Regenicin, Inc. - Quarter Report: 2014 June (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

Regenicin, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days

[ ] Yes [X] No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes [X] No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes [X] No

State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date: 129,169,793 as of August 19, 2014.

PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

Our consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-Q are as follows:

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and the SEC instructions to Form 10-Q. In the opinion of management, all adjustments considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the interim period ended June 30, 2014 are not necessarily indicative of the results that can be expected for the full year.

REGENICIN, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

REGENICIN, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

REGENICIN, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 REGENICIN, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

  (UNAUDITED)

NOTE 1 - THE COMPANY  

Windstar, Inc. (the “Company”) was incorporated in the state of Nevada on September 6, 2007 and is in the development stage. On July 19, 2010, the Company amended its Articles of Incorporation to change the name of the Company to Regenicin, Inc. (“Regenicin”). In September 2013, Regenicin formed a new wholly-owned subsidiary for the sole purpose of conducting research in the State of Georgia (together, the “Company”). The subsidiary has no activity since its formation due to the lack of funding.

The Company’s original business was the development of a purification device.  Such business was assigned to the Company’s former management in July 2010.

The Company  has adopted a new business plan and intended 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 use in the treatment of burns, chronic wounds and a variety of plastic surgery procedures.

The Company entered into a Know-How License and Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Know-How SPA”) with Lonza Walkersville, Inc. (“Lonza Walkersville”) on July 21, 2010. Pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, the Company paid Lonza Walkersville $3,000,000 and, in exchange, the Company was to receive an 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 technology held by the Cutanogen Corporation (“Cutanogen”), a subsidiary of Lonza Walkersville. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, the Company was entitled to receive certain related assistance and support from Lonza Walkersville upon payment of the $3,000,000. Under the Know-How SPA, once FDA approval was secured for the commercial sale of the technology, the Company would be entitled to acquire Cutanogen, Lonza Walkersville’s subsidiary, for $2,000,000 in cash.  

Unfortunately, after prolonged attempts to negotiate disputes with Lonza Walkersville failed, on September 30, 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against Lonza Walkersville, Lonza Group Ltd. (“Lonza Group”) and Lonza America, Inc. (“Lonza America”) (collectively, the “Defendant”) in Fulton County Superior Court in the State of Georgia.

The Company alleges in the complaint that, because of the Defendant’s breaches and tortious conduct, that the Company lost fees paid to the Defendant, which the Defendant did not earn, and suffered consequential damages and lost opportunities. It should also be noted that the $3,000,000 initially paid to Lonza Walkersville, which was recorded as an intangible asset, has been fully written down in the accompanying consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2013. See Notes 4 and 8.

Given the concerns about the expense of litigation, the Company negotiated a contingency-fee-based arrangement with the law firm that is representing it in this case.  The nature of the arrangement is such that the Company will not have to pay any attorney fees to the law firm unless and until the litigation is resolved in the Company’s favor.  If it loses the litigation, it will not be obliged to pay the firm any attorney fees.  If the Company prevails in the litigation, it will pay the law firm a percentage of the amount recovered from the Defendants.  The Company will, however, have the obligation to pay for the non-attorney fee costs associated with litigation.  Examples of those types of costs include court filing fees, copying costs, expert witness and other third-party vendor charges, travel costs, and so forth.  The Company believes that this contingency-fee arrangement will allow it to control and to minimize the total cost of pursuing this litigation.

The Company intends to continue to develop and gain FDA approval of cell therapy and biotechnology products separate from the Defendant’s patent, under the name PermaDerm ^® , while fully prosecuting the Defendant to regain the Company’s losses. The Company intends to develop and commercialize PermaDerm ^® , a potentially lifesaving technology, by the introduction of tissue-engineered skin substitutes to restore the qualities of healthy human skin for certain clinical indications. The Company developed its own cultured skin substitute after Lonza’s termination notice.

NOTE 2 - BASIS OF PRESENTATION

Interim Financial Statements:

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with Rule 8-03 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the nine months ended June 30, 2014 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending September 30, 2014. These unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Going Concern:

The Company’s consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has incurred cumulative losses of approximately $13.8 million from inception, expects to incur further losses in the development of its business and has been dependent on funding operations through the issuance of convertible debt and private sale of equity securities. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s 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 the Company will be able to achieve these objectives. The consolidated 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 the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.

Development Stage Activities and Operations:

The Company is in the development stage and has had no revenues.  A development stage company is defined as one in which all efforts are devoted substantially to establishing a new business and even if planned principal operations have commenced, revenues are insignificant.

In June 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-10, “Development Stage Entities (Topic 915): Elimination of Certain Financial Reporting Requirements, Including an Amendment to Variable Interest Entities Guidance in Topic 810, Consolidation” (“ASU 2014-10”). ASU 2014-10 eliminates the distinction of a development stage entity and certain related disclosure requirements, including the elimination of inception-to-date information on the statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders’ deficiency. The amendments in ASU 2014-10 will be effective prospectively for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2014, and interim periods within those annual periods, however, early adoption is permitted. The Company evaluated and adopted ASU 2014-10 for the reporting period ended June 30, 2014. The Company’s consolidated financial statements will be impacted by the adoption of ASU 2014-10 primarily by the removal of inception-to-date information in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and stockholders’ deficiency.

Financial Instruments and Fair Value Measurement:

The carrying value of cash, prepaid expenses and other current assets, accounts payable, accrued expenses and all loans and notes payable in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets approximated their values as of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013 due to their short-term nature.

The Company issued notes payable that contained conversion features which were accounted for separately as derivative liabilities and measured at fair value on a recurring basis. Changes in fair value are charged to other income (expenses) as appropriate. The fair value of the derivate liabilities was determined based on Level 2 inputs utilizing observable quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets and observable quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not very active. Derivative liabilities totaled $212,213 and $438,779 as of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, respectively.

See Note 6 - Notes Payable - Convertible Promissory Notes for additional information.

