Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Trump Administration May Give Mouth-To-Mouth To Resuscitate Coal Industry
Not someone its Blackstone!
Mkt cap 677.20K
PTOP has
February 8, 2018 2:00 PM
Corporate Actions and Operational Changes
MobiCard Inc. Announces Corporate Actions and Operational Changes
CAMBRIDGE, MA / ACCESSWIRE / February 8, 2018 / MobiCard Inc., aka Peer to Peer Network (OTC PINK: PTOP), announces today corporate actions and Operational Changes.
The Company, a provider of a SaaS-based proprietary mobile business card solution, is announcing that the Board of Directors and CEO James Bento have taken steps which it believes are appropriate to protect the company and its shareholders in order to continue its ongoing audit review, to get financials current, and to complete FINRA Corporate Actions previously initiated so that such corporate actions will be completed without obstruction. In order to safeguard the Company and shareholders from any issues regarding director Christopher Esposito, which is currently pending, the Board of Directors, under its inherent powers as well as what it believes are its duties and rights under Chapter 78 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, has suspended and removed Christopher Esposito pending finalization of these matters. Christopher Esposito is also no longer employed with the Company.
Immediately following the suspension, there was a written shareholder consent vote signed amending the articles of incorporation allowing by Board vote to create new classes of shares for protection of the Company during this temporary time period. A new class of Series E Preferred Shares was created and designated to exist in the amount of seventy (70) shares. Each Series E share has a voting power equal to one percent of the outstanding shares issued at the time of any vote or action necessary or allowing for shareholder votes under Nevada law, with or without a shareholder meeting. Such shares shall be non-convertible to common shares of the Company and shall not be considered as convertible under any accounting measure. Such shares shall only be held by the Board of Directors as a corporate body, and shall not be placed into any individual name. Such shares are immediately considered and are issued upon the filing with the State of Nevada without the necessity of a stock certificate. This filing was effectuated on the 19th of January 2018. Such shares shall only be considered for voted as a whole amount and shall be voted for any matter by the vote of the majority vote of the Board of Directors. Such shares shall not be divisible among the Board members. In the event that there is any vote taken which results in a tie of a vote of the Board of Directors, the vote of the Chairman of the Board shall control the voting of such shares. Such shares shall have the authority to vote for all matters that require or could be done with a shareholder vote under Nevada law. Such shares are hereby considered issued to the Board of Directors as set forth above as of the date of the resolution approving such creation and designation. Such preferred class of shares shall cease to exist upon the expiration of three hundred sixty-five (365) days, or the completion of the audit and FINRA corporate actions, whichever occurs first. The Corporation believes this was in the best interest of the Corporation for protection of the Company from perceived existing, but temporary matters which currently exist in regard to certain parties.
SecureAuth just posted on pacer letter to the judge about dismissal
Who is Jack and can you prove Jack exist!
Not sure I guess Judge will decide in oral argument.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC. In a unanimous decision of the Court delivered by Justice Thomas (minus Justice Gorsuch who did not participate in consideration of the case) the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ruled that 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) remains the only applicable patent venue statute, that 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) did not modify or amend 1400(b) or the Court’s 1957 ruling in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., and that the term “residence” in 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) means only the state in which a company is incorporated. The importance of this ruling should be immediately felt on patent litigation in the United States. No longer will a patent owner be able to sue an infringing defendant in a district court where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Instead, patent infringement lawsuits will only be able to be filed in districts within states where the infringing defendant is incorporated, or in districts where there has been an act of infringement and the defendant has a regular and established place of business.
Pacer update!!!!!!
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER FOR
IMPROPER VENUE IN VIEW OF TC HEARTLAND
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, July 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., or
soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Defendants Duo Security Incorporated,
Centrify Corporation, and Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the
Case 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF Document 77 Filed 06/19/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 2045
ii
“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, shall move this Court
before the Honorable John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J., at the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom PO 03, Newark, N.J.
07101 for an Order to dismiss or transfer these actions. Defendants submit the
accompanying brief, declaration of Brian A. Jones, declaration of Paul DiMarzo,
declaration of Nicholas Georgiton, and declaration of Tom Kemp in support of
their motion, as well as a proposed order.
Defendants respectfully request oral argument.
Pacer update David Sherman expert witness for Strikeforce will give deposition to Duo, Trustwave and Centerfy on June 2o at R&G offices.
Logic is they bought high yesterday so sold today to drop price and want to by back in double the amount at a lower cost.
You must be the type of Salsa Made in NEW YORK CITY. The real stuff is made in SFOR Texas!
The funny thing is he unloaded at a share price 4-6 dollars lower then their 52 week average.
Looks like VASCO executive is not feeling good about lawsuit selling some serious shares.
05/18/2017 T. Ken Hunt
Chief Executive Officer; Director 8,972
Disposition at $13.94 per share. 125,069
05/17/2017 T. Ken Hunt
Chief Executive Officer; Director 14,000
Disposition at $14.16 per share. 198,240
05/16/2017 T. Ken Hunt
Chief Executive Officer; Director 14,603
Disposition at $14.6 per share. 213,203
05/15/2017 T. Ken Hunt
Chief Executive Officer; Director 31,652
Disposition at $14.7 per share. 465,284
04/05/2017 Mark S. Hoyt
Chief Financial Officer 1,427
Derivative/Non-derivative trans. at $12.95 per share. 18,479
03/24/2017 T. Ken Hunt
Chief Executive Officer; Director 11,952
Derivative/Non-derivative trans. at $12.9 per share. 154,828
Blank and Rome sent the judge a letter saying they did not comply with the 12 font 40 page limit set by the judge in response to scheduling proposal. They said the will modify response to fix the error.
I think SFOR is out for blood and is willing to let this drag out to encourage the highest settlement amounts possible. Unless SFOR is more interested in royalties then they may settle for a smaller amount and demand royalty agreement as part of the settlement. 50/50 chance it goes either way. Largely dependent on what SFOR'S legal teams end game is. IMHO
Judge is pushing for settlement by ordering SFOR to extend written settlement offer by 5-30-17. Defendants have to reject or accept by 6-5-17. If rejected they move forward to expedited Marksman proceeding.
Pacer update for Vasco and Gemalto
Full docket text for document 24:
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. SCHEDULING ORDER: Pursuant to the parties' agreement and because of the similar subject matter, the Gemalto and Vasco litigations will be consolidated for discovery purposes. Plaintiff to make a written settlement offer no later than 5/30/2017; and defendants to respond no later than 6/5/2017. Initial disclosures to be exchanged no later than 6/5/2017, and the parties to file certifications pursuant to L.R. 16.1 no later than 6/6/2017. The parties to submit proposed protective order(s) no later than 6/23/2017. The court's default protective order, as quoted by the parties, will govern until the entry of an order tailored for this case.
Except otherwise noted here, discovery to be stayed until the court's issuance of an Early Markman Order. The parties to exchange the proposed constructions for the terms "host computer," "access/first channel" and "authentication/second channel," and "multichannel security system/security system" no later than 6/9/2017. Opening briefs due 6/30/2017. If experts are utilized, expert discovery limited to the early Markman proceeding to be completed no later than 7/21/2017, and reply briefs by 8/4/2017. If no expert discovery, reply briefs by 7/21/2017. Joint claim construction statement due 7 days after reply briefs. The Clerk will to schedule a Markman hearing on 8/30/2017. Parties to exchange tutorials no later than 8/25/2017.
Fact discovery may begin after the court's issuance of its early Markman ruling. Initial infringement disclosures to be made no later than 9/29/2017. Initial invalidity/noninfringement disclosures by 11/30/2017. Parties to exchange a list of additional terms to be construed and proposed constructions no later than 1/12/2018. Additional Markman briefs to be filed no later than 2/2/2018. If additional expert discovery is necessary, it is to be concluded by 2/16/2018, reply briefs by 2/28/2018. If no additional expert discovery is necessary, reply briefs by 2/16/2018. The parties to submit a joint claim construction statement 7 days after the filing of reply briefs, including a ranking of the disputed terms in decreasing order of importance to the case as determined by the parties. The court to schedule a second Markman hearing at its convenience. The parties to exchange tutorials 5 days in advance of the hearing. The court to solicit and issue a further pretrial schedule after the issuance of its second Markman order. The court adopts the parties' stipulated discovery limits and e-discovery procedures.
The parties to jointly inform the court, within 7 days of issuance, of any substantive ruling (including without limitation claim construction, summary judgment, and the denial/institution of an IPR and subsequent decisions) in a related litigation/proceeding with a brief explanation of the impact of the ruling on these litigations.Associated Cases: 1:17-cv-10422-RGS, 1:17-cv-10423-RGS(RGS, int2)
Remark posted on Pacer for Secureauth case
Remark;
Per CMH chambers motions set for 5/26/17 on the pleadings (clar, )
No meeting minutes for Duo yet on pacer
I thought so to but looks like they had one.
Duo case Status Conference was held today in front of Judge. Meeting record is not available yet on Pacer.
Full docket text:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk: Case Management Conference held on 5/24/2017. (CD #ECR.) (LM, )
Entrust yesterday filed motion for extension of time to file a protective order and was granted until May 31
Secureathue and entrust both have pacer updates scheduling order approving discovery plans!
