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.
What does everyone else think? Now once I think about my last post I feel as if VennWest knows that the Judge will grant a ruling in this case to finally end it. I believe HDC will be successful in getting this case closed so they can file bankruptcy. I just don't see HDC filing any 10-K period as I believe the uphill battle can not be defeated. This also would mean in my thoughts that "ALL" the shares in all series are shot to hell too as is ours. OK, dream on Intel was holding back and will now give us a $1B boost like hell🤪
Hey if we can't laugh all this mess off then that means you are stuck with it forever....be back later running to Publix.
12-21-23 Georgia Court doc# 83
Robert S. Frenchman and Kenneth A. Caruso,
from Mukasey Frenchman LLP, withdraw as
counsel for VennWest. There is no need for
substitute counsel as Robert J. Kaufman from
Chalmer, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC,
who is also counsel of record for VennWest
in the above - captioned actions.
____________________________________
Seems to me maybe the parties
came to some type of agreement?
I see nothing new involving SEC or at the
Georgia Corporations office. I will check
OTCmarket next for any changes involving
HDC.
Yes Charles that is me. I haven't been home all day and turning in right now.
zenos, Gosh knows shareholders deserve that.
Is there an open bar?
~Happy Holiday Hours~
It's that time again for iHub's annual Happy Holiday Hours! Now through January 1st, all Users have access to premium message board features during this time.
In short both parties agreed to a short extension of time ("appears to me" ONLY, due to Christmas and New Year holiday) DOC 81, 81-1
Hello Zenos... doc# 82
Today 12-19-23 Georgia Court, Guess what?
As usual both parties are at it and arguing but as of today the
Judge ordered that the Plaintiff may have until and through the
5th of January, 2024, to file its response to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgement.
BTW...DOC 81 & 81-1 are not worth posting just BS from each party
with acknowledgment. .
>>>yes it still sucks.>>>
… would be a great title for your memoir; from wives to expert markets.
The fundamentals of the case haven’t changed. We have facts of previous legal wins and a settlement out of court. The 2.2 mil is also fact. But one that signifies a defeat. Or, as the enigmatic BQ quips, “on the eve of victory, why did HDC settle with Intel for chump change?”
As Bill and others have theorized, the 2.2 mil defeat was the result of a waning will to fight on (“on the eve of victory”)-while neglecting to factor in the will, reputation and income of their legal team.
Although equally unbelievable, I’m inclined to believe the oxymoronic “surprise, no damages” theory before the lack of will inference.
I think we all agree that at some point, HDC will clarify all of this in an 8 or 10K. Until then, as another philosopher quipped, “yes it still sucks.”
ZEE...it all came down to who will loan HDC money and under what circumstances/cost to HDC. Now think about this? If you were CEO and you and a close business friend were to loan money to HDC would you not protect your a$$? George did the deal that actually saved the company for a bit longer while assuring George something if all this soured or should HDC (Within a certain time period as expressed in the deal) share price fly like an eagle. Where we stand today all those shares are basically like ours as there isn't any real tangible assets but I could be wrong? ...there again only went wrong with my first two wives, anyways why Colleen won't come clean with an 8-K stating limited operation until attorneys can wind up the company. It isn't like we will ever see HDC trade again so what is her fear? Nothing is worth jack but maybe "Hartford" could use our trading symbol when all this is said and done.
...and yes I hated to see those "D" series shares but got us by a bit longer....as I see this "if" there isn't any tangible assets or share price George and James have nothing just like us.
...Marty maybe Colleen will pay you but might be hard to squeeze even pennies out of anything that is left I mean you know they must pay to file bankruptcy as we can't do that with our looks or being a good ole boy now can we?
The SEC did not need to intervene and you will see Vennwest collapse away when the Judge handles that case so with that you will see why George did not need SEC or anyone else to intervene however and yes it still sucks.
That sounds straight up and absolute but do feel (personally) that HDC wasn't mainly into the business of suing everyone in town but rather there was nothing left and it was one thing after another and both HDC and Intel got sucked deeper into the folds and just couldn't or wouldn't let go. I do think any company that is strictly in the business just suing corporations since all they trout are patents is BS, they better have millions upon millions sitting gathering dust to wait out the time it takes to complete everything, there are no guarantees. It would seem it isn't wise to sue without a strong business support and some type of product bring steady income while lawsuit plays out.
On a much better subject we have Christmas to enjoy and family
ZEE...don't worry about the farm girl he's alright.