Recent Pronouncements:

Effective January 1, 2014, the Company adopted ASU No. 2013-11, “Income Taxes (Topic 740): Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists ” (“ASU 2013-11”). ASU 2013-11 is expected to reduce diversity in practice by providing guidance on the presentation of unrecognized tax benefits and will better reflect the manner in which an entity would settle at the reporting date any additional income taxes that would result from the disallowance of a tax position when net operating loss carryforwards, similar tax losses, or tax credit carryforwards exist. The amendments in this update should be applied prospectively for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2013. The adoption of ASU 2013-11 did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Management does not believe that any of the recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting standards if currently adopted would have a material effect on the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Reclassifications:

Certain amounts of the September 30, 2013 consolidated balance sheet were reclassified to conform to the June 30, 2014 presentation.

NOTE 3 - LOSS PER SHARE

Basic loss per share is computed by dividing the net loss by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted loss per share give effect to dilutive convertible securities, options, warrants and other potential common stock outstanding during the period, only in periods in which such effect is dilutive. The following securities have been excluded from the calculation of net loss per share, as their effect would be anti-dilutive:

NOTE 4 - INTANGIBLE ASSETS

Intangible assets, which include purchased licenses, patents and patent rights, are stated at cost and will be amortized using the straight-line method over their useful lives based upon the pattern in which the expected benefits will be realized, or on a straight-line basis, whichever is greater.

In July 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Lonza to purchase an exclusive license to use certain proprietary know-how and information necessary to develop and seek approval by the FDA for the commercial sale of PermaDerm®.

The Company made an initial payment of $3,000,000 to Lonza to purchase this exclusive know-how license and assistance in gaining FDA approval. In conjunction with Lonza, the Company's management intended to create and implement a strategy to conduct clinical trials and assemble and present relevant information and data in order to obtain the necessary approvals. The $3,000,000 payment was recorded as an intangible asset.

After prolonged negotiations, the Company has been unable to resolve contractual and other disputes with Lonza. As a result, on September 30, 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against Lonza and related entities. The complaint alleges that Lonza determined it would make more money on PermaDerm® if it was not approved by the FDA and that Lonza used certain proprietary information, which the Company had purchased, for at least 13 other companies. The allegations also included that Lonza utilized threats and coercion, including false claims of breach of contract and securities violations, in order to terminate the exclusive know-how license. As a result, the Company received neither the exclusive know-how license that Lonza had promised nor the benefits of the exclusive know-how license.

For the year ended September 30, 2013, due to ongoing disputes and pending any settlement of the lawsuit, the Company determined that the value of the intangible asset and related intellectual property had been fully impaired. As a result, the Company wrote down the value of the intangible asset to $0.

In August 2010, the Company paid $7,500 and obtained the rights to the trademarks PermaDerm® and TempaDerm® from KJR-10 Corp.

At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, intangible assets totaled $7,500. 

NOTE 5 - LOANS PAYABLE

Loan Payable:

In February 2011, an investor advanced $10,000. The loan does not bear interest and is due on demand. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the loan payable totaled $10,000.

Loans Payable - Related Parties:

In October 2011 and again in May 2014, Craig Eagle, a director of the Company, advanced a total of $ 38,221 to the Company. The loans do not bear interest and are due on demand. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the loan balance was $38,221 and $35,000, respectively.

During the nine months ended June 30, 2014, Randall McCoy, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, has made advances to the Company. The loans do not bear interest and are due on demand. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the loan balance was $8,500 and $0, respectively.

John Weber, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, has made advances to the Company. The loans do not bear interest and are due on demand. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the loan balance was $86,100 and $28,100, respectively.

In March through June 2014 the Company received other advances totaling $28,221. The loans do not bear interest and are due on demand. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the loan balances were $29,521 and $1,300, respectively. 

At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, loans payable - related parties totaled $162,342 and $64,400, respectively.

NOTE 6 - NOTES PAYABLE

Insurance Financing Note:  

The Company finances certain insurance premiums. In August 2013, the Company financed premiums totaling $57,892. The note is payable over a nine-month term. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the balance owed under the note was $-0- and $52,220, respectively.

Bridge Financing:

On December 21, 2011, the Company issued a $150,000 promissory note (“Note 2”) to an individual. Note 2 bore interest so that the Company would repay $175,000 on the maturity date of June 21, 2012, which correlated to an effective rate of 31.23%. Additional interest of 10% will be charged on any late payments. Note 2 was not paid at the maturity date and the Company is incurring additional interest described above. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 2 balance was $175,000.

On January 18, 2012, the Company issued a $165,400 convertible promissory note (“Note 3”) to an individual. Note 3 bore interest at the rate of 5% per annum and was due on June 18, 2012. Note 3 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into units at a conversion price of $2.00 per unit. A unit consisted of one share of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series A Preferred”) and a warrant to purchase one-fourth (1/4), or 25% of one share of common stock. Upon maturity, Note 3 was not automatically converted and the Units were not issued. Instead, in October 2012, a new note was issued with a six month term. The new note bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and the principal and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at a rate of $0.05 per share. In addition, at the date of conversion, the Company was to issue a two-year warrant to purchase an additional 500,000 shares of common stock at $0.10 per share. The warrant has not been issued. At maturity, the principal and interest automatically converted and the Company was supposed to issue 3,522,440 shares of common stock. As of June 30, 2014, the shares were not issued and were classified as common stock to be issued. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 3 balance was $0.

On January 27, 2012, the Company issued a $149,290 convertible promissory note (“Note 4”) to an individual. Note 4 bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due on March 31, 2012. Note 4 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at a rate of $0.05 per share. In addition, the Company issued a warrant to purchase an additional 500,000 shares of common stock at $0.10 per share that expires on January 27, 2014. On March 31, 2012, Note 4 and the accrued interest became due and the Company was supposed to issue 3,027,683 shares of common stock. In May 2013, the Company issued the shares. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 4 balance was $0.

In March 2012, the Company issued a series of convertible promissory notes (“Notes 5-9”) totaling $186,000 to four individuals. Notes 5-9 bore interest at the rate of 33% per annum and were due in August and September 2012. Notes 5-9 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company. At maturity, the principal and interest automatically converted and the Company was supposed to issue 4,335,598 shares of common stock. In December 2012, the Company issued 4,079,000 shares to the note holders of Notes 5, 6, 7 and 9. The unissued 256,598 shares for Note 8 are classified as common stock to be issued at June 30, 2014. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 5-9 balances were $0.

