In March 2012, the Company issued a series of convertible promissory notes (“Notes 5-9”) totaling $186,000 to four individuals. Notes 5-9 bear interest at the rate of 33% per annum and are due in August and September 2012. Notes 5-9 and accrued interest thereon are convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically convert on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded discounts of $186,000 to reflect the beneficial conversion features. The discounts are being amortized over the terms of Notes 5-9. At June 30, 2012, the Note 5-9 balances were $118,563, net of debt discounts of $67,437.

In April 2012 through June 30, 2012, the Company issued a series of convertible promissory notes (“Notes 10-18”) totaling $220,000 to nine individuals. Notes 10-18 bear interest at the rate of 33% per annum and are due in October through November 2012. Notes 10-18 and accrued interest thereon are convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically convert on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded discounts of $215,900 to reflect the beneficial conversion features. The discounts are being amortized over the terms of Notes 10-18. At June 30, 2012, the Note 10-18 balances were $67,096, net of debt discounts of $148,804.

In April 2012, the Company issued a convertible promissory notes (“Note 19”) totaling $25,000 to an individual for services previous rendered. Note 19 bears interest at the rate of 33% per annum and is due in October 2012. Note 13 and accrued interest thereon is convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converts on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company.

In July 2012, the Company issued a series of convertible promissory notes (“Notes 20-22”) totaling $75,000 to two individuals. Notes 20-22 bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum and are due in January 2013. Notes 20-22 and accrued interest thereon are convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.10 per share and automatically convert on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company.

NOTE 6 - LOANS PAYABLE

Loan Payable:

In February 2011, an investor advanced the Company $10,000. The loan does not bear interest and is due on demand. At June 30, 2012, the loan balance is $10,000.

Loan Payable - Related Party:

In October 2011, Craig Eagle, a director of the Company, advanced the Company $35,000. The loan does not bear interest and is due on demand. At June 30, 2012, the loan balance was $35,000.

In February 2012, John Weber, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, advanced the Company $13,000 and another $10,000 in April 2012. The loan does not bear interest and is due on demand. At June 30, 2012, the loan balance is $23,000.

NOTE 7 - STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Preferred Stock:

Series A

Series A Preferred pays a dividend of 8% per annum on the stated value and have a liquidation preference equal to the stated value of the shares. Each share of Preferred Stock has an initial stated value of $1 and was convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at the rate of 10 for 1. Series A Preferred contains a full ratchet anti-dilution feature on the shares of common stock underlying the Series A Preferred for three years on any stock issued below $0.10 per share with the exception of shares issued in a merger or acquisition. As the Company issued common stock at $0.05 per share for the conversion of debt, the conversion rate for the Series A Preferred is now 20 to 1.

In June 2011, the Company issued 1,330,000 shares of Series A Preferred and 665,000 Warrants in a private placement, The Company has accounted for the value of the Warrants in accordance with ASC Topic 470, whereby the Company separately measured the fair value of the Series A Preferred and the Warrant and allocated the total proceeds in accordance with their relative fair value at the time of issuance. The Company valued the warrant at $50,078 and such value of the Warrants was recorded as a deemed dividend.

In addition, in accordance with the provisions of ASC Topic 470, the Company allocated a portion of the proceeds received to the beneficial conversion feature, based on the difference between the effective conversion price of the proceeds allocated to the Series A Preferred and the fair value of the underlying common stock on the date the convertible preferred stock was issued. The discount resulting from the beneficial conversion feature was recorded as a deemed dividend in the amount of $1,279,922.

The dividends are cumulative commencing on the issue date whether or not declared. Dividends amounted to $81,013 and $26,826 for the nine and three months ended June 30, 2012, respectively. Dividends amounted to $2,444 for both the nine and three months ended June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2011, dividends payable total $107,123 and $26,110, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses.

For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2012, dividends and deemed dividends totaled $81,013 and $26,826, respectively. For both the nine and three months ended June 30, 2011, dividends and deemed dividends totaled $1,332,444.

Series B

On January 23, 2012, the Company designated a new class of preferred stock called Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series B Preferred”). Four million shares have been authorized with a liquidation preference of $2.00 per share. Each share of Series B Preferred is convertible into ten shares of common stock. Holders of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock have a right to a dividend (pro-rata to each holder) based on a percentage of the gross revenue earned by the Company in the United States, if any, and the number of outstanding shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, as follows: Year 1 - Total Dividend to all Series B holders = .03 x Gross Revenue in the U.S. Year 2 - Total Dividend to all Series B holders = .02 x Gross Revenue in the U.S. Year 3 - Total Dividend to all Series B holders = .01 x Gross Revenue in the U.S. At June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2011, no shares of Series B Preferred are outstanding.

