US Stem Cell Inc (USRM)

[Dragon Lady]

I don't know- why did they do an IPO? My opinion- they never should have gone public. Going "public" is reserved for the stratosphere of companies- it's a tremendous undertaking and only for top tier businesses to even attempt normally. BHRT's IPO is literally one of the worse to have ever been done in IPO history- they netted about $1.5 MILLION on about $5 million sold. It was pitched as going to raise something like $70 MILLION. Their mgt was in many people's opinion "bush league" and the company was not up to IPO standards and was thus panned on the road show and subsequent offering. You can read a great deal of commentary about it from a simple web search. A simple web search will also reveal that most companies should never "go public" - it's just too daunting. Most that do it and fail - do it "thinking" it's a road to easy riches for insiders. Take it "public" - raise a bunch of cash, cash out your options after the lock-up period and sale off into the sunset. Problem is- it almost never works out like that. Facebook- yes. But they were well connected/funded by some of the top-tier venture houses before ever even remotely coming close to an IPO, they had the "who's who" of venture people behind um from San Hill Rd as it's known in the "Valley". Why did they go public? You tell me and us? I don't know? I just know it was an IPO failure for the history books.
http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/20/bioheart-a-new-record-for-ipo-futility/

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/spotlight-bioheart-stumbles-out-of-the-ipo-gate/2008-02-20

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/bioheart-cuts-ipo-price/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
That one's a good one- wanted $46 mil, then $20 something mil, then ended up "net" about $1.5 mil. Not a good IPO, probably one of the worst ever. There's a site that lists the biggest IPO busts- I can find it, and BHRT is right there in the running.

Here it made the BOTTOM of the IPO list for 2008
http://www.marketfolly.com/2009/01/how-some-2008-ipos-fared.html

Here's another list- even though 2008 was a "tough" yr for IPOS, still, most raised at least $100 MILLION or more. BHRT, raised about $5 MILLION with only about $1.5 MILLION net- and that was AFTER Howard L. picked up some of the shares himself- it would have been even worse. Again, this list puts BHRT as the worst performer.
http://www.tradersnarrative.com/severe-ipo-drought-is-actually-extremely-bullish-1635.html

I could list more info. But your question was why did they go "public" in 08 when one of their key patents was expiring? I don't know- you tell me? Maybe that's part of why their IPO was pretty much a total bust. Your premise and that of the other poster that somehow PATENTS DO NOT MATTER or that patents in one field (google or amazon for instance) are "different" than biologic/pharma patents, is in my opinion ludicrous. A PATENT is a PATENT- and ALL bio-tech and pharma companies pursue them VIGOROUSLY FOR A REASON and then defend them to the ends of the earth for the same reason- patents = MONEY. Why do you think drug companies panic when a big seller is about to come "off patent" and go generic, if as according to your "theory" those pesky patents don't mean much anyway? You make no sense with your "theories". Many companies that went "public" - are actually even taken back "private" as they realize public is a mistake. It's actually very in vogue and popular to do now days. DELL was just taken private. Best Buy is considering it. Seagate at one point was taken private and then re-tooled and went public again later- the biggest maker of disc drives in the world. I can name dozens more. Why did BHRT go "public"? I HAVE NO IDEA.