In April 2012 through June 2012, the Company issued a series of convertible promissory notes (“Notes 10-18”) totaling $220,000 to nine individuals. Notes 10-18 bore interest at the rate of 33% per annum and were due in October through November 2012. Notes 10-18 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company. In December 2012, the Company issued 5,124,500 shares of its common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest through the various maturity dates of the notes. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 10-18 balances were $0.

In April 2012, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 19”) totaling $25,000 to an individual for services previously rendered. Note 19 bore interest at the rate of 33% per annum and was due in October 2012. Note 19 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date unless paid sooner by the Company. In December 2012, the Company issued 582,500 shares of its common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest through the maturity date. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 19 balance was $0.

In July 2012, the Company issued a series of convertible promissory notes (“Notes 20-22”) totaling $100,000 to three individuals. Notes 20-22 bore interest at the rate of 10% per annum and were due in December 2012 and January 2013. Notes 20-22 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.10 per share and automatically converted on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded discounts of $67,500 to reflect the beneficial conversion features. The discounts were amortized over the terms of Notes 20-22. In February 2013, the Company issued 1,050,000 shares of common stock for the conversion of Notes 20-22 and accrued interest thereon. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 20-22 balances were $0.

In July 2012, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 23”) totaling $100,000 to an individual. Note 23 bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in January 2013. Note 23 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date, unless paid sooner by the Company. In addition, at the date of conversion, the Company was to issue a two-year warrant to purchase an additional 500,000 shares of common stock at $0.10 per share. The warrant has not been issued. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded a discount of $100,000 to reflect the beneficial conversion feature. The discount was amortized over the term of the Note. In January 2013, the Company issued 2,080,000 shares of common stock for the conversion of Note 23 and accrued interest thereon. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 23 balance was $0.

In December 2012, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 24”) totaling $100,000 to an individual. Note 24 bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in June 2013. Note 24 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date, unless paid sooner by the Company. In addition, at the date of conversion, the Company was to issue a two-year warrant to purchase an additional 500,000 shares of common stock at $0.10 per share. The warrant has not been issued. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded a discount of $100,000 to reflect the beneficial conversion feature. The discount was amortized over the term of Note 24. At maturity, the principal and interest automatically converted and the Company was supposed to issue 2,089,880 shares of common stock. As of June 30, 2014, the shares were not issued and were classified as common stock to be issued. The warrant has not been issued as of the date of the issuance of the consolidated financial statements. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 24 balance was $0.

In January 2013, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 25”) totaling $35,000 to an individual. Note 25 bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in July 2013. Note 25 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date unless paid sooner by the Company. In addition, at the date of conversion, the Company was to issue a two-year warrant to purchase an additional 175,000 shares of common stock at $0.50 per share. The warrant has not been issued. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded a discount of $21,000 to reflect the value of the beneficial conversion feature. The value of the warrant was not recorded as the value was deemed to be immaterial. The discount was amortized over the term of Note 25. On August 1, 2013, the Company issued 728,000 shares of common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest through the date of maturity. The warrant has not been issued as of the issuance of the consolidated financial statements. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 25 balance was $0.

In March 2013, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 26”) totaling $25,000 to an individual. Note 26 bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in September 2013. Note 26 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date unless paid sooner by the Company. In addition, at the date of conversion, the Company was to issue a one-year warrant to purchase an additional 640,000 shares of common stock at $0.001 per share. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded a discount of $14,507 to reflect the value of the warrant and a discount of $10,493 to reflect the value of the beneficial conversion feature. The discounts were amortized over the term of Note 26. On February 28, 2014, the Company issued 520,000 shares of common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest through the date of maturity. The warrant was issued in December 2013 and was exercised on December 24, 2013. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 26 balance was $0.

In April 2013, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 27”) totaling $15,000 to an individual. Note 27 bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in September 2013. Note 27 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date unless paid sooner by the Company. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded a discount of $1,500 to reflect the beneficial conversion feature. The discount was amortized over the term of Note 27. On February 28, 2014, the Company issued 312,000 shares of common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest through the date of maturity. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 27 balance was $0.

In April 2013, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 28”) totaling $25,000 to an individual. Note 28 bears interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in October 2013. Note 28 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date unless paid sooner by the Company. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded a discount of $10,000 to reflect the beneficial conversion feature. The discount was amortized over the term of Note 28. On February 28, 2014, the Company issued 520,000 shares of common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest through the date of maturity. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 28 balance was $0 and $25,000, respectively.

In May 2013, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 29”) totaling $25,000 to an individual. Note 29 bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in November 2013. Note 29 and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date unless paid sooner by the Company. The Company did not record a discount for the conversion feature as the conversion price was greater than the price of the common stock on the issuance date. At maturity, the principal and interest automatically converted and the Company was supposed to issue 520,055 shares of common stock. As of June 30, 2014, the shares were not issued and were classified as common stock to be issued. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Note 29 balance was $0 and $25,000, respectively.

In June 2013, the Company issued convertible promissory notes (“Notes 30-31”) totaling $30,000 to two individuals. The notes bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and were due in December 2013. The principal and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company. In addition, at the date of conversion, the Company was to issue two-year warrants to purchase an additional 600,000 shares of common stock at $0.05 per share. The warrants have not been issued. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded discounts of $3,451 to reflect the value of the warrants but did not record discounts for the conversion features as the conversion prices were greater than the stock prices at the issuance dates. The discounts are being amortized over the terms of Notes 30-31. At maturity, the principal and interest automatically converted and the Company was supposed to issue 624,066 shares of common stock. As of June 30, 2014, the shares were not issued and were classified as common stock to be issued. At June 30, 2014, the Note 30-31 balances were $0. At September 30, 2013, the Notes 30-31 balances were $28,774, net of debt discounts of $1,226.

In June 2013, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 31A”) totaling $25,000 to an individual. The note bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in December 2013. The principal and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date unless paid sooner by the Company. In addition, at the date of conversion, the Company was to issue a one-year warrant to purchase an additional 320,000 shares of common stock at $0.001 per share. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded a discount of $5,116 to reflect the value of the warrants but did not record a discount for the conversion feature as the conversion price was greater than the stock price at the issuance date. The discount was amortized over the term of Note 31A. On February 7, 2014, the Company issued 520,000 shares of common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest through the date of maturity. The warrant was exercised on February 7, 2014. At June 30, 2014, the Note 31A balance was $0.

In July 2013, the Company issued convertible promissory notes (“Note 32-34”) totaling $35,000 to three individuals. The notes bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and were due in January 2014. The principal and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.05 per share and automatically converted on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company. The Company did not record discounts for the conversion features as the conversion prices were greater than the prices of the common stock on the issuance dates. In February and March 2014, the Company issued 728,000 shares of common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest through the date of maturity. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Notes 32-34 balances were $0 and $35,000, respectively.

In August 2013, the Company issued convertible promissory notes (“Note 35-36”) totaling $250,000 to two individuals. The notes bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum and are due in August 2014. The principal and accrued interest thereon are convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.03 per share and automatically convert on the maturity dates unless paid sooner by the Company. The Company did not record discounts for the conversion features as the conversion prices were greater than the prices of the common stock on the issuance dates. At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the Notes 35-36 balances were $250,000.

On December 31, 2013, the Company issued a convertible promissory note (“Note 37”) totaling $75,000 to an individual. The note bore interest at the rate of 8% per annum and was due in May 2014. The principal and accrued interest thereon were convertible into shares of common stock at the rate of $0.02 per share and automatically converted on the maturity date unless paid sooner by the Company. In addition, at the date of conversion, the Company was to issue a two-year warrant to purchase an additional 937,500 shares of common stock at $0.25 per share. The warrant has not been issued. For financial reporting purposes, the Company recorded discounts of $20,455 to reflect the value of the warrant and a discount of $54,545 to reflect the value of the beneficial conversion feature. The discount was amortized over the term of Note 37. At maturity, the principal and interest automatically converted and the Company was supposed to issue 3,874,110 shares of common stock. As of June 30, 2014, the shares were not issued and were classified as common stock to be issued. At June 30, 2014, the Note 37 balance was $0.

Convertible Promissory Notes:

In October 2012, the Company issued a promissory note to a financial institution (the “Lender”) to borrow up to a maximum of $225,000. The note bears interest so that the Company would repay a maximum of $250,000 at maturity, which correlated to an effective rate of 10.59%. In October 2012, the Company received $50,000 upon the signing of the note and then in January through September 2013, the Company received additional proceeds totaling $100,000. In February 2014 the Company received an additional $25,000. Material terms of the note include the following:

1. The Lender may make additional loans in such amounts and at such dates at its sole discretion.

2. The maturity date of each loan is one year after such loan is received.

3. The original interest discount is prorated to each loan received.

4. Principal and accrued interest is convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at the lesser of $0.069 or 65%-70% (as defined) of the lowest trading price in the 25 trading days previous to the conversion.

5. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties, at no time can the Lender convert any amount of the principal and/or accrued interest owed into common stock that would result in the Lender owning more than 4.99% of the common stock outstanding.

6. There is a one-time interest payment of 10% of amounts borrowed that is due at the maturity date of each loan.

7. At all times during which the note is convertible, the Company shall reserve from its authorized and unissued common stock to provide for the issuance of common stock under the full conversion of the promissory note. The Company will at all times reserve at least 13,000,000 shares of its common stock for conversion.

8. The Company agreed to include on its next registration statement it files, all shares issuable upon conversion of balances due under the promissory note. Failure to do so would result in liquidating damages of 25% of the outstanding principal balance of the promissory note but not less than $25,000.

The Company is accreting the original issue discount (“OID”) on the initial loan over the life of the loan using the effective interest method. For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2014, the accretion amounted to $4,156 and $916, respectively. For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2013, the accretion amounted to $5,028 and $2,340, respectively.

The conversion feature contained in the promissory note is considered to be an embedded derivative. The Company bifurcated the conversion feature and recorded a derivative liability on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company recorded the derivative liability equal to its estimated fair value. Such amount was also recorded as a discount to the convertible promissory note and is being amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method. For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2014, amortization of the debt discount amounted to $57,766 and $23,017, respectively. For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2013, amortization of the debt discount amounted to $30,523 and $19,914, respectively. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the unamortized discount is $14,584 and $72,348, respectively.

The Company is required to mark-to-market the derivative liability at the end of each reporting period. For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2014, the Company recorded a gain (loss) on the change in fair value of the conversion option of $54,298 and ($20,876), respectively. For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2013, the Company recorded a loss on the change in fair value of the conversion option of $248,240 and $244,944, respectively. As of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the fair value of the conversion option was $27,016 and $224,920.

In the nine months ended June 30, 2014, the Company issued 8,840,392 shares of common stock for the conversion of principal and accrued interest of $90,614. At June 30, 2014, the balance of the convertible note was $11,539, net of the debt discount of $14,584. At September 30, 2013, the balance of the convertible note was $34,821, net of the debt discount of $72,348.

In May 2013, the Company issued a convertible promissory note totaling $293,700 to a vendor in lieu of amounts payable. The note bears interest at the rate of 12% per annum and was originally due November 21, 2013. The maturity date of the note was extended to February 21, 2014 and extended again to August 31, 2014.  The note is secured by all of the assets of the Company. The note and accrued interest are convertible into shares of common stock at a conversion rate of the lower of $0.04 per share or 80% of the average of the lowest three trading prices in the 20 trading days previous to the conversion. In addition, the Company issued a five-year warrant to purchase an additional 50,000 shares of common stock at a per share exercise price of the lower of $0.04 per share or 80% of the average of the lowest three trading prices in the 20 trading days previous to the conversion.

The conversion features contained in the promissory note and the warrant are considered to be embedded derivatives. The Company bifurcated the conversion features and recorded derivative liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company recorded the derivative liabilities equal to their estimated fair value of $153,300. Such amount was also recorded as a discount to the convertible promissory note and was amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method. For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2014, amortization of the debt discount amounted to $64,104 and $0, respectively. For both the nine and three months ended June 30, 2013, amortization of the debt discount amounted to $18,369. As of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the unamortized discount was $0 and $64,104, respectively.

