Omar8
1 month ago
Spikul,
"How many total shares do we together own without the person who is trying to take control?"
when I went looking on total shares I seen a couple sites saying around 162 million....but this below said something about a limit of 200 million shares but that is from 2013. You can thank Bret for not keeping things up to date on share count so who knows what exact the total is.
"Financial Matters
As of 1 April 2013, the company has 122,679,679 shares outstanding of an authorized limit of 200,000,000 shares. Our current monthly operations costs are approximately $42,000. That amount includes the costs of NanoLogix-funded studies, other tests of our products by third parties, and new patent applications. NanoLogix is funded by a combination of revenue from increasing sales, loans to the company by its CEO, and a limited number of private placement stock sales, with investors providing funding in exchange for common stock restricted from market sale for one year from date of issuance. The company does not sell shares on the open market. The Company has received a number of inquiries regarding share compensation to Directors and sales of those shares. All Directors are compensated for their contribution to the Company by payment in restricted shares. The Directors are closely involved with the business of the Company, communicate with the CEO on a daily or near-daily basis, and participate in board of director meetings regularly. All Directors have been personally involved in assisting financially with the needs of the Company, both through personal direct investment and also through facilitation of private placement investment from friends, family, colleagues, and associates who approached the Directors. The Directors have been responsible in this way for the overwhelming majority of funds raised to run the company over the past five years, amounting to roughly 92% of funds raised. To date, none of the shares paid to the Directors, including the CEO, have been sold. All of the share certificates issued to the members of the Board of Directors are still classed as restricted shares and can only be sold under strict SEC Rule 144 guidelines. In summation, there has been no realized monetary gain from the shares received as compensation by the Board of Directors *** the shares cannot be used as collateral for loans, nor can they be classed as a liquid asset. The Board of Directors is independent, with the directors employed individually in professions completely unrelated to the business of NanoLogix. Their work as Directors of the Company has been based upon what they believe to be the potential of the Company, not for any immediate capital gain.
spikul
1 month ago
Sorry, been off for a while. Had a bit of hospital myself. Doing OK now. Please forgive my need to ask these questions. Tried to open the PDF's, but can't.
What role does Tom Fagan play?
Who is trying to take over the company?
How many shares does he own?
Who is Matthew Lippert?
How many total shares do we together own without the person who is trying to take control?
The house with the stone is the right one. Last time I spoke with Bret he called me while he was up on scaffolding tuck pointing the rock.
All of this is so sad for everyone. Except for the patents, Bret has lost everything he had in life He was a very wealth man and had accomplished much in Europe before coming back to the US and before nnlx. He really believed in the technology and sank everything he had into it.
I was wondered if he had a health issue. It sounds like he almost died. Thanks for the info. I haven't stopped praying, because I believe in the patents as well. The case only started in May.
I don't wish ill for anyone. We can't change the past, only the future. Being angry leads to bitterness which gradually leads to cancer and death. He believed in the company and so did all of us. Forgiveness is a better path. Just remember that it is darkest before the dawn and it can't get much darker. Just keep praying.
Becky Home Ecky
Omar8
2 months ago
Muggo,
"I need some guidance. I find myself in a position where I would like to take some significant tax losses this year for tax reasons. Nanologix is an obvious choice. Given it is now in the Ant/court/whatever limbo, is it possible to declare a loss? If so, what would be the steps? Or do I need to just hang onto my shares until if’s officially over? Any chance of last happening before year’s end?"
You have to decide what is best for you. I'm going wait and see what happens with ANT, if he does start a new company and he has the money to get something rolling I think we could see something worthwhile in PPS in the new company right from the start. It's just turning August, I'm going wait and see what happens in the next few months but it's your choice if you want to bail now. It's interesting how resistant they are with the Patents maybe that is a sign they are worth something maybe more than a Mr.Socko Patent after all ?
Omar8
2 months ago
Who thinks the Patents belong to the company ?
Recently Ant posted this......"There are acceptions to the typical rule such as who paid for the materials, patent fees, if other employees involved, etc. In this case from what I understand the company paid for the materials, patent fees, there were other employees involved, it was developed in the company facility, etc. Further there are multiple PR's released by the company that state "we (the company) are filing a patent" , the company was granted the patent", etc etc etc. If thats not enough, the 2 guys who are claiming ownership of the patent either sat back (Faro) and let the other (BB) destroy the company and then abandoned it. In my opinion and of attorney's I've consulted with there is no way that this court or a Delaware court will not conclude that the patents are the property of the company."
Who thinks Faro and BB did all the work on their own and the company had no involvement ? Didn't we have releases for years saying things that sounded like Nanologix owned the Patents ? Did we ever see either BB or Faro straight out say they did it all without anything from the company ? If they did it all on their own then why didn't they just start their own company with "their" tech ? They should be ashamed of themselves. Other than DP I don't think anyone here will defend them.
Omar8
2 months ago
DP,
So I guess you think the patents belong to Faro and BB, and all those releases they put out for years say for certain Faro and BB are the owners of the patents and not the company ? I think you should request from Ant that when he starts that new company to not participate since that would be saying you are blaming someone else.
From Ant's post...
