculant was also picked up by the persons working on Death valley project. The landlord also stated that he had a lien on all company property due to the rent arrears. He supervised all removal of the employees' personal property to insure his interests were protected. When asked about reports of witnesses, he stated that he had made no such claims to anyone and would be aware of any such statements. Other informed persons stated that the company didn't posses $200,000 of fixed assets outside of the prototype bioreactor and, therefore such asset values did not exist. Removing equipment from the lab, valued at approximately $50.000 would have required professional moving services.
The former directors believe all their prior actions were for the best interests of the company and they continued to be loyal until personal hardship made it impossible to remain with the company. Any assertions of fiduciary misconduct on the part of the resigning directors will be met with a vigorous defense. As far as profiting from an alleged conspiracy to sell company shares short and reap huge profits, there is no evidence because such a conspiracy doesn't and never has existed. Any other allegations regarding director actions are patently false; and defamation and slander actions are being considered by the former officer.
When asked about the purported special dividend. it was stated that the resigning officers had informed the remaining board member that they were of the opinion that the transaction might be in violation of the Bulk Transfers Act in that it would compromise creditors' positions and they could not vote to approve it until approval of corporate counsel was obtained. In addition, it does not appear that control was ever obtained in the other participating company (contrary to reports to the Board) and, therefore, the transaction could not have been completed.
This interested party will continue inquiry to obtain the truth.
