So what it sounds like you're saying is that the company could file for bankruptcy, get rid of their debt and then re-issue shares. OK, I can see why you could think that would be possible except for a few things:
1) they're not being sued for cash, they're being sued for shares (though the companies suing appear to be trying to get some cash compensation as well, but I doubt they'll get it because I think the shares they receive will cure any potential damages and make them whole)
2) To my knowledge, money awarded as a result of a judgment can't be discharged in bankruptcy, and other than any cash awards that may be given to the companies suing, ACT doesn't have any substantial debt. It's tough to file bankruptcy if you have no debt.
3) A company can't just decide to zero out their common stock one day on a whim. If they did that, Lanza, Rabin, Socius, Caldwell's estate shares and all of the warrantholders' shares would be worth zero. The only people's shares who could possibly retain any value would be the preferred shareholders. Further, I believe in the case of a bankruptcy, one of their creditors has claims on ACT's patents and technology, so ACT would lose their patents and technology in that instance. I just don't see that being a feasible possibility.
SIRI was in a situation similar to the one you describe, and they actually DID have a ton of debt and had every reason and ability to file for BK, but they didn't. I owned shares I had bought from .60 down to .12, and sold them all at .20 because I thought what you described is exactly what they were going to do, but they didn't and after dropping to .05 and issuing a ton of shares and giving away a lot of the company, the stock eventually went back to almost $2.50. Like ACTC, SIRI insiders and key personnel such as Mel Karmazin and Howard Stern owned a lot of shares and options. While the situation ACT finds themselves in obviously isn't ideal, it's not even as bad as the one SIRI was in.
Now, in regard to farview, I think I stated pretty clearly why I'm questioning his motives at this point. He is resorting to what I consider to be basher-like tactics. He's questioning the credibility of the most knowledgeable poster we have here and trying to cast doubt on him by stating he believes he's affiliated with the company after he's clearly stated numerous times that he's not. He's calling him into question because he failed to post on IV for 3+ days when there was nothing new to report and intimating that he vanished and that his silence potentially indicated that there may be something wrong, but when called on it acknowledged that he knows he didn't "disappear", that he's been posting on a different forum. That's intentionally misleading across the board on his part and he knows it.
Secondly, after being corrected numerous times, he continued to post that ALPHA as suing ACT for 380,000,000 shares when in reality, this was the # of shares mentioned as the TOTAL potential liability for ALL potential lawsuits if EVERYONE who could possibly sue them did so (the actual number is actually 428,000.000 in total plus the other lawsuit going on in federal court). Again, IMO, it's intentionally misleading on his part IMO.
Lastly, he keeps saying that he doesn't think that the dilution is priced in which is fine if that's his opinion, but I had to ask numerous times why, in his opinion, the share price had declined so dramatically w/ no other bad news other than the lawsuits and the potential dilution being announced, and rather than giving a straight answer, he has repeatedly said that I'm "beating a dead horse" because I've asked him to support his opinion. And now, out of the blue, he seems to be questioning whether or not the science works or not despite the fact there is zero indication that there has been anything other than positive results. I have no problem with people who have differing opinions than I do, but I do have a problem with people who appear to be saying anything and everything they can think of to cast doubt and fear-monger. To me, this appears to be what both of you are doing, despite your past posts when you were positive. At that time, you both had a full load of shares and had every reason to want the price to go higher, but now that you've sold some of your shares, you have every reason to ant to price to drop so you can buy the shares you want back substantially lower. I can honestly say I really hope this backfires on both of you and you never get the opportunity to buy your shares back cheaper, but my strategy was to not totally load the boat in the first place, but save enough to continue to buy as the share price drops, and that's what I've have an will continue to do. Further, no one should be investing money they can't afford to lose in a biotech penny-stock.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