The Company is required to mark-to-market the derivative liabilities at the end of each reporting period. For the nine and three months ended June 30, 2014, the Company recorded a gain (loss) on the change in fair value of the conversion option of $28,661 and $(122,889), respectively. For both the nine and three months ended June 30, 2013, no gain was recognized. As of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the fair value of the conversion option was $185,198 and $213,858, respectively.

At June 30, 2014, the balance of the convertible note was $293,700 net of the debt discount of $0. At September 30, 2013, the balance of the convertible note was $229,596 net of the debt discount of $64,104.

NOTE 7 - STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIENCY

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.

The dividends are cumulative commencing on the issue date whether or not declared. Dividends amounted to $52,955 and $17,652 for the nine and three months June 30, 2014, respectively. Dividends amounted to $ 34,503 and $11,501 for the nine and three months June 30, 2013, respectively. At June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, dividends payable total $233,397 and $180,442, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses.

At both June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, 885,000 shares of Series A Preferred were outstanding.

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, 2014 no shares of Series B Preferred are outstanding.

Common Stock Issuances:

For the nine months ended June 30, 2014, the Company issued 2,600,000 shares of its common stock for the conversion of notes payable issued under the Bridge Financing and accrued interest.

The Company issued shares of its common stock for the conversion of principal and accreted interest owed to the Lender as follows:

For the nine months ended June 30, 2014, the Company issued 960,000 shares of common stock for the exercise of warrants.

On December 24, 2013, the Company issued 1,038,751 shares of its common stock as a finder fee to an entity for introducing lenders who provided funding to the Company in fiscal 2013. The shares were valued at $35,851.

Stock-Based Compensation:

The Company accounts for equity instruments issued in exchange for the receipt of goods or services from other than employees in accordance with FASB ASC 505, “Equity.” Costs are measured at the estimated fair market value of the consideration received or the estimated fair value of the equity instruments issued, whichever is more reliably measurable. The value of equity instruments issued for consideration other than employee services is determined on the earlier of a performance commitment or completion of performance by the provider of goods or services as defined by ASC 505.

On January 6, 2011, the Company approved the issuance of 885,672 options to each of the four members of the board of directors at an exercise price of $0.62 per share that expire on December 22, 2015. On December 10, 2013, the exercise price of the options was changed to $0.035 per share. As a result, the Company revalued the options as required under generally accepted accounting principles and recognized an expense of $27,556. The options were revalued utilizing the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions: exercise price: $0.035 - $0.62; expected volatility: 20.71%; risk-free rate: 0.13% - 0.14%; expected term: 1 year.

The expected life is the number of years that the Company estimates, based upon history, that warrants will be outstanding prior to exercise or forfeiture. Expected life is determined using the “simplified method” permitted by Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107. The stock volatility factor is based on the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index. The Company did not use the volatility rate for Company’s common stock as the Company’s common stock had not been trading for the sufficient length of time to accurately compute its volatility when these options were issued.

On December 18, 2012, the Company issued 801,000 shares of its common stock as a finder’s fee to an entity for introducing investors and/or lenders who provided funding to the Company. The shares were valued at $89,370.

Stock based compensation amounted to $27,556 and $-0- for the nine and three months ended June 30, 2014, respectively, and is included in general and administrative expenses. Stock based compensation amounted to $89,370 and $-0- for the nine and three months ended June 30, 2013, respectively, and is included in interest expense.

 NOTE 8 - LONZA TRANSACTION  

The Company entered into the Know-How SPA with Lonza Walkersville on July 21, 2010. Pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, the Company paid Lonza Walkersville $3,000,000 and, in exchange, the Company was to receive an exclusive license to use certain proprietary know-how and information necessary to develop and seek approval by the FDA for the commercial sale of the Cutanogen technology. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, the Company was entitled to receive certain related assistance and support from Lonza Walkersville upon payment of the $3,000,000. Under the Know-How SPA, once FDA approval was secured for the commercial sale of the technology, the Company would be entitled to acquire Cutanogen, Lonza Walkersville’s subsidiary, for $2,000,000 in cash.  

On September 30, 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in Fulton County Superior Court in the State of Georgia.

The Company continued to negotiate for almost six months after Lonza paid the previous shareholders of Cutanogen to settle their lawsuit. The Company attempted to acquire the Cutanogen technology from Lonza in lieu of a license but to no avail. The Company has retained a national law firm to represent its interests in this case.

In the complaint, the Company alleges that it entered into a Know-How SPA with Lonza Walkersville, on July 21, 2010. Pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, the Company paid Lonza Walkersville $3,000,000 and, in exchange, the Company was to receive an exclusive license to use certain proprietary know-how and information necessary to develop and seek approval by the FDA. Under the Know-How SPA, once FDA approval was secured for the commercial sale of the technology, the Company would be entitled to acquire Cutanogen, Lonza Walkersville’s subsidiary, for $2,000,000 in cash.

However, as the Company alleges in the complaint, the Company believes the Defendant determined that it would make more money on the Cutanogen technology if it was not approved by the FDA and, unbeknownst to the Company, the Company believes Lonza Walkersville never intended to fulfill its obligations under the Know-How SPA. In this regard, the Company alleges in the complaint that Lonza Walkersville used certain proprietary know-how and information for at least thirteen (13) other companies. The Company alleges in the complaint that this is the same certain proprietary know-how and information the Company had purchased for $3 million under the exclusive Know-How SPA.

Further, as the Company alleges in the complaint, the Defendant utilized threats and coercion against the Company throughout the contract term, including false claims of breach and securities violations, in order to attempt to terminate the Know-How SPA unilaterally. As a result, the Company received neither the exclusive license the Defendant had promised, nor the benefit of the exclusive proprietary know-how. Therefore, the Company alleges in the complaint that, because of the Defendant’s breaches and tortious conduct, the Company lost the fees paid to the Defendant, which the Defendant did not earn, and suffered consequential damages and lost opportunities. In addition, the Company did not receive compensation from Lonza Walkersville for the time spent working on the Armed Forces Institute of Regenitive Medicine (AFIRM) grant, nor the time spent working on the Department of Defense (DOD) contract, which the Company was contractually supposed to be paid. The Company also will not receive the expected financial benefit from the DOD contract to help offset the cost of the clinical trials going forward. Lonza’s failure to secure a renewal of the DOD contract will have a significant financial impact on the Company. It should also be noted that the $3 million initially paid to Lonza, which was recorded as an intangible asset, has been fully written off in the accompanying consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2013.

