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.
valeria123, this is the stock market not some game of Bingo.
What you'll eventually find out is that those why deny facts
and reality and do nothing but sweep them under the rug
with no rebuttal or debate get completely CRUSHED!
The "team" at Earth's Renewable Energy.
Shouldn't this "team" be stepping into high gear by
now to get the plant built in Bakersfield, California
soon?
<<"We are excited to take this step forward and to secure a sublicensing agreement that will generate both near and long term revenue for our company, while further validating our technology as the industry standard for the economic production of energy efficient bio-products," said Daniel de Liege, CEO, Alliance BioEnergy Plus. "We look forward to delivering the technology once their plant is ready and to work with the team at Earth's Renewable Energy to ramp up processing and to deliver high quality materials to our commercialization partners."
"We are pleased to be partnering with AMG Energy and Alliance for the production of more environmentally friendly bio-products," says Katherine Fabris, President of Earth's Renewable Energy. "We identified their technology as the best in the industry from both a cost and production perspective, and look forward to a productive long-term relationship.">>
But to bad for ALLM investors that "team" only consists of one
person:
<<Employees:1>>
http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Earth!s-Renewable-Energy,-LLC-949-891-4022
And too bad for De Liege that the Internet helps expose him for what
he is - a liar!!
Accredited Investor Requirements
To be an accredited investor, a person must demonstrate an annual income of $200,000, or $300,000 for joint income, for the last two years with expectation of earning the same or higher income. An individual must have earned income above the thresholds either alone or with a spouse over the last three years. The income test cannot be satisfied by showing one year of an individual's income and the next two years of joint income with a spouse. The exception to this rule is when a person is married within the period of conducting a test. A person is also considered an accredited investor if he has a net worth exceeding $1 million, either individually or jointly with his spouse. The SEC also considers a person to be an accredited investor if he is a general partner, executive officer, director or a related combination thereof for the issuer of unregistered securities.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp#ixzz4s1cP0okV
The reason why the above is important is because you have to be an
accredited investor to invest in ALLM's 506 (c) offering. As you
can see from above, you have to make good money to be an accredited
investor. And in this world, you have to be pretty smart to make
good money. And too bad for ALLM that dealing with smart people
doesn't bode well for them because smart people can see right throug
their BS!
<<What is a 506(c) offering?
506(c) allows companies to offer and sell securities to institutional or accredited investors. In comparison to traditional registered offerings, a 506(c) offering allows companies in earlier stages of development to raise money more cost-effectively.>>
https://www.transfer.ly/invest/alliance-bio-products
Typical hot-air because that's all they have besides some patents
without any commercial value - they're like most patents that don't
have any commercial value:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2013/10/04/for-most-small-companies-patents-are-just-about-worthless/#2b314b8e3ef3
But most importantly, the 506 (c) offering is mentioned in that
letter BUT there's NO mention as to how much was raised.
I guess that's because you have to be very careful about lying
about something like that. Unlike ALLM's typical BS, it's very
easy to quantify!
<<This technology works!!! I now pursuing my Ph.D. The Vero Beach plant is Real!>>
It's easy to say something - I will say that the moon is made of green
cheese - but is it true?
One truth comes from the money trail - show us the 506 (c) preffered
stock offering money!!
How can you buy and equip a plant without money??
<<down 20.00 !! last 6 months no reason for this ? >>
Yes, it's called a normal correction after an excellent run-up. It's the way stocks work. Stocks don't continue to go up without testing and correcting - they test support levels.
When companies are performing well and growing revenues and profits, the price increase resumes. If not, it either stagnates or continues to drop.
With IDCC, I'm hoping for stability at $70 + (maybe $65, but I hope
that they're buying their own stock there) with a resumption to
$100 + over time.
<<See if you spot a pattern of behavior... and how does a company switch from being biopharma to film? Wait, didn't ALLM go from movies to biofuel technology, just like this? You have to read to find out. Is there a pattern developing here?>>
Magmar, excellent observation.
If history repeats itself, there could be future litigation.
Although De Liege was wily enough to weasel his way out of this
one, the erectile dysfunction patent owner of his former company
(Harvard Scientific) had to pay $500K:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1538970.html
Jimbob, what are you talking about?
The only thing that squeezed the stock above the 200 day moving
average was about 2,000 shares at the end of the day yesterday -
that's a small amount relative to the 100K + that were traded.
But to make things worse, it didn't hold that 200 DMA today.