NOTE 8 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, on March 11, 2011, Mr. Connell filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (which was later removed to federal court) against Mr. Randall McCoy, the Company, and the members of the Company’s board of directors. The Company and members of the board were dismissed earlier from the proceedings and the chronology of the case is set forth in our previous filings.

As a final resolution, a Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) was signed by and among Mr. McCoy, Mr. Connell, the Company, and the board of directors. An amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Settlement Agreement was signed on April 24, 2012. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Amendment, in exchange for dismissal of the pending lawsuit with prejudice and a mutual release of all claims involving all parties concerned, Mr. McCoy agreed to issue to Mr. Connell 12,500,000 shares of his common stock in the Company. On April 19, 2012, 10,000,000 of the shares were transferred to Mr. Connell, with the remaining shares were assigned to his counsel in the case.

As a result of the Settlement Agreement and Amendment and the transfer of these shares, Mr. Connell is now a greater than 10% stockholder of the Company.

There is an ongoing dispute with Lonza about the performance and payment obligations under the Agreement. Management believes that Lonza’s position, as set forth in the above mentioned letters, is untenable in that, among other things: (1) Lonza’s billings call for the payment of amounts not currently owing, (2) Lonza has failed to submit to an audit of its charges; and (3) Lonza has refused to provide an appropriate plan for the processing of the biotechnology through the FDA as required by the Agreement. Additionally, management believes that Lonza’s response is designed to allow it to retain the Company’s over $3.5 million in payments along with the biotechnology that the Company was expected to purchase as part of the Agreement. Management further believes that this action is designed to benefit Lonza in its current lawsuit with other parties related to the original sale of the underlying biotechnology.

Management acknowledges the Company’s obligations to make payments that are called for under the Agreement. However, management believes that meritorious defenses and claims to Lonza’s claim of breach under the Agreement exist, and the Company intends to pursue these claims and causes of action using all legal means necessary should the issues raised in the above mentioned letters not be resolved consensually.

Management cannot predict the likelihood of prevailing in the dispute with Lonza. However, if it is ultimately determined that the defenses and claims lack merit and the dispute is resolved in favor of Lonza, there is a significant risk that the Agreement will be terminated. If that happens, the Company would lose its ability to pursue the license and commercialize the technology that forms the basis of the business plan. If Lonza were to prevail, the Company would also face an award or judgment for all past due payments under the Agreement, plus interest, legal fees and court costs.

NOTE 9 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

The Company’s principal executive offices are located in Little Falls, New Jersey. Headquarters are located in the offices of McCoy Enterprises LLC, an entity controlled by Mr. McCoy. The office is attached to his residence but has its own entrances, restroom and kitchen facilities. No rent is charged.   

The Company also maintains an office in Pennington New Jersey, which is the materials and testing laboratory. This office is owned by Materials Testing Laboratory. The principal of Materials Testing Laboratory is also an employee of the Company.

No rent is charged for either premise.

NOTE 10 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

Management has evaluated subsequent events through the date of this filing. 

Item 2.     Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements, other than purely historical information, including estimates, projections, statements relating to our business plans, objectives, and expected operating results, and the assumptions upon which those statements are based, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements generally are identified by the words “believes,” “project,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “intends,” “strategy,” “plan,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “will be,” “will continue,” “will likely result,” and similar expressions. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe-harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and are including this statement for purposes of complying with those safe-harbor provisions. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties which may cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Our ability to predict results or the actual effect of future plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Factors which could have a material adverse affect on our operations and future prospects on a consolidated basis include, but are not limited to: changes in economic conditions, legislative/regulatory changes, availability of capital, interest rates, competition, and generally accepted accounting principles. These risks and uncertainties should also be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. We undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Further information concerning our business, including additional factors that could materially affect our financial results, is included herein and in our other filings with the SEC.

