News 
Market Data 
Discover
Replies to post #368 on SCAMS-R-US
drifterfcrc Thursday, 06/21/07 08:08:46 AM
Re: None 0
Post #
134931
of 203965
MORE ON OUR NOT..FRIEND DAVID BLECH!!! Courtesy of MPD68. Dont know if he already posted but here it is again!!! WHY WE ARE SITTING at .02!!!!!
And why must XKEM look to such "generous" individuals as Margie Chassman for a majority of its loan structure/value?
One answer and one name: DAVID BLECH
Has anyone ever heard of the famously coined phrase, "Blech Thursday"?
It was a phrase coined in the early/mid 90s that came to symbolize the end of the biotech era as it was once known.
And David Blech's name is synonymous with that end.
David Blech was an upstart and ambitious venture capitalist who sprung essentially from nowhere (he was a songwriter and 'entrepreneur') in the late 80s with $10,000 in his pocket and big dreams. He started multiple companies in the biotech industry and a few years later was worth over the hundred million dollar mark. (Bristol Meyers bought one of his companies, Genetech Systems, for $294 million only later to do their own DD, find out its true value was practically zilch, and sell it away for a paltry $20 million -- "taking a $274 million dollar bath") http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n8_v21/ai_7939775
Long story short, (you can do the DD yourself with the links i've provided and with everything else that's out there), but upon the collapse of the biotech boom, Blech was eventually filed suit against by numerous private and public companies, individuals, class-action suits and, of course, the SEC. Longer story shorter: he plead guilty to a mass of charges brought against him and/or plead out and eventually turned 'informant' on those he'd conspired with in exchange for leniency by the Feds.
So, how XKEM found the ever-generous Marjorie Chassman to loan them all this money (millions upon millions) over so many years while the company showed nothing but debt has but one best guess: through David Blech.
How'd that come to be you may ask? Simple... Chassman and Blech are married.
As the Seattle Times reported: at the onset of his downfall, when Blech's first wife discovered he was forging her signature for false purposes, she divorced him immediately. His second wife, Marjorie Chassman, was reported to be "a graphic designer and aspiring actress" who was supporting him at the time of his demise. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/uninformed_consent/financier/story1.html
So, again, it begs the question: How would his second wife, Marjorie Chassman (a graphic designer and aspiring actress) have the know-how and savvy to get involved in the vast and complicated world of loaning indebted companies millions and trading in public securities to great personal gain (of which thus far i have found 3: NVLT.OB, CEPO.OB and SCLL.OB). Answer: Through her husband and "partner-in-speculatively-questionable-activity", David Blech.
And, guilty as charged, David Blech is (squirm) involved in XKEM and may very well be the leader of this big parade.
Direct Link between XKEM and BLECH: http://www.littleindia.com/archive/dec96/survive.htm
Excerpt: "On Nov 19 (1996-ish), Xechem announced that a group controlled by David Blech, a well-known but controversial investor in the biotechnology industry, will invest $5.5 million in the company over the next nine months. As a result of the deal, Blech and his associates will replace Pandey as Xechem's controlling shareholders, with a stake of more than 70 percent. Pandey, however, will remain the CEO as well as the second-largest shareholder. He is delighted at the deal because the capital infusion will allow Xechem to develop products that he believes could become big winners in the future. "With Blech's investment and expertise, our future is very bright," he says. "In the next three to five years, we could have sales of $30 million to $50 million.""
Those sales predictions came in 1996 for the future of 1997. Well, we all know that didn't happen as the loans continue today and XKEM continues to show massive losses.
Note XKEM / Chassman / Blech link:
While many on the boards are speaking zealously how the debt owed by XKEM will not have to be paid until 2008, please note the paragraph below from this link: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050623/xkem.ob8-k.html
Excerpt: "For the period from November 11, 2003 through June 30, 2004, Marjorie Chassman, the spouse of David Blech ("Chassman") advanced $2,800,000 of convertible debt to Xechem, which debt accrued approximately $320,884 in interest (as of June 20, 2005) and is due and payable December 31, 2006, subject to the required sale of Xechem's holdings of CepTor Stock."
(the CepTor deal is an entirely other issue)
Blech's shady past:
http://www.bearstearnsfraudinfocenter.com/information.php
Excerpt: "The case was a $77 million class action lawsuit filed against Bear Stearns on behalf of investors who claimed they had lost their money due to the fraudulent actions of David Blech, a Bear Stearns client. The judge stated that a summary judgment could not be made because there were not enough facts available to determine if Bear Stearns was guilty or not. Bear Stearns said that it had no knowledge of Blech’s stock manipulating (he pled guilty to charges of fraud in 1999). The investors who lost their money to Blech want to convince the jury otherwise."
Link demonstrating Chassman/Blech relationship:
http://freeadvice.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?S essionID=qYy_S2bI2EM...
