- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SNDD - new tech syringe disposal
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:01 pm to boomtown143
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:01 pm to boomtown143
Dr. Drew getting that beak wet on piece of each device and stock
On July 19, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), RedHawk and its wholly-owned subsidiary, RedHawk Medical Products & Services, along with other affiliated entities, entered into a Consultant Agreement (“Agreement”) with Drew Pinsky, Inc (“DPI”) f/s/o Dr. Drew Pinsky (“Consultant”), for Consultant to be the exclusive spokesperson for the Company’s Sharps Needle and Destruction Device (“SANDD”) mini™, SANDD Pro™ and any related products and/or accessories (“Products”) for an initial period of two (2) years (“Initial Period”), under the terms and conditions described in the Agreement. At the end of the Initial Period, there shall be an automatic, immediately consecutive two (2) year extension period unless DPI, within 60 days of the expiration of the Initial Period, provides written notice of its intention not to extend the Agreement.
Under the Agreement, the Company will pay DPI a royalty equal to 3% of the “Net Sales”, as defined in the Agreement, of the Products but in no event will the royalty be less than $3.50 per SANDD mini™ unit sold and $13.50 per SANDD Pro™ unit sold.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company agreed to issue to the Consultant 68,700,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, which is equal to approximately 5% of the Company’s outstanding common stock on a fully diluted basis as of the Effective Date. Further, the Company has agreed to issue to the Consultant, one year after the Effective Date, an additional 68,700,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, unless DPI has provided the Company with written notice of its intention not to extend the Initial Period. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Company has not yet issued any of the shares pursuant to the Agreement.
On July 19, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), RedHawk and its wholly-owned subsidiary, RedHawk Medical Products & Services, along with other affiliated entities, entered into a Consultant Agreement (“Agreement”) with Drew Pinsky, Inc (“DPI”) f/s/o Dr. Drew Pinsky (“Consultant”), for Consultant to be the exclusive spokesperson for the Company’s Sharps Needle and Destruction Device (“SANDD”) mini™, SANDD Pro™ and any related products and/or accessories (“Products”) for an initial period of two (2) years (“Initial Period”), under the terms and conditions described in the Agreement. At the end of the Initial Period, there shall be an automatic, immediately consecutive two (2) year extension period unless DPI, within 60 days of the expiration of the Initial Period, provides written notice of its intention not to extend the Agreement.
Under the Agreement, the Company will pay DPI a royalty equal to 3% of the “Net Sales”, as defined in the Agreement, of the Products but in no event will the royalty be less than $3.50 per SANDD mini™ unit sold and $13.50 per SANDD Pro™ unit sold.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company agreed to issue to the Consultant 68,700,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, which is equal to approximately 5% of the Company’s outstanding common stock on a fully diluted basis as of the Effective Date. Further, the Company has agreed to issue to the Consultant, one year after the Effective Date, an additional 68,700,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, unless DPI has provided the Company with written notice of its intention not to extend the Initial Period. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Company has not yet issued any of the shares pursuant to the Agreement.
0
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:01 pm to misterc
I think I'll buy another 30k tomorrow.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:02 pm to TorchtheFlyingTiger
Looks like the CEO and CFO got in a legal dispute over money
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:03 pm to TorchtheFlyingTiger
Lawsuit between ceo and cfo when ceo bailed
this is a simplified version, still a long wall of text
On January 31, 2017, the Company and Beechwood Properties, LLC (“Beechwood”) filed suit against Daniel J. Schreiber (“Mr. Schreiber”) and the Daniel J. Schreiber Living Trust – Dtd 2/08/95 (“Schreiber Trust”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Louisiana Court”) under Civil Action No. 2:2017cv819-B(3) (the “Louisiana Lawsuit”).
Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust answered the Louisiana Lawsuit and counter-claimed against the Company and Beechwood and made additional claims against Mr. G. Darcy Klug (“Mr. Klug”) in the Louisiana Lawsuit. Mr. Klug is an officer and director of RedHawk and is sole owner of Beechwood. Mr. Klug also holds voting control of RedHawk.
On April 24, 2017, Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust also filed suit against the Company, Mr. Klug and six (6) other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00824-WQH-BLM which case was dismissed without prejudice on September 26, 2017 (the “California Lawsuit” and along with the Louisiana Lawsuit, the “Litigations”).
On March 22, 2019, the parties to the Litigations have entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Settlement Agreement”) to resolve all issues arising out of the subject matter of the Litigation.
F-18
In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement, the parties to the Litigation agreed that (i) Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust would transfer all Company stock they then owned (52,377,108 common shares) to the Company and (ii) the Company would (a) make to Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust a cash payment of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars (US$250,000.00) and (b) issue two Promissory Notes, each in the principal amount of Two Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars (US$200,000.00), one of which was due and payable on or before September 6, 2020 (“Note 1”) and the other was due and payable on or before September 5, 2021 (“Note 2”). As a result of this Settlement Agreement, we recorded a loss of $471,880 in the year ended June 30, 2019.
F-19
Each Promissory Note was non-interest bearing, however each (i) included a $15,000 late penalty if the principal amount was not repaid by the due date and (ii) would bear interest at a rate of 18% per annum, from the issue date, if the principal was not repaid by the 30th date after the due date.
Pursuant to a Security Agreement between the parties, Mr. Klug and Beechwood secured the Company’s obligations to the Schreiber Trust under the Settlement Agreement by granting first-priority security interests in (i) 1,000 shares of Mr. Klug’s Series B Preferred Company Stock; and 1,473 shares of Mr. Klug’s Series A Preferred Company Stock, and (ii) Beechwood’s interest in the Tower Hotels Fund 2014, LLC (collectively “the Escrow Account”). Subsequent to June 30, 2020, Mr. Klug and Beechwood converted the 1,000 shares of Series B Preferred Company Stock and the 1,473 shares of Series A Preferred Company Stock into 124,849,365 and 122,730,903, respectively, of the Company’s Common Stock (collectively “the Escrow Shares”) and replaced the 1,000 shares of Series B Preferred Company Stock and 1,473 shares of Series A Preferred Company Stock held in the Escrow Account with the Escrow Shares as security pursuant to the Security Agreement.
On October 11, 2019, Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement with the Louisiana Court alleging the Company has failed to comply with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement by selling stock for cash subsequent to the parties entering into the Settlement Agreement. The Motion to Enforce sought to accelerate the amounts owed to Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust under the Settlement Agreement, as well as attorneys’ fees.
On March 3, 2020 the Louisiana Court issued a ruling and order denying the Motion to Enforce on its principle claim but granting it on alternative grounds. The Company promptly filed a Notice of Appeal, on March 6, 2020.
On March 20, 2020 Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust filed a Motion for Entry of Money Judgment in the Louisiana Court. On April 22, 2020, the Company filed an Opposition, arguing the Louisiana Court did not have jurisdiction to enter the requested judgment, and even if it did it should not do so. The district court is yet to rule on this motion.
On April 29, 2020, the Company filed its Original Brief as Appellant with the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”). It argued that the Louisiana Court’s ruling and order should be reversed and that the appeals court has either mandatory or discretionary jurisdiction to resolve the appeal, and if the latter should exercise that discretion to do so.
On May 27, 2020, Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust filed their Original Brief as Appellees, arguing that the Louisiana Court’s ruling should be sustained, and that the appeals court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal at this time.
On June 17, 2020, the Company filed its Reply Brief in support of its appeal.