And it looks like there could be a looming "death cross" where
the 50 DMA goes below the 200 DMA. That's NOT a good technical
sign. Maybe it's starting to match the fundamentals where there's
no money being raised for the plant in the 506 (c) offering, no
money coming in from Earth's Renewable Energy, the ColUmbia deal
is dormant, etc.?
olddog967, thanks for the EPS number of $2.67 I agree that
it's a reasonable recurring EPS number that should give
IDCC a current P/E of about 25. But as Merritt told us
in the conference call their past sales lump sums aren't
irrelevant either - they can be used for many things like
buying back stock, acquisitions, etc. So they're an
asset too - just like their patents.
In my view, under those circumstances, a recurring P/E of
25 (along with past sales and patent assets that can be
sold under the right conditions like Intel) isn't too bad
for a company that still has a lot of room to grow. For example,
only about 55% or so of the handset business is licensed. We've
been told that IDCC probably won't get to 100%, but 90% is a good
goal - I believe there are just too many small companies at the
fringe to get it all. Above and beyond that IDCC has more
growth potential with 5G and IoT.
With the above being said, I hope that if the new PTO potential
nominee gets voted in by the Senate, he'll entice the litigants
to think more about settling:
<<One of Iancu’s major successes during his practice as an intellectual property litigator was his work in securing large settlements for American tech company TiVo Corporation (NASDAQ:TIVO) in 2012. That year, TiVo secured a $250 million settlement from NYC-based telecommunications giant Verizon (NYSE:VZ). Months before that settlement, Dallas-based telecom firm AT&T (NYSE:T) agreed to a $215 settlement to end litigation surrounding digital video recording technology. Iancu’s bio states that total payments to TiVo from these settlements and others from Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Cisco (NASDAQ:CSCO) and others exceeds $1.6 billion.
The fact that Iancu represented TiVo, a patent owner, against big tech in Silicon Valley will undoubtedly lead to a warm reception in certain patent owner segments of the patent community. Iancu and his firm have a reputation for suing big tech while representing patent owners, and he himself also served as counsel for San Jose-based touch feedback tech firm Immersion Corporation in a patent infringement suit against Japanese tech conglomerate Sony Corporation (NYSE:SNE) involving video game controller patents which ended up netting $150 million for Immersion in March 2007.>>
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/26/trump-nominates-andrei-iancu-uspto-director/id=87362/
olddog967, thanks. But the near term arbitration award
is what's most pressing. Hopefully IDCC will do well
here - they usually do well in arbitration:
<<With respect to its arbitration counterclaim for fraudulent inducement, Asus stated in its recent pleadings that it was seeking return of excess royalties of close to $63 million, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees as of the time of the filing. The evidentiary hearing in the arbitration was held in January 2017. InterDigital has not yet received the arbitrators’ decision.
The Company has not recorded any accrual at December 31, 2016, for contingent losses associated with these matters. While a material loss is reasonably possible, the Company cannot estimate the potential range of loss with respect to the arbitration matter given the range of possible outcomes, nor with respect to the CA Northern District Court proceeding, as this matter is not at a sufficiently advanced stage to allow for such an estimate. >> >>
2016 10-K:
<<Asustek Actions
On April 15, 2015, Asustek Computer Incorporated (“Asus”) filed a complaint in the CA Northern District Court against InterDigital, Inc., and its subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. The complaint asserted the following causes of action: violation of Section Two of the Sherman Act, violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, breach of contract resulting from ongoing negotiations, breach of contract leading to and resulting in the parties’ April 2008 patent license agreement (the “2008 Asus PLA”), promissory estoppel, waiver, and fraudulent inducement to contract. Among other allegations, Asus alleged that InterDigital breached its FRAND commitment. As relief, Asus sought a judgment that the 2008 Asus PLA is void or unenforceable, damages in the amount of excess royalties Asus paid under the 2008 Asus PLA plus interest, a judgment setting the proper FRAND terms and conditions for InterDigital’s patent portfolio, an order requiring InterDigital to grant Asus a license on FRAND terms and conditions, and punitive damages and other relief.
In response, on May 30, 2015, InterDigital filed an Arbitration Demand with the ICDR. InterDigital claimed that Asus breached the 2008 Asus PLA’s dispute resolution provision by filing its CA Northern District Court lawsuit and sought declaratory relief that it is not liable for any of the claims in Asus’s complaint. On June 2, 2015, InterDigital filed in the CA Northern District Court a motion to compel arbitration on each of Asus’s claims. On August 25, 2015, the court granted InterDigital’s motion for all of Asus’s claims except its claim for breach of contract resulting from ongoing negotiations. Aside from this claim, the court ruled that the issue of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator, and stayed the proceedings pending that determination.