Excerpt: "In January 2005, we entered into an agreement with David Blech (the husband of Margie Chassman), which provided that he or his designees would lend us $500,000 (inclusive of $100,000 previously advanced to us in December 2004 by Ms. Chassman) for operating capital pending our debt restructuring and completion of our private placements of units, and up to an additional $500,000 on the same terms if the private placement was delayed.... The two loans, both of which were made by Ms. Chassman, totaled $500,000 and bore interest at 6% per annum.... According to the agreement, we also issued the following individuals the following number of shares of our common stock:
Investor
Number of Shares
of Common stock
Margie Chassman
2,475,000
Wood River Trust
3,850,000
Esther Blech
1,225,000
Milton Chassman
1,225,000
Aaron Eiger
1,225,000
Mark Germain
500,000
Wood River Trust is a trust formed for the benefit of Evan Blech, the son of Ms. Chassman and Mr. Blech. The trustees of the trust are Harvey Kesner and Michael C. Doyle (no relation to our director, Michael J. Doyle). Esther Blech is the mother-in-law of Ms. Chassman. Milton Chassman is the brother of Ms. Chassman. These investors have agreed not to publicly sell their shares of common stock until November 2006 and if they sell their shares in a private transaction, the buyer must also agree not to sell their shares publicly until November 2006."
(The whole family's in on that one!)
Other companies who are involved with Chassman and Blech also have troubling outlooks:
--In mid-August of 2005 NVLT.OB (another Chassman/Blech involved company) was at $4.47 a share. Today, it's worth .95c.
--In mid-February of 2005 CEPO.OB (another Chassman/Blech involved company) was at $6.75 a share. Today, it's worth .24c.
How did Blech do it? http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/02-07.txt
Excerpt: "From approximately June through September 1994, David Blech, the chief executive officer of D. Blech & Co., orchestrated a massive manipulative scheme designed to increase or stabilize the prices of a number of the biotechnology securities for which D. Blech & Co. was a market maker. As part of this scheme, David Blech routinely sold biotechnology stocks from D. Blech & Co.'s inventory accounts to brokerage accounts that Blech controlled that were in the names of other individuals and entities. These controlled accounts then sold the biotechnology stocks back to the brokerage firm or to other accounts controlled by David Blech. These trades created the appearance of active trading in the biotechnology stocks. Additionally, through this trading, Blech was able to reduce D. Blech & Co.'s inventory position in the biotechnology stocks, yet still artificially withhold from the market the supply of the biotechnology stocks."
So, with XKEM, how many shares of this roughly 1.3 billion O/S count do we all REALLY own? Long. For Real. No Flipping? Your guess is as good as mine.
The most recent official audit I was able to find was released in 2003 and noted the following:
Excerpt from: http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?Sessio nID=rQRcI4St_vooX3Y&...
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
To the Audit Committee of Xechem International, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Xechem International, Inc. and Subsidiaries (a Development Stage Company) as of December 31, 2002 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the period ended December 31, 2002. The consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated financial statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall consolidated financial statements presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Xechem International, Inc. and Subsidiaries (a Development Stage Company) as of December 31, 2002 and the consolidated results of their operations and their consolidated cash flows for the period ended December 31, 2002 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company has incurred substantial losses and negative cash flows since inception through the period ended December 31, 2002, had a working capital deficiency, and have realized minimal revenues to date. The Company's historical losses and illiquid financial position raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.
WISS & COMPANY, LLP ?Livingston, New Jersey ?March 6, 2003
While that audit is a few years old, it essentially predicted XKEM's true future and present condition at this time. Leaving nothing said of the begging questions of XKEM, Margie Chassman and David Blech's relationship and Blech's shady past, there's definitely more to this story than I've uncovered and certainly much more that will never be told.
So why go through all the trouble and take such HUGE risks on an indebted company with a very questionable future? There's millions of reasons (literally). One speculative scenario: Get in at the beginning and loan a company money that you know can't pay you back (resulting in consistently debt-ridden quarterly public financial statements) in exchange for huge amounts of shares (often times valued at far lower than the current PPS) and SHORT, SHORT, SHORT, in which case after the inevitable reverse splits come (3000:1 in XKEM's case in May of '03) and an ever-increasing float bears down on shareholders, those who have put themselves in a short position stand to make nearly incalculable gains. Bear this in mind: XKEM's initial IPO was $5 a share and it went as high as $13. It's now doing everything it can to stay above .03.
Other companies who are currently involved with Chassman and Blech also have troubled outlooks:
--In mid-August of 2005 NVLT.OB (another Chassman/Blech involved company) was at $4.47 a share. Today, it's worth .98c.
--In mid-February of 2005 CEPO.OB (another Chassman/Blech involved company) was at $6.75 a share. Today, it's worth .20c.
