ONLY MY OPINION AND PURE SPECULATION
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.
I AM AN OPTIMIST WITH EXPERIENCE....
Regards
Sunny:>)))
If the Bad Actors were successful in getting the entire proxy through and changed registration to Delaware with new articles of incorporation with the new "Preferred Shares",
YOU WOULD HAVE HAD NOTHING AT THAT TIME OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
One of many reasons for the Proxy was to change the "Articles of Incorporation" in Nevada and file with their Secretary of State so they could file legally in Delaware. Nevada had to be resolved first. The new articles of incorporation in Delaware would include the issuance of the new class of "Preferred Shares".
I really recommend that you take the time and review the "Blue Highlighted" area beginning at page 14. Study briefly the comparison's. Remember, this is their filing and not my words. I already tore it apart. Many on this board challenged me as to where exactly I was getting my information. It was a simple response to cut and paste from the "Blue area beginning at page 14".
It was their audacity to put it in writing, because they had to in order for it to be legal. They got caught in a "HOSTILE TAKEOVER"
Digest it.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Not so fast there. One has to return to the "Proxy Information" voted on. I attach the following for review. It can be started at the beginning or simply scroll down to the Blue highlighted area of comparison beginning at page 14.
This was the vehicle by which Mr. Squires was restored to the position of "CEO and Chief Executive Officer".
The only approval was to increase the number of common shares to 750,000.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=11720031&guid=EDhkkqt7kD-xsyh
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Well stated.
I have stated before, Mr. Squires, in my opinion, got slapped for his own arrogance. There are too many examples of "OTC" equities currently trading ,more delinquent and trading value less than a penny with a stop sign. The difference, the "SEC" had to step in,trying to be sly and slide two "PR'S in under the guise of an 8K
after a warning from the SEC and agreeing to a plan where both parties were in agreement.
The Company had previously received correspondence from the Commission in December 2020 related to the delinquency of it filing obligations and had proposed a plan to regain compliance with its reporting obligations by February 2021
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=14872567&guid=pNpnUp-vXMc8_3h
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=14882378&guid=pNpnUp-vXMc8_3h
Simply look at the dates.
As for GE (General Electric) I could tell you a lot. I retired from GE after 28 years, I was a business manager with P&L responsibilities. And yes , Jeff Immelt was my boss at Healthcare before Jack appointed him as CEO. Big mistake.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Very Interesting
looks as though Management is cleaning up how many shares they own with filing "Frm-4/4A" with the SEC the last 2 days , 17ea in 2 days. Next will be the delinquent 10Q and 10K to accurately reflect proper stock ownership.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/QTMM/disclosure
Regards
Sunny:>)))
The Float has not changed since Oct 30, 2018
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/QTMM/security
Now a
Dark or Defunct symbol
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/DUTV/disclosure
Regards
Sunny:>)))
I would begin with the 10Q for the period ending 06-30-2020
released 07-31-2020
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=14302383&guid=mBKFUpTtiuOgI3h
Regards
Sunny:>)))
That's a big mis...
Regards
Sunny:>)))
So, It's all just buying time. How long have they known about "Darwin's Bark Spider" "
Float
280,930,644
10/30/2018
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/QTMM/security
The last float data available.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Mins Wins....How revealing....
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Voting rights really are in those 2 "PREFERRED SHARES"
Regards
Sunny:>)))
I see your bank sponsors a "CUP Car" at Talladega. Ally Bank
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Mins Wins.
Regards Sunny:>)))
Sorry Mojo,
That is not how Government Contracting works. I was an evaluator for many different contracts to include "Sole Source". My specific "WARRENT" was delegated to "Capital Equipment Purchases" for DOD and VA.
Be aware of your audience.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
MINS WINS He dealt with the folks and the horses they rode in on....Ya Think...LoL
Sunny:)>>>
Minns is "Happy" thanks Bill
Minns seems pretty happy with results. Looking for more cases of the same from K&L Gates shenanigans and has Steve's recent TV interview attached:
Minns & Arnett – Trial Lawyers sharing recent news covering victory against K & L Gates.
K&L Gates Loses Appeal In $100M Nanotech Malpractice Suit
By Andrew Strickler
Law360 (March 20, 2020, 7:09 PM EDT) -- A "rational mind" could look at a set of uncontested facts in a suit filed by nanotechnology company Quantum Materials Corp. and infer that K&L Gates LLP used the company's information against it when it sued Quantum, a onetime firm client, on behalf of lenders, a Texas appeals court said Friday.
Backing Quantum in the firm's bid to fight a denied dismissal, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel said the company made a prima facie case that K&L Gates violated its fiduciary duty to Quantum and engaged in a conflict of interest.
The panel also sided with Quantum on whether K&L Gates' alleged misconduct was "unconscionable" under the state Deceptive Trade Practices Act, allowing that claim to continue as well.
The court rejected K&L Gates' argument that it was protected by attorney immunity, a doctrine that deals with third-party claims of negligent representation of clients. That defense can't "shield an attorney from liability arising from misconduct toward his or her own client," the opinion said.
"K&L Gates has identified no authority holding otherwise, and we are aware of none," the court said.
Quantum, a "nanomaterial" manufacturer of components used in digital displays, filed the $100 million lawsuit against K&L Gates LLP two years ago. The suit accuses the firm of a blatant conflict in simultaneous representations of Quantum and a pair of lenders with it had a payment dispute with.
According to the suit, Quantum hired K&L Gates in 2016 for "non-adverse" corporate advice, which included helping the company go public and the drafting lending agreements with two investor entities. The engagement letter included an advance conflict waiver allowing K&L Gates to represent adverse parties in matters not substantially related to the corporate work, which included attendance by a K&L Gates attorney at Quantum board meetings.
In 2017, a dispute arose between Quantum and the lenders over payment issues, during which the lenders demanded equity in the corporation rather than cash.
Quantum ultimately sued a transfer agent involved in the dispute. During that case, K&L Gates lawyers filed an intervention petition on behalf of the lenders alleging Quantum Materials had breached its contracts with the lenders.
That spurred a Quantum Materials bid to disqualify the firm and accusations that the firm had used Quantum's confidential information to benefit the lenders and itself. K&L Gates maintained that the advance waiver applied and that the matters were not substantially related.
In 2018, after K&L Gates sent Quantum a request for $300,000 in allegedly unpaid fees, the company sued the firm for malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and DTPA violations. A Dallas trial court turned away the firm's dismissal motion, teeing up the current interlocutory appeal.
In its Friday decision, the appeals court noted that K&L Gates didn't deny representing Quantum for the better part of a year and prepared the company's "go public" S-1 filing.
"It is reasonable to infer that over the course of preparing that document, K&L Gates would have become familiar with Quantum Materials’ financial outlook. It is undisputed that the lenders, after initially accepting cash payments toward the loan obligation, later began insisting on equity as reimbursement," the panel said. "And it is equally uncontroverted that at some point K&L Gates began assisting the lenders to that end, ultimately suing Quantum Materials in an effort to obtain that equity."
Quantum Materials counsel Michael Minns of Minns & Arnett told Law360 it made no sense that the lenders wanted company equity unless they received information from K&L Gates about why the stake in Quantum would be more valuable than the cash.
"The court of appeals found the claims have merit based just on the petitions and facts undenied" by K&L Gates, he said. He also dismissed the firm's position regarding the waiver.
An advance waiver "cannot say you can just sue your own client representing other parties, known or unknown, at any point in the future," he said. "You just can't do that."
Counsel for K&L Gates did not respond to a request for comment Friday. A firm spokesperson declined to comment.
The decision sends the case back to the trial court.
Justices Jeff Rose, Gisela D. Triana and Edward Smith sat on the panel for the Third District.
Quantum is represented by Michael Louis Minns and Ashley Blair Arnett of Minns & Arnett and by Seth Kretzer and Mark Murphy.
K&L Gates is represented by George M. Kryder, Matthew W. Moran and Jeremy Reichman of Vinson & Elkins LLP.
The case is Quantum Materials Corp. v. K&L Gates LLP, case number 18-2393, in the District Court of Hays County, Texas, and K&L Gates LLP v. Quantum Materials Corp., case number 03-19-00138-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District.
--Additional reporting by Michelle Casady. Editing by Amy Rowe.
Minns & Arnett are interested in learning of any other times that K & L Gates may have either represented both sides in the same lawsuit, or simply used confidential information they obtained from a client, against that client when representing another client.
Two other cases we know about:
A Motion to Disqualify K&L Gates (for client conflict) granted in Michael Pottorff, et al v. Roscoe F. “Trey” White, III, et al; CC-11-00751-D; Dallas County.
A Motion to Disqualify (for client conflict). K & L Gates voluntarily withdrew. Cyber Switching Patents, LLC v. Eaton Corp., No. 4:14-cv-02862; Northern District of California.
A recent interview by Steve Squires, CEO of QTMM (our client)
Cash,
I like the fuzzy math. However, I think the Bank in Salt Lake City has a better view of it....Simon Says...
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Good move on Kim's part.Less cash put out when Kim takes it private.
So far , no "Sails on the Horizon" or return messages from that "Yankee Clipper Ship" No Silk in the Holds.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Yes, although dangerous and viral, it could have been mitigated early on.
https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2020/04/27/fauci-knew-about-hcq-in-2005-nobody-needed-to-die
Regards
Sunny:>)))
That is welcome news. I look to the first of May.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Mins Wins for QMC
Regards
Sunny:>)))
I hope everyone and their family's are safe and well.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
I don't think this dog will hunt anymore.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
I like it
I would hardly suggest Mr. Stone was unfairly targeted by the SEC in the 6 previous attempts.
I would not suggest Mr. Stone was unfairly targeted by the SEC. in the 6 previous attempts.
Malcom Nickerson should have taken advantage of this.
I would have thought that Mr. Stone in the very least updated us on the following prior to resigning.
The OTC has it listed as "Dark or Defunct"
Regards
Sunny:>)))
I think it is higher than that as well as the "Burn Time" on the Blue Micro Led. I believe that it was at 7,000 hrs last August.
Regards
Sunny:>)))
I think Kim T is overdue on updating us now that we are inching toward $0.10 after the long hold @ ~$0.19
Regards
Sunny:>)))
Funny how I missed this. Should be this week if at all.
Interesting, The "OTC" website now showing Two Independent Directors on the Board of Directors for QMC.
From 3 hours ago on the QMC Twitter site.
I don't think DUTV will participate this Christmas.
Regards
Sunny:>)))