Overview

We intend to develop and commercialize a potentially lifesaving technology by the introduction of tissue-engineered skin substitutes to restore the qualities of healthy human skin for certain clinical diagnoses. To this end, we have entered into an agreement to purchase stock of Cutanogen Corporation (“Cutanogen”) from Lonza Walkersville, Inc. (“Lonza”) and for the exclusive license to use certain proprietary know-how and information necessary to develop and seek approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the commercial sale of several products. This agreement is known as the Know-How License and Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”). These products are aimed at the treatment of burns, chronic wounds and a variety of plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures. In the United States market alone, the company estimates the potential markets for severe burns and chronic skin wounds is in excess of $7 billion.

The first product, PermaDerm® is the only tissue-engineered skin prepared from autologous (patient’s own) skin cells. It is a combination of cultured epithelium with a collagen-fibroblast implant that produces a skin substitute that contains both epidermal and dermal components. This model has been shown in preclinical studies to generate a functional skin barrier and in clinical studies to promote closure and healing of burns. Clinically, we believe self-to-self skin grafts for permanent skin tissue are not rejected by the immune system of the patient, unlike with porcine or cadaver grafts in which immune system rejection is an important possibility. PermaDerm® was initially designated as an Orphan Device by the FDA for treatment of burns. We have applied to the FDA late last year for an Orphan designation as a biologic/drug for PermaDerm® The FDA has recently granted Orphan Status for the PermaDerm® product. Such a designation has certain benefits to the recipient, but these do not include the immediate commercialization of the product. We will still need to work with the FDA for the development of the product, now with the advantages of the Orphan designation. We hope to initiate clinical trials early 2012 with final submission to the FDA for approval for PermaDerm® anticipated by 2013.

The second product is anticipated to be, TempaDerm®. TempaDerm® uses cells obtained from human donors to allow the development of banks of cryopreserved (frozen) cells and cultured skin substitute to provide a continuous supply of non-allogenic skin substitutes. This product has applications in the treatment of chronic skin wounds such as diabetic ulcers, decubitus ulcers and venous stasis ulcers. The U.S. markets are estimated to total more than $7 billion annually. This product is in the early development stage and does not have FDA approval.

We believe the technology has many different uses beyond the burn indication. The other uses include chronic wounds, reconstructive surgery and the individual components of the PermaDerm® technology such as tendon wraps made of collagen or temporary coverings to protect the patients from infections while waiting for PermaDerm®. The collagen technology used for PermaDerm® is a wide-open field in wound healing and uses such as stem cell grafting substrates. It is important to know that all of these above are products by themselves regardless of whether PermaDerm® is approved for burns. We could pursue any or all of them independently if financing permitted. Even if PermaDerm® was not approved for burn treatments it could be approved for chronic wounds or reconstruction.

On May 17, 2012, we received a letter from Lonza alleging that we are delinquent in payments in the amount of $783,587.71 under the Agreement. After extensive discussions and correspondence with Lonza, we responded to the letter July 20, 2012, explaining that such payments are not due and detailing the various instances of breach committed by Lonza under the Agreement. We in turn received a response from Lonza on July 26, 2012 alleging that the Agreement has been terminated. We have since ceased communications on the project with Lonza’s staff while we are working on coming up with a solution to the dispute.  

There is an ongoing dispute with Lonza about the performance and payment obligations under the Agreement. We believe that Lonza’s position, as set forth in the above letters, is untenable in that, among other things: (1) Lonza’s billings call for the payment of amounts not currently owing, (2) Lonza has failed to submit to an audit of its charges; and (3) Lonza has refused to provide an appropriate plan for the processing of the biotechnology through the FDA as required by the Agreement. Additionally, we believe that Lonza’s response is designed to allow it to retain our over $3.5 million in payments along with the biotechnology we expected to purchase as part of the Agreement. We further believe that this action is designed to benefit Lonza in its current lawsuit with other parties related to the original sale of the underlying biotechnology.

We acknowledge our obligations to make payments that are called for under the Agreement. However, we believe that we have meritorious defenses and claims to Lonza’s claim of breach under the Agreement, and we intend to pursue these claims and causes of action using all legal means necessary should the issues raised in the above letters not be resolved consensually.

We cannot predict the likelihood of prevailing in our dispute with Lonza. However, if it is ultimately determined that our defenses and claims lack merit and the dispute is resolved in favor of Lonza, there is a significant risk that the Agreement will be terminated. If that happens, we would lose our ability to pursue the license and commercialize the technology that forms the basis of our business plan. If Lonza were to prevail, we would also face an award or judgment for all past due payments under the Agreement, plus interest, legal fees and court costs.