Actually the asked for an extension based on those reasons but Pacer shows them as posting the actual request on 5/18/17 unless pacer did not get updated correctly.
Strikeforce Technologies, Inc. v. Secureauth Corporation looks like they asked for change in location to California from Virginia (rocket docket) today along with dismissal of case. Will be interesting what the judge says. They seem to be scrambling. The reasons for change in venue is witness locations are in California (lame) and dismissal based on grounds that SFOR did not clearly outline infringement. They did reference the volumes of data SFOR provided but said it was not specific enough. Hopefully judge rules quickly and they fold knowing they headed for a loss. Got to love this rocket docket.
Don'T you think two of the best law firms in the country who base their reputations and numbers of cases won versus lost would not take the risk of representing a tiny company unless they knew they would win. Not only win but allow them to go after a long list of infringing companies with deep pockets after the first case gets settled.
Vasco needs to answer reply to complaint by 5/15/17. I don't think the dismissal of Vasco International counts as reply. So should we still be expecting a reply to the complaint from Vasco today?
Your a real idiot and probably have never served your country but only your own self interest. Amazing thing about this board is how many of you constantly talk crap about this stock not for the benefit of informing shareholders but to line your own pockets. It will be a great day when you get left behind and SFOR longs can laugh at the missed opportunity you let slip by to make a few bucks when you could of made a fortune.
Gemalto has answered the complaint. Same old reply 10 pages of denials.
Why would Blank And Rome ask for an extension unless they are finishing settlement agreement with defendants. This was filed to today.
VIA ECF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
The Honorable John Michael Vazquez
United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ 07101
Re: Strikeforce Technologies, Inc. v. Duo Security Incorporated
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF
Strikeforce Technologies, Inc. v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc.
Civil Action No. 2:160cv-03573-JMV-MF
Strikeforce Technologies, Inc. v. Centrify Corporation
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-03574-JMV-MF
Dear Judge Vazquez:
Blank Rome LLP represents Plaintiff Strikeforce Technologies, Inc. in the above matters.
Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay Pending Completion of Inter Partes Review Proceedings is
currently returnable before Your Honor on June 5, 2017. We write to respectfully request a two
(2) week extension of the return date from June 5, 2017 to June 19, 2017. Defendants’ counsel
have consented to this request. We attach a proposed Order for Your Honor’s review and
consideration.
Thank you for Your Honor’s courtesies.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jonathan M. Korn
JONATHAN M. KORN
The DOD, CIA, FBI and 007 forbid the removal of unicorn horns unless you have an approved SAM registration. The exception to the rule is if the Horse has SFOR tattooed to its A**. Sorry could not resist!
According to pacer it was held on the 25th with all three defendants and resulted in them filing for a stay to the case until IPR is completed.
Would love to see the meeting minutes from the teleconference held on the 25th.Not sure if pacer will post them.
Lots of new pacer updates today! Seems like C/T/D are all waiting for judge to decide on stay for IPR. If he says no they seem ready to tumble. the new ones are asking for second extensions might also be waiting for judges answer to IPR stay.
Deal is done Seth for B&R finalized settlements with all three and is now moving on probably to a well earned vacation to his house in the Bahamas. David sent in to wrap up final paperwork. Should get news very soon. IMO
Congratulations on becoming a moderator for this board! Your unbiased opinion and valuable input will be greatly appreciated. I have always valued your informative comments and unique perspective of this wonderful stock and all the opportunities it has provided for share holders. Good luck, I know you will be fair and responsive to the fellow board participants.
p.s. Please leave fruit (apples) out of your replies. I have not been able to look at them the same way since your last descriptive comment
This is fantastic! Short sighted people will sell on Monday. I will buy their shares at RIDICULOUS price. Come first quarter financial statement release, I will be laughing all the way to the bank!!! (Sell Sell Sell) It is getting a little scary how many shares I actually have. Started buying at .003 and have not stopped yet just taking advantage of the dips. Don't care much what day to day price is as long as it reaches my magic number eventually. I wonder if some day they will call me the best stock trader of all time. Probably not just smart enough to see gold when its sitting in front of me and willing to bend over and pick it up. Will post again when I am rich of my APPLE:) Good things come to those who take advantage of it.
In a dark room about a year ago a small struggling company with some brilliant patents sued MSFT. I smart man sat across from K and said I know you need money this is what we will do I'll settle and this is my offer 9 million to keep you afloat. You allow us to license your patent for a small monthly amount. We will pay for the best Patent law firm money can buy for you to go after the follow infringers that are competing for some large contracts we want. Once you win or they settle we will buy your company for let's say 8 billion. Sounds fair you walk away rich and we get what we need to control the dual authentication industry. IMO