One thing that happens here is $1M to $10M verdicts are very common. However, the big money cases make the news so they appear much more common than they are. The number of lawsuits very large companies are dealing with is underestimated, and the results of those suits go unnoticed. The HDVY result did not even make it into the Intel 10Q, or even the news AFAIK. Any NPE with a patent, which number in the hundreds of thousands, can and will launch lawsuits against large corporations looking for some money. Companies that use patents to make products generally have broad cross license agreements with others that make products, so avoid the legal battles. NPE's have no need for such a cross license agreement so the only way to monetize the patent is through a lawsuit.
Alan
I do not believe we will see a 10-K period but maybe HDC can't dump their shares unless we are trading again however, with everyone running to the door to sell @.01-.05 who in the world is going to buy these shares, meaning, it would cost more to establish trading again and not guarantee management success in running over the top of all our dead bodies in order to make it out the door before the door slams shut trapping them among the dead
Charles........
Okay buylow2, if you insist, just try to buy some at this price. If you succeed, please let us know. Again, the price we see is the real price only if we are selling.
BuyLow...it doesn't take BQ to figure all this out does it? I mean if there was anything that HDC was happy about they would have said something that didn't even need to be about the settlement (as I have said over and over like a broken record and further more and a again like a broken record I stated HDC is too damn chicken to come clean with us shareholders...means the SOS no respect for shareholders. Mr Fromholzer was not needed as there is no need for him. As for Mr Morrison we hear what?
I see it this way HDC must try and hang in here for the clear benefit for themselves meaning once the Judge pushes Vennwest clear of HDC as for Insurance money for Vennwest (I think NOT) ....ALSO I really would like to know if HDC did pay their Insurance premiums as this might be another reason why HDC fought Vennwest so hard.
I must say though the main reason if I were the CEO of HDC I would fight Vennwest for the main purpose to make sure any and all of the HDC shares are not taken from me and I am free to do whatever I wish with HDC. I could collapse the company and shed all shareholders then reopen...who knows maybe Colleen and Morrison might use this public company for their own business interests such as media (Colleen) and or Dental as in Mr. Morrison.
I have many various thoughts but the main one is HDC has never nor ever will look out for us shareholders it is all about themselves and as I see things BQ is no different if you look at the histoiry. Now me I'm just s DA shareholder but the players were or are directors are they not? Simply said yes they were.
Hey gents, a post by Charles from Bill Quirk on Yahoo. Go check it out.
Chaazy, what ever price u see trade is real. 0.0001 is the real price. Goose egg bro.
Agreed, LocWolf. I merely emphasized it here to point out to HDVY retail investors (holders of HDVY stock) that when they see these ridiculously low prices being posted, these prices aren't real (unless they are selling). Who knows what the real price is because neither you nor I can see it. Only brokers/dealers can see it.
Charles I believe the brokerage firms know that not all potential investors understand the Expert Market so with stipulating "The value reported may not reflect the current price." serves both the potential investor and of course protects the brokerage firm from lawsuits.
I know that you were just kidding, King Oil, however, I posted the following on yahoo and may as well post it here:
I just noticed a footnote beside the price quote for HDVY in my Schwab account which said, "The value reported may not reflect the current price." As I have pointed out before, the price we see is NOT the price that broker-dealers are seeing and/or paying, however, the price we see IS the price ONLY if we are selling.
Now don't be negative😎
Oh no. Down 50% today. Maybe it’s time to sell. Not.
Hey LocWolf, I enjoyed your cynical humor, with a dash of truth mixed in for flavor.
No, I don't think so, King Oil. I believe that this whole matter will be wrapped up fairly soon. The court will probably decide that there has been enough foot dragging, and go ahead and rule on the defense's motion for a summary judgement.
Re: The value reported may not reflect the current price.
Meaning the share price of stocks located within the " Expert Market" of course some "Brokerage Firms" would have this as it is simply fact that these stocks are not accessible to retail shareholders nor the share price.
I believe the statement basically provides a disclaimer.
It is just rules and think about this...in document #75.1 Judge Victoria M. Calvert gave Vennwest until February 28th 2024 to complete the discovery. Now with each party slapping each other will the Judge act or lay back until February then slap Vennwest or HDC....onward to Royal Castle, right?
Charles you got that right in the pocket, yes sir.