Results of Operations for the Three and Nine Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

We have generated no revenues since the inception of the Company. We do not expect to generate revenues until we are able to obtain FDA approval of PermaDerm^®, and thereafter acquire the license rights to sell products associated with that technology.

We incurred operating expenses of $506,212 for the three months ended June 30, 2012, compared with operating expenses of $774,529 for the three months ended June 30, 2011. We incurred operating expenses of $2,137,056 for the nine months ended June 30, 2012, compared with operating expenses of $3,134,375 for the nine months ended June 30, 2011. Our operating expenses in 2012 were reduced from 2011 as a result of decreases in expenses related to public relations and marketing support, salaries, wages and payroll taxes, consulting and computer support, and registration penalties and consisted mainly of the following in comparison to our expenses in 2011:

We incurred stock based compensation of $0 and $43,323 for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, from the issuance of common stock, warrants and options to our directors and third party consultants. We incurred stock based compensation of $0 and $899,314 for the nine months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, from the issuance of common stock, warrants and options to our directors and third party consultants. Such amounts are included above under consulting.  

We incurred other expenses of $243,766 for the three months ended June 30, 2012, as compared to $28,222 for the three months ended June 30, 2011. We incurred other expenses of $483,706 for the nine months ended June 30, 2012, as compared to $32,875 for the nine months ended June 30, 2011. Our other expenses for both periods consisted of interest expenses. Interest expense included $201,108 and $410,196 for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2012, respectively, and $26,000 for both the three and nine months ended June 30, 2011, to reflect the amortization of debt discounts and beneficial conversion features of the various notes payable issued.  

We incurred a net loss of $749,978 for the three months ended June 30, 2012, as compared with a net loss of $803,351 for the three months ended June 30, 2011. We incurred a net loss of $2,620,762 for the nine months ended June 30, 2012, as compared with a net loss of $3,167,250 for the nine months ended June 30, 2011. We incurred a net loss of $7,662,003 for the period from inception to June 30, 2012.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of June 30, 2012, we had cash of $28,924 and $4,396 as of September 30, 2011.

Operating activities used $868,919 in cash for the nine months ended June 30, 2012. The decrease in cash was primarily attributable to funding the loss for the period.

Financing activities provided $893,447 for the nine months ended June 30, 2012 and consisted of $905,690 in proceeds from notes payable and $58,000 in loans from a related party, offset by the repayment of the insurance premium financing of $60,243 and the repayment of other loans of $10,000.

During the current reporting period and thereafter, we received funds under the following notes and loans:

1. In April 2012 through June 30, 2012, we issued a series of convertible promissory notes totaling $220,000 to nine individuals. The notes bear interest at the rate of 33% per annum and are due in October through November 2012. The notes and accrued interest thereon are convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically convert on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by us.

2. In April 2012, we issued a convertible promissory note totaling $25,000 to an individual for services previous rendered. This note bears interest at the rate of 33% per annum and is due in October 2012. The note and accrued interest thereon is convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $.05 per share and automatically converts on the maturity dates unless paid sooner us..

3. In July 2012, we issued convertible promissory notes totaling $75,000 to two individuals. These notes bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum and are due in January 2013. These notes and accrued interest thereon are convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.10 per share and automatically convert on the maturity dates unless paid sooner us.

Based upon our current financial condition, we do not have sufficient cash to operate our business at the current level for the next twelve months. We intend to fund operations through increased sales and debt and/or equity financing arrangements, which may be insufficient to fund expenditures or other cash requirements. We plan to seek additional financing in a private equity offering to secure funding for operations. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in raising additional funding. If we are not able to secure additional funding, the implementation of our business plan will be impaired. There can be no assurance that such additional financing will be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of June 30, 2012, there were no off balance sheet arrangements.

Going Concern

Our financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. We have incurred cumulative losses of $7.7 million for the period September 6, 2007 (inception date) through June 30, 2012, expect to incur further losses in the development of our business and have been dependent on funding operations through the issuance of convertible debt and private sale of equity securities. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans include continuing to finance operations through the private or public placement of debt and/or equity securities and the reduction of expenditures. However, no assurance can be given at this time as to whether we will be able to achieve these objectives. The financial statements do not include any adjustment relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or the amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

A smaller reporting company is not required to provide the information required by this Item.

Item 4.     Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) as of June 30, 2012. This evaluation was carried out under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of June 30, 2012, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective due to the presence of material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.

A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Management has identified the following material weaknesses which have caused management to conclude that, as of June 30, 2012, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective: (i) inadequate segregation of duties and effective risk assessment; and (ii) insufficient written policies and procedures for accounting and financial reporting with respect to the requirements and application of both US GAAP and SEC guidelines.

Remediation Plan to Address the Material Weaknesses in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our company plans to take steps to enhance and improve the design of our internal controls over financial reporting. During the period covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, we have not been able to remediate the material weaknesses identified above. To remediate such weaknesses, we plan to implement the following changes during our fiscal year ending September 30, 2012: (i) appoint additional qualified personnel to address inadequate segregation of duties and ineffective risk management; and (ii) adopt sufficient written policies and procedures for accounting and financial reporting. The remediation efforts set out are largely dependent upon our securing additional financing to cover the costs of implementing the changes required. If we are unsuccessful in securing such funds, remediation efforts may be adversely affected in a material manner.

We are unable to remedy our controls related to the inadequate segregation of duties and ineffective risk management until we receive financing to hire additional employees.  In January 2011, we hired an outsourced controller to improve the controls for accounting and financial reporting.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the three months ended June 30, 2012 that have materially affected, or are reasonable likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II – OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.     Legal Proceedings

Aside from what follows, we are not a party to any pending legal proceeding. We are not aware of any pending legal proceeding to which any of our officers, directors, or any beneficial holders of 5% or more of our voting securities are adverse to us or have a material interest adverse to us.

On February 28, 2011, our board of directors, Mr. Randall McCoy, and our company (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada (Case No. A-11-634976-C) against Joseph Connell, our former President. The Plaintiffs in the amended complaint are requesting declaratory relief from certain allegations Mr. Connell has made in relation to partnership claims with Mr. McCoy, board membership, and stock ownership in our company. Mr. Connell has requested that the case be removed to federal court in Nevada and has requested that our complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On March 11, 2011, Mr. Connell filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Index No. 103007/11) against Mr. McCoy, Regenicin, Inc., Joseph Rubinfeld, John Weber and Craig Eagle. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Mr. Connell is entitled to 50% of Mr. McCoy’s stock in our company. The complaint requests an accounting from us and requests that we be enjoined from transferring title to Mr. McCoy’s shares.

On June 8, 2011, an agreement was reached (the “Agreement”) to dismiss the members of the Company’s board of directors (excluding Mr. McCoy) and the Company from the case currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As part of this Agreement, the Company also agreed to dismiss its action originally brought against Mr. Connell in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Since then, the dispute continued involving only Mr. Connell and Mr. McCoy as parties in the action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As part of the Agreement, Mr. McCoy has agreed to lock-up 25,000,000 of his personal shares pending the outcome of the case.

On November 17, 2011, there was a formal settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge. On April 18, 2012, a settlement was reached. As a final resolution, a Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) was signed by and among Mr. McCoy, Mr. Connell, our company, and our board of directors. An amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Settlement Agreement was signed on April 24, 2012. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Amendment, in exchange for dismissal of the pending lawsuit with prejudice and a mutual release of all claims involving all parties concerned, Mr. McCoy agreed to issue to Mr. Connell 12,500,000 shares of his common stock in our company. On April 19, 2012, 10,000,000 of the shares were transferred to Mr. Connell, with the remaining shares assigned to his counsel in the case.

As a result of the Settlement Agreement and Amendment and the transfer of these shares, Mr. Connell is now a greater than 10% shareholder of our company.

Item 1A: Risk Factors

A smaller reporting company is not required to provide the information required by this Item.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

The information set forth below relates to our issuances of securities without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 during the reporting period which were not previously included in a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q or Current Report on Form 8-K.

During the current reporting period, certain convertible noteholders converted a total of $151,384 in principal and accrued interest into 3,027,683 shares of our common stock.  

These securities were issued pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act and/or Rule 506 promulgated thereunder. The holders represented their intention to acquire the securities for investment only and not with a view towards distribution. The investors were given adequate information about us to make an informed investment decision. We did not engage in any general solicitation or advertising. We directed our transfer agent to issue the stock certificates with the appropriate restrictive legend affixed to the restricted stock.

Item 3. Defaults upon Senior Securities

None

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

Item 5. Other Information

None

Item 6. Exhibits

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.