"There are acceptions to the typical rule such as who paid for the materials, patent fees, if other employees involved, etc. In this case from what I understand the company paid for the materials, patent fees, there were other employees involved, it was developed in the company facility, etc. "Further there are multiple PR's released by the company that state "we (the company) are filing a patent" , the company was granted the patent", etc etc etc. If thats not enough, the 2 guys who are claiming ownership of the patent either sat back (Faro) and let the other (BB) destroy the company and then abandoned it"
Omar8
2 months ago
ANt4,
"There are acceptions to the typical rule such as who paid for the materials, patent fees, if other employees involved, etc. In this case from what I understand the company paid for the materials, patent fees, there were other employees involved, it was developed in the company facility, etc. "Further there are multiple PR's released by the company that state "we (the company) are filing a patent" , the company was granted the patent", etc etc etc. If thats not enough, the 2 guys who are claiming ownership of the patent either sat back (Faro) and let the other (BB) destroy the company and then abandoned it"
Even with this below it says development work performed in the Nanologix Laboratory in Hubbard, ohio. It's a slap in the face to the shareholders ! I thought CEO and directors of a company would be looking out for the best interest of the shareholders not themselves.
NanoLogix Develops Sub 1-Hour Coronavirus 19 Detection Technology and Welcomes James Rogers, PhD as Chief Science Officer
by NanoLogix | May 3, 2020
Last week NanoLogix completed development testing of a unique Coronavirus (COVID-19) detection technology with sub 1-hour results and exceptional sensitivity and accuracy. The technology has the potential to be configured as a Point of Care (POC) and also for individual consumer use. The development work was performed in the NanoLogix Laboratory in Hubbard, Ohio. More information on the technology will be released in the near future.
jshdn
2 months ago
Ant, I think this question has been asked in one form or another, but I don't know that I've seen your thoughts on it.
Do you hope that you can make these patents valuable somehow?
Or, quite different, do you actually have some specific knowledge that these patents/the NNLX tests - work, can make money, will prove to be an improvement on today's Covid tests, etc.? (BTW are covid tests really a big deal anymore? Is a slight improvement over a previous test a big difference?)
Anyhow - I'm just asking if this is your hope, or you have some specific knowledge that these tests work and can be sold. Thanks.
Omar8
2 months ago
Ant4,
From 2019... sounds like the N-assay is own by Nanologix
NIH Grant Application Submitted for
Pre-test Development Study
NanoLogix is pleased to provide this update to our August 2018 statement of coordinated development activity with a California-based Biotechnology firm. The planning for a research study for development of a rapid pre-test for use with the patented Nanologix N-Assay bacteria diagnostic is proceeding, with staff selections completed, letters of recomendation from noted medical authorites written, and the submission last week of the grant application for the study to the NIH by our Silicon-Valley partner. The research study is planned for two major Houston hospitals, funded from both Federal Grants and a raise of investment capital.
The personnel agreeing to participate in the study are seven MDs, two research nurses, two microbiologists, at least two laboratory technicians, and the CEO of the California Biotechnology company. NanoLogix personnel and the CEO of the Biotechnology company have signed a mutual non-disclosure agreement limiting what can presently be revealed but once funding has been obtained and the study registered with the FDA and initiated, the identity of the pre-test development company should be available as public knowledge.
The purpose of the pre-test use with the N-Assay is to have a pre-test that will indicate the presence of a specific bacteria with minutes, for which the N-Assay can then be used to rapidly determine both the concentration of the bacteria and its sensitivity to various antibiotics, furnishing Point of Care (POC) personnel the ability to effectively treat the patient with the specific antibiotic required. This development will significantly reduce reliance upon broad-spectrum antibiotics, which contribute to the major worldwide problem of the development of antibiotic-resistance for many bacteria.
The current focus of this NIH grant application is on Group B Streptoccus (GBS). We are currently discussng Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) diagnostic test development with other companies and plan to proceed concurrently with studies for that development.
NanoLogix has also agreed to fund an existing laboratory in Houston currently in use as a clinical laboratory for the medical group associated with Dr Jonathan Faro. This lab will be crucial to the testing of patient samples during the upcoming study.
Although our partner has a very successful record of receiving grants for development, neither NanoLogix nor our partner in the GBS pretest development can guarantee that the NIH grant will be awarded for this project. With that in mind, nanoLogix is continuing to pursue alternative funding for both the GBS and UTI pretest development, including international sale or licensing of the FlatPack extended-life petri plate packaging technology.
Further updates will occur as warranted.
Omar8
2 months ago
Ant4,
Here is another release in 2014....sounded like N-Assay is the company.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140519006833/en/NanoLogix-Welcomes-VP-for-Sales-and-Marketing
"Jonathan Faro, MD., of Woman’s Hospital of Texas in Houston, Is presenting a poster titled “Simultaneous Identification of Select Microbial Pathogens and Determination of Antimicrobial Resistance by a Unique Assay” in poster session 210, at display position 2564 in the Poster Hall of the ASM exhibition on 20 May. The technology referenced in the poster is NanoLogix’s patent-pending “N-Assay” Multiwell Microplate, a unique ELISA assay that ongoing research to date has shown enables detection and identification of bacteria and yeasts rapidly and with greater sensitivity than any other diagnostic currently available."
Ant4
2 months ago
Yman.
There are acceptions to the typical rule such as who paid for the materials, patent fees, if other employees involved, etc. In this case from what I understand the company paid for the materials, patent fees, there were other employees involved, it was developed in the company facility, etc. Further there are multiple PR's released by the company that state "we (the company) are filing a patent" , the company was granted the patent", etc etc etc. If thats not enough, the 2 guys who are claiming ownership of the patent either sat back (Faro) and let the other (BB) destroy the company and then abandoned it. In my opinion and of attorney's I've consulted with there is no way that this court or a Delaware court will not conclude that the patents are the property of the company.
The risk they are taking is I would assume the shareholders would be willing to negotiate an agreement prior to the court's determination which would provide them compensation and possibly retaining certain rights to the IP, however if its determined the company owns the IP they will receive nothing. I can assure you I am spending considerable time and money on this litigation and am in it to win it.
Trade smarter, not harder: Unleash your inner pro with our toolkit and live discussions.
Hot Features
Premium