Buylow...the court system is there to be used by all parties and has rules to follow along with much documentations of past case throughout the USA meaning each parties Lawyers will find the best documented cases to support their issues and to prove to the Judge the way it should rule however, if the Judge wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, doesn't get layed then one of the parties fighting is going to get screwed, flip a coin or kiss the Judges a$$. Now how does that strike you in all the possible areas of being ridiculous?
It really makes you wonder why the court keeps granting extension after extension. Are they waiting for bribes?
Thanks LocWolf. As I have posted earlier, I don't see how the VennWest case can continue at this point. The onus was upon VennWest to surmount the high legal bar by showing just cause that the defendants failed to follow ethical standards and established legal protocols while dealing with one financial crisis after another in order to avert bankruptcy. The coup de gras, in my opinion, is that when voting on whether or not to accept the loan proposals offered by McGovern and Dengler, all parties who would have had a conflict of interest, abstained from voting. Also, McGovern's loan terms were more favorable than Venning's, however, Venning never even submitted a formal loan proposal. Add to that the fact that McGovern could have taken personal possession of HDC's SVM-RFE patents (as this IP was put up as collateral in the loan documents) when HDC defaulted in it's timely repayment in accordance with the loan terms. Instead, McGovern extended the repayment schedule to keep HDC from being in default. And there is more, however, from my perspective, it is going to be a steep uphill battle for VennWest to establish the merits of its case in the face of all of these compelling facts. JMHO.
Lockwolf, whole court system ridiculous
Georgia Court 12/13/23 doc # 80
HDC is asking Georgia Court to not allow further depositions.
Conclusion
Vennwest has not shown good cause or established excusable neglect to justify putting Defendants to the burden of a fifth, open-end, discovery period.Having four times extended the discovery period, Vennwest waited until months after discovery had closed the final time to ask, right before dispositive motion deadline. Vennwest took a calculated risk in making the strategic decision not to depose any witnesses in the extended periods. Its strategic decision should not prejudice Defendants, who have been involved in this meritless case for over 40 months. And reopening discovery now would cause Defendants to suffer unfair Prejudice because they have their summary judgment motion under the Court's order. For these reasons, the motion should be denied.
________________________________
The above is HDC's conclusion submitted to the Court however the document contains 16 pages of history, again submitted to the court by HDC. I believe this could go either way with HDC slightly on the plus side. I also would believe the Court is tired of this which would be another plus for HDC. so what I'm saying is that the Court may just make a final ruling in this case.
Alan...I figure HDC's Attorney's pulled 40% of the $2,25 million which would be $900k but who knows for sure? No doubt HDC has many unpaid bills and past salaries that must be satisfied. Our patents have just about seen their day and believe whoever is minding the store does not want to be there in the first place. Simply said, the one or two people left in HDC have other priorities and businesses to tend to, HDC has a bad case of Dandruff and who likes to be around that. No doubt Mr. Fromholzer was smarter than we thought? Anyways when HDC closes the Donut shop they could shed all of us and then crank up again but I don;t see Colleen or Morrison wanting to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
I have no data on how often law firms win contingency cases nor their criterion for accepting them. That said, it appears to me the HDVY legal team was not investing too much in this case, and I suspect the $2.25M is more than enough to cover expenses and give the attorneys a little extra for their effort.
I did find a reference from a few years ago that mentioned the median bench (judge issued) award is $1.9M, while the median for both juries, and settlements is closer to $10m. I suspect a legal team goes in expecting some number like this.
We really need HDVY to publish some financials so we get a better picture. HDVY may have paid some up front from their previous legal winnings, however when we see legal expenses on the earnings report we don't really know if they are vennwest or Intel
Charles lets hope but really, under all the stresses Colleen and Mr. Fromholzer were under and his closeness to George if you were in his position would you not try and wish the company success no matter what? Marty as such is a different animal and we can see why he refused to burn down the bridge between himself and HDC but rather wanted to use C4 to make sure.
....also he (Fromholzer) talked about developing product...as such. We are pretty much done and look at how much products Barnhill has sold for HDC over all those years when we had 100 plus patents. Now he is doing just fine with his Wacky Tobaccy business so maybe SVM overdrive finally kicked in.
Thanks for that interpretation, Alan. Sure, this is a possibility, however, I don't think that we can say definitively until we get more answers, or some form of confirmation, from the company.
That sounds logical but I can’t get past the idea that a reputable law firm would waste time on a contingency case unless they believed it was almost a slam dunk. They must have had some solid evidence of infringement before taking the case, no?