On July 16, 2020, the Louisiana Court granted the Defendant’s Motion ordering the Company to pay to the Defendants $519,495.78 (“Judgment”) representing (i) the principal amount due on Note 1 ($200,000.00); (ii) the principal amount due on Note 2 ($200,000.00); (iii) 18% simple interest on certain outstanding debt charged back to the date of the Settlement Agreement; (iv) $40,000.00 of attorneys’ fees (10% of the amounts due, which to date remains greater than the amount of actual reasonable fees); and (v) interest from the date of the Louisiana Court’s judgment and costs. The Company has appealed the Louisiana Court’s ruling to the Court of Appeal and intends to vigorously defend against the ruling.
As previously disclosed, payment of the principal amount of Note 1 was tendered by the Company to the Defendants on August 13, 2020. Notwithstanding the appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Company tendered the early repayment of the principal amount of Note 2 to the Defendants on August 24, 2020. To date, $119,495.78 of the Judgment remains outstanding (“Remaining Unsatisfied Judgment”).
On September 4, 2020, the Company filed a Consent Motion to Approve Supersedeas Bond and Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal (“Motion to Approve”). On September 8, 2020 the Louisiana Court granted the Company’s Motion to Approve and the posting of a supersedeas bond by the Company in the whole amount of $143,491.26 representing (i) the Remaining Unsatisfied Judgment; plus (ii) Federal Post-Judgment Interest of $80.27; plus, (iii) 20% of the combined amount ($23,915.21).
On November 12, 2020, the Court of Appeals ruled “The district court abused its discretion by granting Schreiber’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement based solely on arguments and evidence presented for the first time in Schreiber’s reply brief without allowing RedHawk to file a surreply. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand to the district court…….After rejecting the argument Schreiber made in his opening brief on the motion, the district court based its decision granting his motion exclusively on the arguments and evidence presented for the first time in his reply brief. It never gave RedHawk a full opportunity to counter Schreiber’s new arguments and then faulted RedHawk for its failure to do so.” The matter will now be remanded back to the Louisiana Court and the Judgment vacated after expiration of statutory delays.
this is a simplified version, still a long wall of text
On January 31, 2017, the Company and Beechwood Properties, LLC (“Beechwood”) filed suit against Daniel J. Schreiber (“Mr. Schreiber”) and the Daniel J. Schreiber Living Trust – Dtd 2/08/95 (“Schreiber Trust”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Louisiana Court”) under Civil Action No. 2:2017cv819-B(3) (the “Louisiana Lawsuit”).
Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust answered the Louisiana Lawsuit and counter-claimed against the Company and Beechwood and made additional claims against Mr. G. Darcy Klug (“Mr. Klug”) in the Louisiana Lawsuit. Mr. Klug is an officer and director of RedHawk and is sole owner of Beechwood. Mr. Klug also holds voting control of RedHawk.
On April 24, 2017, Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust also filed suit against the Company, Mr. Klug and six (6) other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00824-WQH-BLM which case was dismissed without prejudice on September 26, 2017 (the “California Lawsuit” and along with the Louisiana Lawsuit, the “Litigations”).
On March 22, 2019, the parties to the Litigations have entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Settlement Agreement”) to resolve all issues arising out of the subject matter of the Litigation.
F-18
In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement, the parties to the Litigation agreed that (i) Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust would transfer all Company stock they then owned (52,377,108 common shares) to the Company and (ii) the Company would (a) make to Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust a cash payment of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars (US$250,000.00) and (b) issue two Promissory Notes, each in the principal amount of Two Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars (US$200,000.00), one of which was due and payable on or before September 6, 2020 (“Note 1”) and the other was due and payable on or before September 5, 2021 (“Note 2”). As a result of this Settlement Agreement, we recorded a loss of $471,880 in the year ended June 30, 2019.
F-19
Each Promissory Note was non-interest bearing, however each (i) included a $15,000 late penalty if the principal amount was not repaid by the due date and (ii) would bear interest at a rate of 18% per annum, from the issue date, if the principal was not repaid by the 30th date after the due date.
