isi life sciences doesn't add up

ISI Life Sciences is located at 610 Newport Center, Suite 500 - at least that's what they said.

Wrong address or no address at all?

They told the SEC they're located at 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 500. Newport Beach, California. And the company is still listed on Rohrabacher's financial disclosures.

But Suite 500 was vacant and available for sublease - so if ISI isn't at this address where are they?

Missing filings or missing in action?

This company made one SEC filing in April 2013 – but even though they are headquartered in California, they never made any filings with the State of California. (It's really really hard to legally operate any kind of business in the State of California without filing something with some office or agency of the State at some point.) 

The office is way too big for ISI

Not only is their so-called office location  vacant – it’s also huge. We found a leasing advertisement indicating that the space is 15,000 square feet.  Makes sense for lots of employees ... but we couldn't find any ISI employees anywhere.

ISI couldn't afford the rent here

This is a really large office in a really nice building in a really nice part of a really nice city. 

The monthly rent is $60,000, based on the $4 per square foot price and the 15,000 square footage. These details are in the sublease promo.

But according to the SEC filing, this company only raised about $300,000 in capital. 

Hard to imagine that they were paying $60,000 rent for even one month. 

Harder still to imagine how anyone would have ever signed them a lease.

Even if they were subleasing a tiny tiny portion of this space - and only paying $10,000 in rent, their money would disappear pretty quickly and Dana Rohrabacher's investment would evaporate.


Where is the CEO? According to the SEC filings, the Executive Officer is Craig Keshishian. He seems to have left ISI to work somewhere else - although he's no longer on their Executives page. 

He has a huge gap in his work history and claims that he left the United States to spend over a decade in Eastern Europe. And how was Craig Keshishian spending his time in these former Warsaw Pact countries?  Privatizing industries, he says. 

Given Dana Rohrabacher's Putin-o-philia, we can't help but wonder how Keshishian was spending his time during the multi-decade gap in his LinkedIn resume. A gap that corresponds with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Putin. 

Keshishian popped up in Alaska in September 2006. According to the archived "Dean's Report" for that month, kept by the Dean of the Fisheries school at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, "Mr. Craig Keshishian from Indicator Systems, Inc. (ISI) arrived on September 26. He spent September 27 in Fairbanks discussing a new invention by his company and then traveled to Kodiak to meet with FITC faculty on September 28. A joint proposal from ISI and FITC may result from his visit." 

To be blunt, there's very little public information out there about Craig Keshishian. And we tracked him down for months and combed the archives of the web.

Why does this matter? It matters because there was very little public information out there about Craig Keshishian at the time that Dana Rohrabacher decided to invest in Keshishian's company. Presumably, Rohrabacher made his invesmtent on the basis of private rather than public information.


What does ISI Life Sciences do?

Craig Keshishian is a really modest CEO. The answer, according to his LinkedIn profile: "Medical devices, polymer sciences." Is that enough information for you to make an investment in this company? 

Let's try this again, what does ISI Life Sciences do?

Board member, Sayed Badrawi, says on his LinkedIn profile: "ISI Life Sciences is an oncology-focused development stage company with therapeutic and diagnostic imaging assets." Would that be enough information for you to make an investment in this company?

What does ISI Life Sciences do? 

The only thing we know for sure is that - on paper at least - they made Dana Rohrabacher a lot of money in a short period of time. Beyond that, who knows?

Our point is simply that Dana Rohrabacher could not have informed himself about this company and what they do - unless he was told directly from one of the very few people who seems to know what's going on. There was no public information available to form the basis of Dana Rohrabacher's investment decision. How then could Dana Rohrabacher make this spectacular investment without getting inside information? 

This is the fact pattern of insider trading. And insider trading laws apply to private companies - not just public companies

The address for Rohrabacher's shell company was a fairly massive office.