Asus asserted counterclaims in the arbitration that mirrored its CA Northern District Court claims, except that it did not assert the breach of contract claim that the court determined was not arbitrable and it added a claim of violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. Asus also contended that its counterclaims were not arbitrable. InterDigital added a claim for breach of the 2008 Asus PLA’s confidentiality provision.
On July 14, 2016, Asus filed a motion to lift the stay in the CA Northern District Court proceeding along with a notice of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on arbitrability, informing the court of the arbitrators’ decision that, other than InterDigital’s breach of contract claims and Asus’s fraudulent inducement claim, no other claim or counterclaim is arbitrable. Asus then filed in the CA Northern District Court an amended complaint on August 18, 2016. This amended complaint includes all of the claims in Asus’s first CA Northern District Court complaint except fraudulent inducement and adds a claim of violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks the same relief as its first CA Northern District Court complaint, but also seeks a ruling that each of InterDigital’s patents “declared [to standards-setting organizations] to be essential or potentially essential” is unenforceable and any contracts InterDigital entered into in furtherance of its unlawful conduct are void. On September 8, 2016, InterDigital filed its answer and counterclaims to Asus’ amended complaint. It denied Asus’s claims and filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment that Asus’s tort claims are invalid or preempted as applied under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and Title 35 of the U.S. Code. On September 28, 2016, Asus answered and denied InterDigital’s counterclaims. On December 16, 2016, the court set a case schedule that includes a May 2019 trial date.
With respect to its arbitration counterclaim for fraudulent inducement, Asus stated in its recent pleadings that it was seeking return of excess royalties of close to $63 million, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees as of the time of the filing. The evidentiary hearing in the arbitration was held in January 2017. InterDigital has not yet received the arbitrators’ decision.
The Company has not recorded any accrual at December 31, 2016, for contingent losses associated with these matters. While a material loss is reasonably possible, the Company cannot estimate the potential range of loss with respect to the arbitration matter given the range of possible outcomes, nor with respect to the CA Northern District Court proceeding, as this matter is not at a sufficiently advanced stage to allow for such an estimate. >>
PTO Director Nominee - this looks good for patent owners
if he's voted in:
<<The fact that Iancu represented TiVo, a patent owner, against big tech in Silicon Valley will undoubtedly lead to a warm reception in certain patent owner segments of the patent community. Iancu and his firm have a reputation for suing big tech while representing patent owners, and he himself also served as counsel for San Jose-based touch feedback tech firm Immersion Corporation in a patent infringement suit against Japanese tech conglomerate Sony Corporation (NYSE:SNE) involving video game controller patents which ended up netting $150 million for Immersion in March 2007.>>
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/26/trump-nominates-andrei-iancu-uspto-director/id=87362/
http://innovationalliance.net/patent-news/innovation-alliance-statement-nomination-andrei-iancu-director-u-s-patent-trademark-office/
<<I am an investor and not happy with how the stock performs, but waiting to see if the plant will be closed soon and see where things move from here.>>
<<the upside is huge, if it will play out will be very nice, if not, this is the life of penny stock and one should move on.>>
valeria123, you're speaking for yourself.
Maybe you can afford the risk, how about others who were
cajoled to open their wallets, but they can't afford the
risk? Did you ever review the quarterly reports to see
how many people bought more than just the stock on the open
market - they were promised a discount so they forked
over $50K in private offerings - check page 25 here
as just one example but there's more:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=11003308
How about those who are still being lured into this company
via 506 (c) offerings ($10 million worth with a MINIMUN investment
of $5,000) and losing on that will affect their lifestyle.
Maybe it would force them to downsize their home into a small
apartment - or even put them on the street?
Did you ever think of that??
Getting back to your point on the plant above, maybe you can
collaborate with CS&L (the self-professed rational one here) to
see if you guys can figure out how much has been raised so far
for the new plant. This is a good place to start but I can't find anything, can you?
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=12226383
<<Think and be rational people.>>
CS&L, speaking of being rational - I challenge you use
any rationality you might have to inform the board as to
how much money has been raised for the Vero plant.
I see nothing in their latest 10-Q that even mentions their
506 (c) offering:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=12226383
If things were looking so great on the preferred stock (506 (c))
offering, wouldn't the stock have continued its upward movement
above 40 cents per share?