The case has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by the Defendant. In conjunction with its removal of the litigation, the Defendant filed a motion asking the Federal Court to either dismiss the complaint or to require the Company to file additional details providing more specific information about the Company’s claims. The Company has opposed that motion and filed its own motion asking the Federal Court to remand the case back to the Fulton County Superior Court.

The case was then transferred from Georgia to New Jersey for the convenience of the majority of the witnesses in the case and because the Court found that New Jersey had more significant and stronger ties to the parties than Georgia.  In 2013, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss.  In February 2014, the Company successfully defeated the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  In the February 2014 Order, the Court noted that   “[a]fter a single reading of the complaint the Court was able to understand Regenicin’s general averments.”  The Court further stated, “[c]onsidering their relationship and Regenicin’s numerous allegations, a lengthy pleading is probably unavoidable.”  The Court then ordered the Company to amend the Complaint and noted, “[t]here are three Defendants in this action, and Regenicin must be more specific in ascribing its allegations among them… Regenicin must replead its complaint to attribute its allegations to specific Defendants.” In accordance with the February 2014 Order, the Company amended its Complaint to add additional details regarding the various misrepresentations that each Lonza entity allegedly made to Regenicin.  A month later, the Defendant filed a Second Motion to Dismiss.  The Company responded in opposition to the Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss and is awaiting the New Jersey District Court’s ruling on the Motion.  The Company files notices of appearance and pro hac admissions of New Jersey counsel.

NOTE 9 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

The Company’s principal executive offices are located in Little Falls, New Jersey. The headquarters is located in the offices of McCoy Enterprises LLC, an entity controlled by Mr. McCoy.

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, and the principal is 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 

On September 30, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Lonza Walkersville, Inc. (“Lonza Walkersville”), Lonza Group Ltd. (“Lonza Group”) and Lonza America, Inc. (“Lonza America”) (collectively, the “Defendant”) in Fulton County Superior Court in the State of Georgia.

We continued to negotiate for almost six months after Lonza paid the previous shareholders of Cutanogen Corporation (“Cutanogen”) to settle their lawsuit. We attempted to acquire the Cutanogen technology from Lonza in lieu of a license but to no avail. We have retained the national law firm of Gordon and Rees, LLP (gordonrees.com) to represent us in this case.

Given the concerns about the expense of litigation, we have negotiated a contingency-fee-based arrangement with the law firm that is representing us in this case.  The nature of our arrangement is such that we will not have to pay any attorney fees to the law firm representing us unless and until the litigation is resolved in our favor.  If we lose the litigation, we will not be obliged to pay the firm any attorneys fees.  If we prevail in the litigation, we will pay the law firm a percentage of the amount recoverd from the Defendants.  We will, however, have the obligation to pay for the non-attorney fee costs associated with litigation.  Examples of those types of costs include court filing fees, copying costs, expert witness and other third-party vendor charges, travel costs, etc.  We believe that this contingency-fee arrangement allows us to control and to minimize the total cost of pursuing this litigation.

In our complaint, we allege that we entered into a Know-How License and Stock Purchase Agreement (“Know-How SPA”) with Lonza Walkersville, on July 21, 2010. Pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, we paid Lonza Walkersville $3,000,000 and, in exchange, we were to receive an 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 the Cutanogen technology. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, we were entitled to receive certain related assistance and support from Lonza Walkersville upon payment of the $3,000,000. Under the Know-How SPA, once FDA approval was secured for the commercial sale of the technology, the Company would be entitled to acquire Cutanogen, Lonza Walkersville’s subsidiary, for $2,000,000 in cash.

However, as we allege in the complaint, we believe the Defendant determined that it would make more money on the Cutanogen technology if it was not approved by the FDA and, unbeknownst to us, we believe Lonza Walkersville never intended to fulfill its obligations under the Know-How SPA. In this regard, we allege in the complaint that Lonza Walkersville used certain proprietary know-how and information for at least thirteen (13) other companies. We allege in the complaint that this is the same certain proprietary know-how and information we had purchased for $3 million under the exclusive Know-How SPA.

Further, as we allege in the complaint, the Defendant utilized threats and coercion against us throughout the contract term, including false claims of breach and securities violations, in order to attempt to terminate the Know-How SPA unilaterally. As a result, we received neither the exclusive license the Defendant had promised, nor the benefit of the exclusive proprietary know-how. Therefore, we allege in the complaint that, because of the Defendant’s breaches and tortious conduct, we lost the fees paid to the Defendant, which the Defendant did not earn, and suffered consequential damages and lost opportunities. In addition, we did not receive compensation from Lonza Walkersville for the time spent working on the Armed Forces Institute of Regenitive Medicine (AFIRM) grant, nor the time spent working on the Department of Defense (DOD) contract, which we were contractually supposed to be paid. We also will not receive the expected financial benefit from the DOD contract to help offset the cost of the clinical trials going forward. Lonza’s failure to secure a renewal of the DOD contract will have a significant financial impact on us.

The case was transferred from Georgia to New Jersey for the convenience of the majority of the witnesses in the case and because the Court found that New Jersey had more significant and stronger ties to the parties than Georgia. We feel the transferring of the case to New Jersey will not have an impact on the case. We are confident our case against Lonza is strong enough to prevail in what ever court it is heard.

Our Business Moving Forward 

We intend to continue to develop and gain FDA approval of cell therapy and biotechnology products separate from the Defendant’s patent, under the name PermaDerm^® the trademark that we own, while fully prosecuting the Defendant to regain our losses as a result of its wrongdoing.

We intend to develop and commercialize PermaDerm^®, a potentially lifesaving technology, by the introduction of tissue-engineered skin substitutes to restore the qualities of healthy human skin for certain clinical indications. We developed our own cultured skin substitute technology after Lonza’s termination notice.

We have worked with several FDA compliant manufacturers to secure a reliable source for our proprietary collagen components. Our scaffold, which is the starting structure for our product, is designed to promote cellular growth adhesion and assembly of multiple types of human cells. We will initially work to gain FDA commercialization approval for our proprietary skin product PermaDerm® utilizing autologous (patient’s own) cells to produce a multilayered living skin. We expect that PermaDerm® is expected to be available for the patient earlier and with a potentially longer shelf life than previously possible with the product that was being developed by Lonza. It is our position that neither the patent nor the intellectual property covered in the Know-How SPA purchased from Lonza are applicable to our new PermaDerm® product.

To this end, we are in the process of validating our proprietary collagen scaffold to demonstrate safety and ensure a consistent fully FDA cGMP compliant starting material. While qualifying our initial collagen manufacturer, we are working to establish an additional cGMP compliant manufacturer of collagen components as a second source. Our first collagen manufacturer’s capacity is adequate to meet our estimated US demand for patients burned over 30% of their total body surface area. Additional manufacturing capacity will be necessary as we gain approval for chronic wounds, plus other indications, and expand internationally.

We are also currently working to qualify a cell therapy manufacturer of our cultured skin substitute. It is necessary to establish a long-term commitment with a manufacturer while going through the FDA approval process. It is mandatory to ensure continuous support from the biologic manufacturer during the approval process, clinical trials and ultimately, supply of commercial product after FDA approval. It is important, while working with the Biologics Division of the FDA, to use the same manufacturer to produce clinical trial material and the commercialized product.

The first product, PermaDerm^®, is a multi-layered tissue-engineered skin prepared by utilizing autologous (patient’s own) skin cells. It is a combination of cultured epithelium with a collagen based implant that produces a skin substitute that contains both epidermal and dermal components. Clinically, we believe our PermaDerm® self-to-self skin graft product will behave the same as allograft tissue. PermaDerm^® should not be rejected by the immune system of the patient, unlike with porcine or cadaver grafts. Immune system rejection is a serious concern in Xenotransplant procedures. The use of PermaDerm^® does not require any specialized physician training because it is used the same way as a standard allograft procedure.

Clinically speaking, a product designed to treat a life threatening condition must be available for the patient when needed. Our PermaDerm^® is being developed to be ready to apply to the patient when the patient is ready for grafting. PermaDerm^® is being designed to be available within the first month of the patient being admitted. Patients with these serious burn injuries may not be in a condition to be grafted on a predefined schedule made more than a month in advance. Therefore, in order to accommodate the patient’s needs, PermaDerm^® will be designed with a shelf life and manufacturing schedule to ensure it is available whether the patient needs it the first month or any day after, until the patient’s wound is completely covered and closed.

We intend to work with the FDA for the development of a cultured skin biologic product. We are preparing documentation for Orphan Designation for the USA and European Union using our internal expertise. We will submit the request when we have qualified our cell therapy manufacturer. In order to obtain Orphan Designation we will work with the Office of Orphan Products to demonstrate that there are less than 200,000 patients affected per year in the US and supply information showing that PermaDerm^® is safe and the probable benefit of using PermaDerm^® for burns. We expect Orphan Designation for burns in 2014.

Having PermaDerm^® approved as an Orphan Product has significant benefits, including 7 years exclusivity with the FDA, generating revenue from sales of product used during the clinical trials and being able to utilize the data from patients from many different hospitals to gain Biological License Approval. Orphan approval allows the product to be used to treat people a lot earlier than waiting for extensive clinical trials to gain Biological License Approval. The major difference between Orphan Product Approval and a full Biological License Approval is that the Orphan Product has additional FDA reporting requirements and additional procedural administration steps. Orphan Product patient’s data must be reported to the FDA annually. There is a difference between Orphan Designation and Orphan Product Approval. Orphan Designation qualifies your product to get special assistance from the FDA such as grants, and additional guidance in designing your trials and what the FDA expects you to do to gain Orphan Approval. Orphan Approval is granted when you have demonstrated that your product is safe and has a probable benefit to a patient affected with the specific indication. Orphan Approval means you can begin selling the product.

We are assembling our Investigative New Drug (IND) Biologic application for PermaDerm^®, utilizing our internal expertise. This allows us to move the product through the FDA pipeline with minimal expense. As we approach the clinical trials, we will need to obtain additional outside funding. We hope to receive the approval from the FDA to initiate clinical trials in 2014. We intend to apply for Biological License Approval in 2015.

Our second product is anticipated to be TempaDerm^®. TempaDerm^® uses cells obtained from human donors to develop banks of cryo-preserved (frozen) cells and cultured skin substitute to provide a continuous supply of non-allogenic skin substitutes to treat much smaller wound areas on patients, such as ulcers. This product has applications in the treatment of chronic skin wounds such as diabetic ulcers, decubitus ulcers and venous stasis ulcers. This product is similar to PermaDerm^® except for the indications and TempaDerm^® does not depend on autologous cells. In fact, it could be possible to use the excess cultured skin that was originally produced for use on the patient that donated the cells used to grow the skin. TempaDerm^® could take this original cultured skin and use it on someone other than the original donor. TempaDerm^® has the possibility of using banked cells, or even frozen cultured skin substitutes, to carry inventory to satisfy unknown needs or large volumes to meet the demands created in large scale disasters.

We believe this technology has many different uses beyond the burn indication. The other uses include chronic wounds, reconstructive surgery, other complex organs and tissues. Some of the individual components of our PermaDerm^® technology will be developed for devices, such as tendon wraps made of collagen or collagen temporary coverings to protect the patients from infections while waiting for PermaDerm^®. The collagen technology used for PermaDerm^® can be used for many different applications in wound healing and stem cell technology and even drug delivery systems.

We could pursue any or all of the indications simultaneously if financing permitted, but for now we will seek approval for PermaDerm^® first as an Orphan Biologic Product and then Biological License Approval.

Results of Operations for the Three and Nine Months Ended June 30, 2014 and 2013

We generated no revenues from September 6, 2007 (date of inception) to June 30, 2014. We do not expect to generate revenues until we are able to obtain FDA approval of cell therapy and biotechnology products and thereafter successfully market and sell those products.

