Replies to post #21804 on Ocata Therapeutics Inc fka OCAT

[rocky301]

Penny,

The "court cases" currently active and relevant to this topic are the Aronson Case and the Bristol Case. The Bristol Case would apply to your logic concerning the "Amended and Restated" agreement created to keep us out of default proceedings but the Aronson Case(the big one)does not apply as they were not part of the agreements being renegotiated.

So, with regards to Bristol Case, yes, the Company is defending their position for exactly the reasons you stated.(see at bottom of post)

The debt holders had every opportunity to sell virtually all of ACTC's assets under the default. They chose not to. Why? As I stated before I don't believe they could have recouped what was owed to them selling off assets. Instead, they chose the following.
1)The outstanding principal for all holders was INCREASED by 35%
2)conversion for debentures reduced to .10
3)exercise of warrants reduced to .10
4)Debenture due date 12/31/2010(debentures to be paid off)
5)12% interest rate per year added to principal amount due on maturity date.
6)6.25% of principal amount goes out the door monthly in shares(monthly redemption)

I can only speak for myself but If I was one of these debt holders the deal they cut would have made me very comfortable. Not only can I make a good profit off the debenture shares but I am protected for 4 years with 10 cent warrants if the pps goes ballistic...PLUS, if holders smell rat again they have the right to muster up 67% and demand payment from ACTC. IMO, they covered themselves quite well and rightfully so. ACTC defaulted on contracts and promised to keep shares in reserve to complete their obligations to these holders. ACTC did not so I don't blame them for the stipulations whatsoever. I don't believe a hostile takeover exists in any form.

Why would the Bondholders agree for the Noose around ACT's neck be removed at the end of 2010?

Because this "group of debentures" matures year end of 2010(ACTC pays it off with cash or shares) Then we can deal with the new group..:) If I didn't hit on your questions, please let me know..


Bristol Investment Fund, Ltd. and Bristol Capital, LLC v. Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. and Mytogen, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York): On March 9, 2009, plaintiffs filed a complaint and summons in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against the Company and its subsidiary Mytogen, Inc. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company has breached the terms of certain contracts with plaintiffs; namely, convertible debentures and a consulting agreement. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief directing the Company to deliver to plaintiff Bristol Investment Fund, Ltd. (“Bristol”) 2.5 million shares of its common stock, declaring a conversion price of $0.02 for the convertible debentures held by plaintiffs, and directing the Company to honor plaintiff’s future conversion requests. Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but alleged in the complaint to exceed $1.5 million. On May 1, 2009, the Company filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint. On May 13, 2009, the Company filed a motion to stay the action and to compel arbitration of all claims by Bristol. The court has not yet ruled on the Company’s motion to stay the action and to compel arbitration. On or about September 16, 2009, plaintiffs filed an order to show cause, seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction directing the Company to deliver to Bristol 2.5 shares of its common stock pursuant to a convertible debenture and 47.4 million shares of its common stock pursuant to common stock purchase warrants, declaring a conversion price of $0.02 for the convertible debenture held by plaintiffs, and enjoining or restraining the Company from issuing shares of its common stock to any entity other than plaintiffs or the other holders of convertible debentures. On September 25, 2009, the Company submitted its response in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion and moved by cross-motion for dismissal of the complaint, based on the terms of the consent, waiver, amendment and exchange agreement entered into between the Company and the holders of over 95% of the outstanding principal amount of the Amended and Restated Debentures. The court has not yet ruled on the respective motions. The Company intends to continue to contest the case vigorously.