Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. quarterly report, Q2 FY2011

Business Context and Reporting Period

Entity mismatch: The request identifies Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., but the supplied Form 10-Q is for Cactus Ventures, Inc. The filing describes Cactus as a Nevada shell/blank-check company seeking a merger or other business combination, with no current operating business. This summary reflects the supplied filing and should not be attributed to Actinium without verification.

The report covers the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2011; the interim financial statements are unaudited. Cactus reported 11,155,008 common shares outstanding as of August 8, 2011.

Financial Performance and Position

  • Revenue: None for the six months ended June 30, 2011 or 2010. Gross profit and operating margins are not meaningful because there were no sales.
  • Expenses: Six-month operating expenses were $6,041, down from $10,694 in 2010. Interest expense was $2,509 in the financial statements, versus $3,597 in 2010.
  • Reported earnings: The statement of operations reports net income of $16,450 for the six months, compared with $19,875 in 2010. A $25,000 gain from retaining a deposit was the principal source of the reported 2011 income. The filing’s MD&A instead states net income of $22,491, creating a material internal discrepancy. Second-quarter data reports a net loss of $5,291, versus a $6,719 loss in the prior-year quarter.
  • Cash flow: Six-month operating cash flow was $4,955. The company used $25,000 to retire a note and received $20,045 from financing activities; reported cash remained $150, unchanged from year-end.
  • Liquidity and liabilities: At June 30, 2011, cash and total assets were $150, total liabilities were $78,318, and shareholders’ deficit was $78,168. Current liabilities were $24,565, including $23,755 accrued interest; related-party notes payable were $53,753. The filing states a working-capital deficit of $25,249 and substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

Changes, Outlook, and Risks

  • Compared with the first half of 2010, operating expenses and interest expense decreased, and the reported deposit-retention gain was $25,000 versus $35,000. The company continued to have no operating revenue.
  • In April 2011, Cactus signed a non-binding letter of intent for a possible share exchange with a private company and received a $25,000 deposit, which became non-refundable in May. A June addendum set a closing deadline of July 31, 2011. The filing does not state whether the transaction closed or its subsequent status.
  • Management estimated approximately $20,000 of expenses for the next 12 months and expected advances from the president to fund operations, while acknowledging there was no assurance of funding. Other possible funding sources included officer advances, stock sales, or debt.
  • Management warned that a business combination could require significant share issuance and dilute existing shareholders. The company had no employees, no line of credit, and no identified acquisition target in its plan-of-operations discussion. Its ability to continue depends on raising funds and executing its business plan.
  • Management concluded disclosure controls were effective as of June 30, 2011 and reported no material change in internal control over financial reporting. No legal proceedings were reported.

Important Facts to Verify

  • Confirm the filing’s issuer: the supplied report is for Cactus Ventures, not Actinium Pharmaceuticals.
  • Reconcile six-month net income: the financial statements and cash-flow statement show $16,450, while MD&A says $22,491; MD&A also gives interest expense of $2,590, differing from the statement’s $2,509.
  • Clarify the share-exchange LOI’s status after the July 31, 2011 deadline and whether any transaction or subsequent financing occurred.
  • Verify the availability and terms of expected related-party funding given $150 cash, the working-capital deficit, and the going-concern warning.
  • Review the reported per-share loss of $0.01, which appears inconsistent with the statement’s reported six-month net income and requires clarification.