I think that what got it to 40 cents was hype of purchasing the
defunct plant. However, when reality set in (unsuccessful in
raising the money), the stock tanked again.
Secondly, if the money $10 million was raised, how would the plant
be run without all of the other money that's necessary for the
capital expenditures?
The last plants were supposed to cost $30 million - so it'll
obviously take more than $10 million to buy and fix a mothballed,
dilapidated plant, wouldn't it?
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/alliance-media-group-holdings-inc-partners-with-united-states-regional-economic-development-otcqb-allm-1930232.htm
So one more request - can you please think rationally so you can
explain to the board why the immediately above $150 million
project failed but the Vero plant will succeed with no funding
yet?
cockstockandloaded, I don't think that Magmar missed the "thrust"
of your post.
He's probably smarter than almost everyone on this board.
I didn't miss the "thrust" of your post either - your thrust was
so off base on many levels. Just one example was that you indirectly
compared De Liege to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.
Musk has the ability for PhD level work at Stanford University
in applied physics and materials science. Bezos is ivy league
educated at Princeton.
What's the education level here?
Isn't that important to run a high tech patent company?
Just ask Kleiner Perkins, Bill Gates, and France's Total who
invested in Renmatix and compare the CEO's backround to the
grade C 'movie' and erectile dysfunction background of De Liege:
http://renmatix.com/company/people/management-team
This company is a joke!
Magmar, excellent post.
What a scathing rebuke to this company's promises not
being in touch with technological and scientific reality.
I bet that you won't be challenged on your technological
expertise because the ALLMers can't fight technological facts
with fantasy.
The main thing that people in ALLM's position usually do
is change the subject and try to discredit you in other
ways.
They're helpless when it comes to rebutting the scientific
facts that are causing this company's technology fail in the
marketplace.
judge2236, welcome to the board.
This board needs more realistic people who don't deny the
facts. Most of the posters here (except for Magmar) are
either insiders trying to rob mom & pop or are shareholders
who are too much in denial to admit that ALLM is scamming them.
I remember how all of those promises that you just mentioned
didn't come to fruition. Why do some people think that the new
promises will come to fruition when NONE of the prior ones
worked out? The ones who aren't insiders are probably in denial.
JimLur, thanks for the info.
So it looks like Merritt purchased almost $250,000 worth of
stock out of his own pocket about five years ago. Of course
you showed that other executives purchased as well but
not as much.
<<...it expects its total third quarter 2017 revenue to be between $90 million and $98 million, including recurring revenue in the range of $83 million to $88 million.>>
my3sons87, thanks for the info.
At least we can see that the estimate for recurring revenue
this quarter is probably higher than the year ago quarter:
<<Third quarter 2016 recurring revenue was $84.3 million, consisting of current patent royalties and current technology solutions revenue, a 7% increase compared to $78.6 million in third quarter 2015.>>
http://ir.interdigital.com/Cache/1500092403.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1500092403&iid=4103938
When is the next conference call?
Isn't there a lot to discuss like the 506 (c)
offering for the new plant?
They had a conference call a couple of years
ago with Q&A and they said that it was going
to be a regular occurrence.
Why isn't it a regular occurrence?
Are they afraid of questions because they
have something to hide?
When is the next conference call?
Isn't there a lot to discuss like the 506 (c)
offering for the new plant?
They had a conference call a couple of years
ago with Q&A and they said that it was going
to be a regular occurrence.
Why isn't it a regular occurrence?
Are they afraid of questions because they
have something to hide?
jupiterbeach, how much has been raised on the 506 (c) offering?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133821256
Thanks in advance!
Magmar, I just had another look at your scathingly
detailed post on the shortcomings of ALLM's technology.
We can see that the ALLM insiders who frequent this board
aren't even challenging you on the merits of your post.
That's because they don't have any way to rebut your
knowledge!
All they can do is criticize you, not rebut you.
<<So critical Magmar. How do you think start ups get capital.>>
happy gylmore, you ALLM insiders live in your own world of smoke
and mirrors. That world will eventually come crumbling
down once the house of cards falls.
Here's the reality on death spiral financing:
<<Companies willing to agree to financing on these terms are often desperate and could not obtain funding through any other means.>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_financing
<<I guess the press release (July and today) doesn't need to divulge every little detail when it comes from a consultant who works for ALLM (Luna) >>
Magmar, I was wondering if Vanessa Luna might
buy another jeep with ill-gotten money?
<<Vanessa Luna CEO>>
http://www.lunaconsultantgroup.com/business-development-1/
How do we know that she won't buy a jeep with the money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Luna - Why does ALLM hire so many people so close to
this stinking mess?
On page 18 of 35 Jens Dalsgaard had "serious problems" with
Vanessa Luna's work on October 17, 2014. If she did not
improve, she would be fired.
On page 18 it says that everything was done without Jen's knowledge
and he was "shocked" by her work. He would do everything to "correct
the actions" of Vanessa Luna.
On page 20 of 35 it says that Vanessa Luna was using the monies
for her own purposes - she was "terminated immediately."
Page 21 - It says that she allegedly bought a Jeep with the corporate monies without approval.
Page 22 - It says Vanessa Luna wasn't fired - was Jens Dalsgaard also
involved in the unseemly activities?
There's so much more - see for yourself. But just here's just
one extra tidbit of an allegedly unseemly person involved in this
case:
<<11 People Implicated so Far
This latest sweep in the investigation has been going on since last year. A further four alleged participants in the scheme were charged with several counts of fraud in the summer of 2014: Abraxas J. Discala, Chief Executive (CEO) of OmniView Capital Advisors, Ira Shapiro, the Head of CodeSmart, Craig Josephberg, a broker, and Kyleen Cane, another attorney. An additional three people involved in the schemes – Marc Wexler, broker Matthew Bell, and Victor Azrak – have pleaded guilty.>>
http://www.financemagnates.com/institutional-forex/regulation/two-brokers-and-attorney-arrested-for-securities-fraud/
Ms. Cane is on page 14 of 35:
http://www.cytta.com/resources/2015-2-23%20AACC_Answer_and_Counterclaim.pdf
Although the above doesn't implicate ALLM directly in anything,
it shows that they're not too far away from some serious stench!
More toxic debt in July alone - the ALLMers are getting snookered - they
pay off some toxic debt BUT issue more!
<<In July 2017, the Company entered into a convertible debenture with Lucas Hoppel, with a principal balance of $110,000 due and payable on January 15, 2018.
The note carries an original issue discount of $10,000, accrues interest at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum and is convertible into the Company’s commonstock at a 35% discount to the lowest trade price during the previous twenty five trading days prior to the date of conversion, after 180 days, in whole or in part at the option of the holder. The note carries a prepayment penalty, adjusting every ninety days to a maximum of one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the then outstanding principal and interest balance due, if the note is paid back within the first one hundred eighty (180) days.
In July 2017, the Company paid back its January 2017 convertible note with Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. A total payment of $211,293 was issued, representing $153,500 in principal and $57,793 in interest and penalties.
In July 2017, the Company entered into a convertible debenture with Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. with a principal balance of $153,000 due and payable on orbefore, 2017. The note carries an original issue discount of $3,000 and accrues interest at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum and is convertible into the Company’s common stock at a 39% discount on the average of the lowest three trading prices during the ten trading days prior to conversion, after 180 days, in whole or in part at the option of the holder. The note also carries a prepayment penalty, adjusting every 30 days to a maximum of one hundred thirty percent (130%) of the then outstanding principal and interest balance due, if the note is paid back within the first one hundred eighty (180) days
<<http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=12226383
Magmar:
I think that he $672K that was raised this year
doesn't have to do with the 506(c) offering to raise
money for the plant. They've raised money over the
years by selling stock to mom & pops at a discount
to the market price and through toxic financing. The
money to build the plant is supposed to be raided in
the form of convertible preferred stock (not death spiral
/ toxic convertibles) - check here:
<<WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., March 23, 2017
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., March 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Alliance Bio-Products, Inc. (Bio-Products), a subsidiary of Alliance BioEnergy Plus, Inc. (OTCQB:ALLM), today announced its filing of a Regulation D (506(c)) offering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The purpose of the filing is to secure funds through accredited investors for the purchase of a bioethanol plant in Southeast Florida that would enable the Company to increase production capacity and profitability of its sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum-based fuels and other products through its patented Cellulose to Sugar (CTS) conversion process.>>
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ALLM/news?id=154115
The above offering is only for accredited investors with a minimun
investment of $5,000:
http://docs.transfer.ly/ACCREDITEDINVESTORQUESTIONNAIRE.pdf
https://www.transfer.ly/invest/alliance-bio-products
I see nothing in their most recent 10-Q that discusses the 506(c)
offering:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=12226383
<<Lte, where do you see 672k raised for plant in here? I dont see the specifics of plant cash raised disclosed at all?! >>
valeria123, I only took a quick look, but I don't see it either.
It's Magmar who made that comment about the $672K raised for the
purchase of the plant. And I guarantee you that I'm not
Magmar - I never went into the detail that he / she did on the
patents.
10-Q - Chock full of NEW death spiral financing.
Too much for me to get into right now - see for yourself:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=12226383
This company is unbelievable.
There doesn't look like any money raised by the bond offering -
it's all death spiral convertible debt - convertible into stock
at a massive dilutive discount!
With that situation, how can they buy the new plant?
Bueller??
Are the '847 and '966 patents the best bet for IDCC against
ZTE if there's no settlement?
I imagine that if IDCC wins at the CAFC ZTE will settle, but
we may not know the CAFC's decision until early next year.
This is from the recent 10-Q with regard to the Delaware action:
<<On April 18, 2016, ZTE filed a stipulated request for dismissal with prejudice of its counterclaims for breach of contract and patent unenforceability based on FRAND and withdrew its corresponding FRAND-related affirmative defenses. The court granted this request the same day. Also on April 18, 2016, ZTE filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) seeking certification of partial final judgment on the claims for infringement of the ’966 and ’847 patents to allow ZTE to file an immediate appeal as to those patents. The motion was granted on June 7, 2016, and a partial final judgment was entered on June 20, 2016. On July 18, 2016, ZTE filed its notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit regarding the Delaware District Court’s judgment against ZTE with respect to the ’966 and ’847 patents. ZTE’s appeal is pending. As a result, InterDigital’s damages claims are currently effectively stayed pending the appeal.>>
How about LG?
Will the ALLMers look for how much money has been raised in
the upcoming 10-Q?
They should!
Significant revenue growth opportunity in IoT - that's
above and beyond getting the remaining 50% or so licensed.
Also, M&A could help there too - use cash for some acquisitions.
Yes, a lot of discussions about 5G and the breadth and longevity
of IDCC's patent portfolio.
Also, there's currently $360 million in recurring revenue
(about 50% licensed) with the goal of $500 - $600 million
by adding ZTE, LG, etc.
It sounds like Merritt is saying there's more revenue coming
in 5G because they have very solid IP there to build their
recurring revenue and more revenue possibilities for patent
sales - they have a very large base of patent assets with long
dated expiration dates.
<<current cash 25 >>
orientbull, thanks.
But I think that it's important to use net cash, which I think
is about $550 million. Someone please check because I have to
head out for the afternoon.
But if it's 'only' $550 million (which is a lot for a small company),
cash per share is more like $16 / share.
valeria123, I've warned you about these hucksters.
But, I digress, I just remembered that you don't listen
to me.
<<I still don't believe LTE is anything more than a disgruntled ex employee or was somehow connected to this early on.>>
Even if true (and I'm not going to give you the slightest hint one
way or the other), what does that have to to with the veracity of my
posts?
At least Magmar is putting some additional sunlight on this dirty
management team whose goal is to suck shareholders dry by taking
their money through what are supposed to be bargain private placements.
Look at all these unfortunate people who bought at 75 cents towards
the bottom of ALLM's 10-Q from a few years ago:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=10305762
And they're not the only ones, that's been happening repeatedly
over they years while ALLM management sucks people in by
offering lower prices along the way. And at the same time,
they're diluting these buyers by offering TOXIC financing
that dilutes the shares!
Where did all of that money go that was put into the private
placements? There's no revenue, no deals that bear fruit
(how's the ColUmbia agreement going by the way?), there's
almost nothing to show for it except massive losses (about
$26 million to date - check the accumulated deficit on page 3)
and more press releases!
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=12064192
I think I've addressed it pretty well in more detail in my prior
posts - and even Magmar backs me up on that.
So, thanks to Magmar, he's helping show that "Sunlight is the
best disinfectant."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sunlight_is_the_best_disinfectant
Don't lose sight of the big picture - InterDigital is up there with
the giants when it comes to 5G IP
http://www.lex-innova.com/5g-mobile-networks-the-next-big-battleground/
When will InterDigital start buying back more stock?
According to their 10-Q they didn't repurchase any stock last
quarter. It looks like their net cash position is a little over
$600 million.
I know that they bought back a lot of stock in the last couple
of years - a lot in the $40's, $50's, and even $60's I think.
I can try to go back to retrace their repurchases, but I'm
thinking that they might not be too far away from resuming
repurchases.
Comments?
What do you mean?
Guidance was for between $84-$89 million in recurring revenue
and they posted $87.9 million.
Because the stock market is often unreliable to price
companies in the short run.
Why was Lehman $70 six months before they went bankrupt?