Pursuant to a Security Agreement between the parties, Mr. Klug and Beechwood secured the Company’s obligations to the Schreiber Trust under the Settlement Agreement by granting first-priority security interests in (i) 1,000 shares of Mr. Klug’s Series B Preferred Company Stock; and 1,473 shares of Mr. Klug’s Series A Preferred Company Stock, and (ii) Beechwood’s interest in the Tower Hotels Fund 2014, LLC (collectively “the Escrow Account”). Subsequent to June 30, 2020, Mr. Klug and Beechwood converted the 1,000 shares of Series B Preferred Company Stock and the 1,473 shares of Series A Preferred Company Stock into 124,849,365 and 122,730,903, respectively, of the Company’s Common Stock (collectively “the Escrow Shares”) and replaced the 1,000 shares of Series B Preferred Company Stock and 1,473 shares of Series A Preferred Company Stock held in the Escrow Account with the Escrow Shares as security pursuant to the Security Agreement.
On October 11, 2019, Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement with the Louisiana Court alleging the Company has failed to comply with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement by selling stock for cash subsequent to the parties entering into the Settlement Agreement. The Motion to Enforce sought to accelerate the amounts owed to Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust under the Settlement Agreement, as well as attorneys’ fees.
On March 3, 2020 the Louisiana Court issued a ruling and order denying the Motion to Enforce on its principle claim but granting it on alternative grounds. The Company promptly filed a Notice of Appeal, on March 6, 2020.
On March 20, 2020 Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust filed a Motion for Entry of Money Judgment in the Louisiana Court. On April 22, 2020, the Company filed an Opposition, arguing the Louisiana Court did not have jurisdiction to enter the requested judgment, and even if it did it should not do so. The district court is yet to rule on this motion.
On April 29, 2020, the Company filed its Original Brief as Appellant with the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”). It argued that the Louisiana Court’s ruling and order should be reversed and that the appeals court has either mandatory or discretionary jurisdiction to resolve the appeal, and if the latter should exercise that discretion to do so.
On May 27, 2020, Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust filed their Original Brief as Appellees, arguing that the Louisiana Court’s ruling should be sustained, and that the appeals court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal at this time.
On June 17, 2020, the Company filed its Reply Brief in support of its appeal.
On July 16, 2020, the Louisiana Court granted the Defendant’s Motion ordering the Company to pay to the Defendants $519,495.78 (“Judgment”) representing (i) the principal amount due on Note 1 ($200,000.00); (ii) the principal amount due on Note 2 ($200,000.00); (iii) 18% simple interest on certain outstanding debt charged back to the date of the Settlement Agreement; (iv) $40,000.00 of attorneys’ fees (10% of the amounts due, which to date remains greater than the amount of actual reasonable fees); and (v) interest from the date of the Louisiana Court’s judgment and costs. The Company has appealed the Louisiana Court’s ruling to the Court of Appeal and intends to vigorously defend against the ruling.
As previously disclosed, payment of the principal amount of Note 1 was tendered by the Company to the Defendants on August 13, 2020. Notwithstanding the appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Company tendered the early repayment of the principal amount of Note 2 to the Defendants on August 24, 2020. To date, $119,495.78 of the Judgment remains outstanding (“Remaining Unsatisfied Judgment”).
On September 4, 2020, the Company filed a Consent Motion to Approve Supersedeas Bond and Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal (“Motion to Approve”). On September 8, 2020 the Louisiana Court granted the Company’s Motion to Approve and the posting of a supersedeas bond by the Company in the whole amount of $143,491.26 representing (i) the Remaining Unsatisfied Judgment; plus (ii) Federal Post-Judgment Interest of $80.27; plus, (iii) 20% of the combined amount ($23,915.21).
On November 12, 2020, the Court of Appeals ruled “The district court abused its discretion by granting Schreiber’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement based solely on arguments and evidence presented for the first time in Schreiber’s reply brief without allowing RedHawk to file a surreply. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand to the district court…….After rejecting the argument Schreiber made in his opening brief on the motion, the district court based its decision granting his motion exclusively on the arguments and evidence presented for the first time in his reply brief. It never gave RedHawk a full opportunity to counter Schreiber’s new arguments and then faulted RedHawk for its failure to do so.” The matter will now be remanded back to the Louisiana Court and the Judgment vacated after expiration of statutory delays.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:04 pm to SkinnyTestaverde
Dr Drew got 68million shares
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:07 pm to Fox McCloud
you have to periodically pay a company to dispose of the sharps containers that are full. its potentially a cost saving item.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:13 pm to Fox McCloud
quote:
Couldn’t agree more. I’m not personally investing. Funny to see the tigerdroppings pump though.
That can happen to a penny stock with very low volume.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:25 pm to Auburn1968
My buddy said they pay a ton at his hospital for medical wastes.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:26 pm to SkinnyTestaverde
quote:What equivalent product would you say is similar to this...and have you been seeing DMEPOS providers getting new revenue lines lately. Hell, competitive bidding put about all of em out of business. I just dont see them throwing em a lifeline with a product that doesnt offer the patient any benefit. It would be like them approving trash services to throw away disposable briefs.
If this gets approved by Medicare and Medicaid we are all millionaires lmao.
And they approve much dumber shite for way more money
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:30 pm to tenderfoot tigah
quote:This is very true. And there is also the biomedical research fields that deal will needles all the time.
pay a ton at his hospital for medical wastes
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:31 pm to tenderfoot tigah
quote:Sure they do, and a fraction of that is sharps. And of those sharps 27-30 gauge needles 1/2 inch long make up a small percentage of those.
My buddy said they pay a ton at his hospital for medical wastes.
Medical waste waste streams encompass a whole lot more than needles.
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:31 pm to TheLSUriot
in for 100K shares at $0.008 .... thanks to don05 for the recommendation 
Posted on 2/9/21 at 5:16 pm to cadillacattack
This went a lot quicker than I expected 
I was really just bringing it for us to do research. Ha
I was really just bringing it for us to do research. Ha
Posted on 2/9/21 at 5:20 pm to donRANDOMnumbers
More of a novelty buy for me it’s always funny to buy thousands of shares for next to nothing
Posted on 2/9/21 at 6:03 pm to tenderfoot tigah
I am in medical accounting and purchasing. Without knowing about the product specifically, this seems like a safety product. I would imagine that sharps, even in a ground-down state would still require disposal by a vendor. As a hygiene and safety issue, I’m thinking that someone (stericycle) would still have to dispose of the remaining syringe and needle stub. I don’t know that for sure, but these needles are often grouped together for destruction regardless of origin (oncology, chemotherapy, vaccination, etc), some still highly dangerous due to what is potentially inside the syringe. There is a probable protocol that could potentially be adjusted for a product like this, but my money would still be on an involved 3rd party for disposal, which would make this more of a safety product, instead of a disposal product. Still interesting. Might throw some money at it in the am. Just my .02.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 7:20 pm to Shamoan
I contacted the company but the website says it incenerates it.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 7:29 pm to tenderfoot tigah
As in the syringe as part of this system or through a 3rd party? I haven’t investigated, but cytotoxic drugs being incinerated on-site could lead to serious problems.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 7:39 pm to SkinnyTestaverde
quote:
Dr Drew got 68million shares
The sole reason I invested is Dr Drew because he would never steer us wrong.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:36 pm to ihometiger
I keep hearing this far off voice echoing “irrational exuberance”
Weird but I can usually just drown him out by yelling “YOLO!!! Check these gainz!”
Also, I bought in this afternoon and am currently up 33%
Weird but I can usually just drown him out by yelling “YOLO!!! Check these gainz!”
Also, I bought in this afternoon and am currently up 33%
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:44 pm to Lightning
Do we "like this stock"
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News