Thanks LocWolf. Yes, this presents a more clear understanding of the context from which you framed your assumptions, so I get your meaning. Every SEC filing contains this disclaimer, so we have to discern whether Mr. Fromholzer was speaking in "forward looking statement" generalities and platitudes, OR whether, being a Director of the company, he had inside information related to the Intel settlement which prompted him to make those optimistic remarks. It seems that we are right back to, "It's a matter of interpretation."
Alan, thank you and yes Christmas or happiness start from within which you already know and I love this time of the year. I recall before 1987 this time of year when cold weather starts I would dread it and hide in the Bars. Damn shame some of us waste a decade or so before we get it right.
Charles, this is what I was thinking referencing Mr. Fromholzer. This is referencing forward looking statements.
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Forward-Looking Statements
This Report contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 12E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including or related to our future results, certain projections and business trends. Assumptions relating to forward-looking statements involve judgments with respect to, among other things, future economic, competitive and market conditions and future business decisions, all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many of which are beyond our control. When used in this Report, the words “estimate,” “project,” “intend,” “believe,” “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Although we believe that assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements are reasonable, any of the assumptions could prove inaccurate, and we may not realize the results contemplated by the forward-looking statement. Management decisions are subjective in many respects and susceptible to interpretations and periodic revisions based on actual experience and business developments, the impact of which may cause us to alter our business strategy or capital expenditure plans that may, in turn, affect our results of operations. In light of the significant uncertainties inherent in the forward-looking information included in this Report, you should not regard the inclusion of such information as our representation that we will achieve any strategy, objective or other plans. The forward-looking statements contained in this Report speak only as of the date of this Report as stated on the front cover, and we have no obligation to update publicly or revise any of these forward-looking statements. These and other statements which are not historical facts are based largely on management’s current expectations and assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among others, the failure to successfully develop a profitable business, delays in identifying customers, and the inability to retain a significant number of customers, as well as the risks and uncertainties described in “Risk Factors” section to our Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020.
My thought seems or was meant to be that he can say pretty much what is contained within the above regardless of fact within or not! In other words you or myself can say as such everyday but it don't mean jack. Also would Mr. Fromholzer actually fall under the description of being management? I really don't know since he was to be an independent Director?
I believe he was more specific and qualified it as AI in the biomedical field. This may be due to the reality that they failed in securing much money outside the biomedical field with the Intel lawsuit.
Alan
LocWolf, do you actually realize what you are asking me to believe? You are asking me to believe that Mr. Fromholzer did not mean his own words regarding HDC's bright future in the field of AI. You are asking me to substitute your words in place of his. Yet, his words are part of an SEC filing and are vetted by attorneys, while your words are, what, just your interpretation of what you think he must have meant, but didn't say? How believable is that? Relax LocWolf. It seems that you are trying too hard to convince me to believe you instead of my own eyes.
It was clear to me, but I'll add a few more words.
In the original response Intel provided they stated that they did not use SVM-RFE so did not need a license. It is easy to prove something exists, but impossible to prove something does not exist. It was clear based on the evidence in the original lawsuit that in the past Intel has run the SVM-RFE algorithm. It was not clear if the algorithm ever made it into any Intel products. It is likely the settlement amount is what Intel offered and HDVY accepted, rather than what HDVY wanted. It is also likely that during discovery HDVY was not able to identify any Intel products that infringe the patent. This is not to say such products don't exist, just that HDVY was unable to prove such a product exists. It is likely the Intel payment is for past use of the algorithm, which was proven. It is unlikely the payment is meant to cover Intel usage of the patent in current or future shipping products.
Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays to all! May 2024 bring us all happiness.
Alan
Now don't take me wrong as I would love a $200 + million dollar deal from Intel but have this"feeling" that I will be toasted/roasted and ground up and placed in a vase, not able to run my mouth again before Intel ever pays us a cent more.
I hope everyone understand the dates I placed in a few posts last night.
Charles as all of us can clearly see Colleen is just tickled to have $2.25 million, can't you here and see the 8-k's flying and money in all our pockets when we trade again. Common sense says we are done but we just don't want to believe the SEC filings now do we. Mr. Fromholzer just stepped out and retire before the gold bars are to drop from the sky?
Charles, it is normal for HDC to always come up pretty much empty handed and that is factual truth and a damn shame ta boot!.
Followers
|
129
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
18342
|
Created
|
10/08/05
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |