Yes, I've given it a lot of thought and for quite some time.
The updated filings aren't guaranteed to have only positive information. I must keep open the possibility that there has been no progress made on the revenue side of the equation and specifically pertaining to licensing.
The fact that in the last filings we did get looking back a year, it shows all but one maybe two (off the top of my head) that had not terminated or were seeking repayment of their licensing fee charged. All we have from the company is them stating these licensees violated the terms of their agreement. No other details than SVFC says they will pursue all remedies. That raises a red flag for me because I find it less plausible that all of these clinics (licensees) in different cities, totally unrelated to one another, all violated their agreements in some way. Then you throw in the Thailand and Australian licensees also terminating their agreements for similar reasons and I have to question what, if anything, SVFC's part was in these terminations.
Now with that said, it is entirely possible that whatever the shortcomings were in their agreements they have A) worked them out and re-licensed to those same clinics, B) licensed to totally new entities in establishing new clinics.
Given that SVFC released 8-Ks earlier in its history that it had entered into licensing deals with clinics and the fact we have not seen any new 8-Ks describing any new deals leads me to expect no new deals in the filings to come.
The Millipore (Merck) deal everyone likes to parade around only works for SVFC if they open clinics and license them. The deal is for equipment to run the SVFC process in those clinics. No clinics equals no revenue from that deal. Unless you think SVFC is distributing this equipment to whomever wants to buy it for whatever purpose, I think you have to assume it is a zero revenue generator for them as of right now. See, that's where I take issue with those who post just the one-liner's like "Merck is already in with SVFC". It's too broad a statement and if it were true due diligence it would highlight the additional facts as I have described above. I wished someone would have told me a lot of what I uncovered instead of just posting a bunch of posts with half of the story or opinions. I can't help but look back now and question motives for posting only half the due diligence associated with various posts. I know it's pennyland and peeps like to get involved and try and move stocks but I wish they'd do it with a little more integrity.
The furniture lawsuit will be interesting to see how it plays out. I know of someone on this board who asked Anna about that very question, amongst others, and was told they new nothing about it. Another red flag for a number of reasons. Did someone just not inform Anna? Not a good thing. Did Anna know and lie about it? I know some don't want to believe that they can be lied straight to their faces but it certainly is possible and people have to keep open the possibility that it is, has and will happen. Does anyone expect Anna to tell them anything they don't want you to hear? Never. It will always be worded in such a way as to be ambiguous or non-committal.
I worked for a Fortune 50 company for 12 years and listened to every earnings call for analysts. None of these jokers ever gives a straight answer. They have mastered what I like to call.."say nothing...but say it very well."
I guess I can't really blame newer folks for having their optimism because I was exactly the same way at the same point they have been involved with the stock/company. I went out of my way to find every benefit of the doubt I could justify to give them a pass. So for those who are newer here and have spoken to the company or received email replies from them, eventually there will be two possible outcomes...1) the company does what they said they would do in their replies and conversations with you or 2) they will delay, miss promised expected timelines. Should number 2 come to pass, will those new folks be able to admit they've been strung along? I guess if we kept giving benefit of the doubt over and over again it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy that eventually they'll do what they said they would do but how much time will have gone by before it actually happens? If it is 3 months from now there can't be any rejoicing that the company said they would do it and did it because it's already 3 months or more late.
One of the other major question marks we should have answered soon, whether by 10 or 8 filings is the deal the company made with the mystery investor to resolve the Ironridge issue. Resolving it is one thing and can be looked at as a positive because it deals with the here and now but in the next breath you have to wonder what impact the deal will have on shareholders. It baffles me that this second question is never asked.
All of this begins to tie the various aspects/concerns of the company together. If the company were generating cash flow from operations then why has it defaulted on accounts payable? Hanover resolved a handful of these in May and was that a net positive for the company...you bet it was. Now ask yourself was that a net benefit to shareholders and the answer is without question a resounding no. You can shout low float until the cows come home but the reality of ~100M new shares coming to market does not come without a price and that price has been a lower PPS.
Now the mystery investor and Ironridge resolution potentially don't look too dissimilar to the Hanover deal. The company defaulted on its note. If Ironridge had never stuck their nose into this the company would still be dealing with a defaulted note and TCA which would either lead to a restructuring that would be favorable to TCA or some outside investor like Hanover coming in. Neither of those situations would benefit shareholders in terms of PPS but the company gets out the pickle. Peeps on the board should be demanding answers from the company as to how the company intends to enhance shareholder value after the shareholder has come through and bailed the company out by absorbing all of these new shares to pay the bills the company has not paid.
The patents! The patents! That's the saving grace in all of this. It most certainly could be but only if the company can adequately monetize what those patents represent. Those patents will not fetch nearly what they are worth should the company continue to conduct itself as it has the last couple of years. There is a very realistic chance they accrue more debt, issue more shares all while not growing the business and putting those patents to good use. If this occurs, the company, which we know is in desperate need of working capital (if they weren't then why not pay the TCA note on time and why seek an outside investor to settle the debt?), would have little leverage in selling the patents to a potential buyer. The buyers would either get a deal on their terms or they'd let the company run itself into the ground and would come in and buy the parts of the company it wanted in a bankruptcy sale. I know this first hand from a start up I worked for from 2008-2012. The company could not finance its operations through current cash flow, had no lines of credit available so they either could file for bankruptcy or be bought out by a private equity firm for pennies on the dollar. None of the outcomes favor shareholders unless the company can successfully monetize their patents.
Sorry for rambling. I'm on West Coast time and was out late tonight/this morning and wanted to reply while still relevant.
You all have a good couple of days until I can check back again.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