We incurred operating expenses of $88,547 and $576,047 for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2014, respectively, compared with operating expenses of $166,095 and $649,934 for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2013. General and administrative expenses accounts for all of our operating expenses for all above-mentioned periods save $27,556 in stock based compensation for the nine months ended June 30, 2014. Our general and administrative expenses are:

All salaries for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2014, as noted above, have not been paid, but instead have accrued for such periods.

Other expenses totaled $220,317 for the three months ended June 30, 2014, as compared to other expenses totaling $769,500 for the three months ended June 30, 2013. Other expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2014 consisted of interest expenses of $76,554 and a loss on derivative liabilities of $143,763, while other expenses for the same period ended 2013 consisted of interest expenses of $210,087 and a loss on derivative liabilities of $559,413.

Other expenses totaled $123,574 for the nine months ended June 30, 2014, as compared to other expenses totaling $1,128,865 for the nine months ended June 30, 2013. Other expenses for the nine months ended June 30, 2014 consisted of interest expenses of $206,535, offset by a gain on derivative liabilities of $82,961 while other expenses for the same period ended 2013 consisted of interest expenses of $566,156 and loss on derivative liabilities of $562,709.

Interest expense includes the amortization of debt discounts and beneficial conversion features (“BCF’s”) of the various notes payable issued and finder fees for debt. For the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, interest expense decreased by $133,533 as 2013 included the amortization of BCF’s. For the nine months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, interest decreased by $359,621 as 2013 included finder fees of $89,370 and amortization of BCF’s. There were no BCF’s or finder fees in 2014.

The gain (loss) on derivative liabilities is based on the market price of the common stock.

We incurred a net loss of $308,864 for the three months ended June 30, 2014, as compared with a net loss of $935,595 for the same period ended 2013. We incurred a net loss of $699,621 for the nine months ended June 30, 2014, as compared with a net loss of $1,778,799 for the same period ended 2013.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of June 30, 2014, we had cash of $360 and total current assets of $12,421. As of June 30, 2014, we had current liabilities of $4,370,281. We had a working capital deficit of $4,357,860.

Operating activities used $168,502 in cash for the nine months ended June 30, 2014. The decrease in cash was primarily attributable to funding the loss for the period.

Financing activities provided $146,362 and consisted primarily of $100,000 in proceeds from notes payable and $98,442 in advances from related parties, offset by the repayment of the insurance premium financings of $52,220.

We have issued various promissory notes to meet our short term demands, the terms of which are provided in the notes to the consolidated financial statements accompanying this report. While this source of bridge financing has been helpful in the short term to meet our financial obligations, we will need additional financing to fund our operations, continue with the FDA approval process, and implement our business plan. Our long term financial needs are estimated at $8 to $10 million.

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, 2014, there were no off balance sheet arrangements.

Going Concern

Our consolidated 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 $13.8 million for the period September 6, 2007 (inception date) through June 30, 2014, 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 consolidated 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, 2014. 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, 2014, 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, 2014, 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, 2014: (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. 

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, 2014 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 the following, 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 September 30, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in Fulton County Superior Court in the State of Georgia.

In our complaint, we allege that we entered into the Know-How SPA with Lonza Walkersville, on July 21, 2010. Pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, we paid Lonza Walkersville $3,000,000 and, in exchange, we were to receive an exclusive license to use certain proprietary know-how and information necessary to develop and seek approval by the FDA for the commercial sale of the Cutanogen technology. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the Know-How SPA, we were entitled to receive certain related assistance and support from Lonza Walkersville upon payment of the $3,000,000. Under the Know-How SPA, once FDA approval was secured for the commercial sale of the technology, the Company would be entitled to acquire Cutanogen, Lonza Walkersville’s subsidiary, for $2,000,000 in cash.

However, as we allege in the complaint, we believe the Defendant determined that it would make more money on the technology if it was not approved by the FDA and, unbeknownst to us, Lonza Walkersville never intended to fulfill its obligations under the Know-How SPA. In this regard, we allege in the complaint that Lonza Walkersville used certain proprietary know-how and information for at least thirteen (13) other companies. Further, as we allege in the complaint, the Defendant utilized threats and coercion against us throughout the contract term, including false claims of breach and securities violations, in order to attempt to terminate the Know-How SPA unilaterally. As a result, we received neither the exclusive license the Defendant had promised, nor the benefit of the exclusive Know-How SPA. Therefore, we allege in the complaint that, because of the Defendant’s breaches and tortious conduct, that we lost the fees paid to the Defendant, which the Defendant did not earn, and suffered consequential damages and lost opportunities.

The action was being litigated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, but was recently transferred to United States District Court of New Jersey and is now Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-2775. The case was transferred from Georgia to New Jersey for the convenience of the majority of the witnesses in the case and because the Court found that New Jersey had more significant and stronger ties to the parties than Georgia. In 2013, Lonza filed a Motion to Dismiss. In February 2014, Regenicin successfully defeated Lonza’s Motion to Dismiss. In the February 2014 Order, the Court noted that “[a]fter a single reading of the complaint the Court was able to understand Regenicin’s general averments.” The Court further stated, “[c]onsidering their relationship and Regenicin’s numerous allegations, a lengthy pleading is probably unavoidable.” The Court then ordered Regenicin to amend the Complaint and noted, “[t]here are three Defendants in this action, and Regenicin must be more specific in ascribing its allegations among them… Regenicin must replead its complaint to attribute its allegations to specific Defendants.” In accordance with the February 2014 Order, Regenicin amended its Complaint to add additional details regarding the various misrepresentations that each Lonza entity allegedly made to Regenicin. A month later, Lonza filed a Second Motion to Dismiss. Regenicin responded in opposition to Lonza’s Second Motion to Dismiss and is awaiting the New Jersey District Court’s ruling on the Motion. Regenicin files notices of appearance and pro hac admissions of New Jersey counsel.

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.

For the three months ended June 30, 2014, we issued 3,325,611 shares of common stock for the conversion of principal issued under our bridge financing and accrued interest.

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.