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.
Short squeeze?
I assume you are being sarcastic? The stock was down 35% yesterday and is now down 23% so far today. While still up off its lows, it looks like the price is crashing back.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Peabody bonds still down
IF the common shares are going to recover anything, why are the Peabody bonds still trading way off and not or near par?
Most bonds are trading at 40, or near 20 for the 2066 series. If there really was going to be a recovery, one would expect they should be trading higher, or the muppets would pile into the bonds first and then the common shares once most or all of the bond series were near par.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Making a killing
The problem is that when this game of musical chairs stops, many of the muppets are going to get stuck with worthless shares and even then, will not understand what happened.
There are some traders who setup for things like this happening because it happens so often.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Bond market or common shares market?
I guarantee that this kind of stupidity, were the common shares spike when they have no value, that are in bankruptcy, goes on all the time. Even when people explain the process to the muppets, some of the muppets still insist ‘there is a chance’. The more intelligent muppets remind you about American Airlines and how it recovered in bankruptcy without any understanding how that situation was different or similar to the current situation.
Almost every large bankruptcy in the past few years have the common shares spike up when the DIP financing gets announced, or an asset sale gets announced, or there is an extension of the deadline to file the reorg plan. The muppets think it is good news, especially the DIP financing, not understanding that the DIP has super priority ahead of the common shares plus all other liabilities.
While the common shares are running up, like they are going to survive, that is nothing more than the muppets piling into the shares. Even if you knew nothing about the company or the stock, but knew that bonds recover ahead of the common shares, you would know that the retail market is wrong because the bonds are still trading like they are going to lose most of their value, meaning the common shares are going to get nothing.
IF the common shares were really going to recover, all of the bond series would be trading near par (100). Instead, here, we see most of the bonds still trading with the expectation of large losses.
The people and institutions that trade in the bond markets actually take a look to understand if they are going to get their money back or not, where as trading in the common shares, especially with the muppets piling in, is more like being at a casino and playing the Keno lottery game than investing.
At least with BTUUQ, there has been no plan filed so one can understand how the muppets might think the common shares will recover. The truly unbelievable situations are with the companies that are in Chapter 11, the reorg plan has already been filed, and there are 8K reports from the company telling everyone that the common shares are going to be canceled; and the muppets STILL pile into the stock and cause the price to spike at times. Comment sections on some boards even show some people ‘holding on’ after a court has confirmed the plan and the ten days are running for an entry of an effective date. (After a court confirms a reorg plan, there is a time period that has to run in order to give an interested party a chance to appeal the plan. Once that time period is over, the court will enter an effective date. At that instant the plan takes effect. If the common shares are canceled under the plan, then trading stops and the shares are dead.)
God Bless the muppets, at least someone holding shares to see what was going on has a chance to recover some of their money by off loading them onto the muppets. I do wonder how and were any of the muppets ever have any money to invest.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Losing money still
That is the other part of what is amazing here. The stock is down 90+%, and the muppets think that now the company has finally figured out to to run things.
The other interesting item is that even if somehow the common shares survived the reorg plan, the company may end of filing for bankruptcy again if they keep losing money every month.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
The muppets pile in
It is usually clear why the muppets are piling in these situations, but this time I can't believe that they are.
Apparently, it looks like the muppets are being told somewhere or believe that the operations in Australia are making all kinds of money, plus the deadline for filing a reorg plan has been extended to December 14, 2016. So they think the common shares are going to have value.
Document 1453 - ORDER EXTENDING PERIOD DURING WHICH THE DEBTORS HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO FILE A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
This is in spite of the fact that the September 2016 operations report shows a loss of $66 million. Document 1465, Sept 2016 operations report
At this rate the equity that is showing on the books, at book value, will be wiped out before the company exits Chap 11, never mind the losses on the sale of any assets that may take place or the write downs on assets the company holds.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
5 year Chart for WDDD showing daily low
Attached please find a five year chart of the daily lows for WDDD. The data is for 10/20/2011 through 10/19/2016. There are 1,258 trading days of which 63 days had WDDD trading as low or below $0.01 per share.
The blue line shows the daily low for each day.
The red line is $0.01 so one can see when the daily low was at or below $0.01.
The oldest daily trading low at or below $0.01 for WDDD was 04/21/2016 and the most recent was 08/10/2016.
