Replies to post #81309 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[johnsbus]

Good luck....seriously. I`m still long after several years. My upcoming trip for spring training will give me a glimps at the crime scene in Sarasota. Richard lives a few towns over from me outside of Boston and maybe i`ll drop in for a little chat. GLA

[Porgie Tirebiter]

"We are interested in buying Dutchess' stake in DNAPrint, and I think the plan, presented to me, is a good one.

Here is a question that must be addressed: If Dutchess Capitol is willing to sell their debt at a discount, then what does that say about their perceived value of DNAPrint?

It is important to avoid becoming simply a way for them to cut their loss, at your expense.

[dgplexus]

It is instructive to know some things about Dutchess, and its behavior, concerning DNAPrint Genomics.

Dutchess has engaged in deceitful, insidious, destructive practices, which violate nearly everyone's sense of fairness and decency. DNAPrint's original agreement with Dutchess called for them to raise $43M. They only raised about $8M, and the way they raised that was extremely destructive to shareholders and to the company.

Contrary to what they promised, they did not hold DNAPrint's stock (which they received through convertible debentures,) and raise cash seperately, to fulfill their end of the financing agreement -- no, that would be too simple and honest! Instead, they took the stock, and just dumped it, and dumped it, and dumped it, on the open market. This destroyed shareholder value, driving the stock inexorably down. Further, when people found out what was happening, they stopped buying shares, and the short sellers started having parties, naked shorting DNAG to the point that it appeared on the Regulation SHO (Naked Short) list, multiple times, for extended periods. Dutchess' behavior has driven DNAG down, so unbelievably low. If Dutchess had fulfilled its part of the bargain, and raised $43 million in a decent, honest, non-destructive way -- the way that a creditor would reasonably be expected to raise the money that is supposedly being loaned -- then DNAG would not have suffered such extreme downward movements in price, and would not be in a horrendous financing pinch, today. Another note about Dutchess: They worded contracts in a way that gives them the priority in collecting any debt, and also gives them ownership of essentially all of the company and its assets. I have yet to see a more predatory lender. Not even those "Payday" loan kind of places, seem to be this noxious. The sooner that Dutchess' stake in DNAPrint can be purchased, the better.

The above is merely my opinion, based upon facts as I have ascertained them. These statements do not necessarily represent the opinions of anyone but myself. (But I know that many people feel similarly, as I have read and heard many, many complaints along these lines.)

Daniel