You will note that over time the stock price has trended lower.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Long under $0.01 and after trial starts
At the moment I do not hold any shares
At one point in the past I did hold as many as 180,000.
At the moment, I expect:
1: The trial to not start until sometime next year.
2: The trial to take about a year
3: There will be another round of stock issued summer 2017 with 20 to 30 million more common shares issued.
4: The share price to fall to under $0.01 with the selling pressure from the additional shares as those new shares are sold off and dumped onto the market.
With my conservative expectation of the stock being worth $0.18, when they someday are able to collect cash on a judgement, buying for under $0.01 gives one a safety of margin to wait out the time to a final collection of cash from ATVI.
Another reason I would only buy at such a low price is that I have another current pick that I expect is worth three or four times what it is already trading at with a timeline of less than one year; so it is possible to take profits from that trade, if it goes as planned, and then buy here sometime next year.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Price if WDDD rises $25 million in valuation
That would put the price back in a 'better range', like it used to be at. $25 million on 210 million shares would get the price up $0.119, and up to about $0.14.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
That is the kind of move I would expect
I would expect there should be some movement in the stock price with a favorable PTAB ruling, since on a present value chain, it removes some of the uncertainty on winning the case.
If WDDD had the same 7% move with a PTAB ruling in its favor, that would move the stock from about $0.03 to $0.0321.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Trading higher than $0.50?
You do realize that the stock only traded that high a few times, and that was when things were a lot better for software patents, plus the company had tens of millions less common shares.
Table of the 5 days that WDDD ever traded over $0.50:
Date Open High Low Close Volume
4/15/2013 0.46 0.53 0.45 0.52 2,929,100
4/16/2013 0.52 0.55 0.49 0.54 1,584,600
4/17/2013 0.54 0.54 0.46 0.50 1,257,000
4/18/2013 0.49 0.51 0.47 0.49 475,400
4/19/2013 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.48 216,600
The damages estimate I did a few weeks ago estimate that the common shares are only going to get, at best, about $0.18/share.
09/05/16 WDDD damages estimate and worth per common share
Study of PTAB ruling effects on stock prices
AVENUES FOR ADDRESSING THE EXPLOITATION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW PROCESS BY THIRD PARTIES
The study did find there were some hedge funds short selling and then filing for a review through a company they controlled, but even that method seemed to stop working after being done a few times. It seems that market participants realized what was going on and started to ignore the PTAB process.
MARA example for PTAB price spike
Do you know what day the press release was done?
I want to look at a chart of price and volume around that week.
Was anything else going on for them at that time?
Louis J. Desy Jr.
WDDD next issuing of shares, summer 2017?
I would not worry, if WDDD holds to their usual schedule, WDDD will probably issue another 20 or 30 million more common shares sometime next year.
There should be enough time to buy shares on that price drop, months before any trial gets completed, providing WDDD can ever get a trial going.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
PTAB price effect facts
I have been looking to see what effect a favorable PTAB ruling has on stock prices, and can not find one.
While it would be a great event to get ready to trade on if there was evidence to support this, there appears to be no evidence that favorable PTAB rulings have any positive effect on stock prices of the companies involved.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
PTAB stock price effect is usually none
The problem, and reason that no one can provide an example of a stock price spike on a PTAB ruling, is because there are none.
While there are multiple examples available that show stock spikes on a favorable Markman ruling (and WDDD had one) there are no examples showing a price spike on a PTAB ruling.
The PTAB ruling, will be, at best, a non event, that will not move the stock price; and at worst, a disaster if a number of claims are ruled invalid. While the case will still continue on, the process of chipping away at any end award will continue.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
PTAB stock spike example
Can you post an example of a spike in the stock price of a company with a favorable PTAB ruling release?
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Bonds trading lower than the common shares
This happens a lot in these situations.
The people buying and selling the bonds usually have a better idea of what is going on, and trade accordingly.
The people trading trading in the common shares are usually the 'muppets', all piling in because they do not understand what is going on, don't know the bankruptcy process and can't read financial statements.
I think part of the reason for this dichotomy is that for the muppets, it is too hard to trade bonds, where as trading common shares is very easy, so they all pile into the common shares and only trade the common shares. If the muppets were acting rationally and really thought the company was going to survive and the bonds were way down, they should be buying bonds before even thinking about buying any common shares. I think also part of the thinking process for the muppets is: "Why would I want to own a bond, the best I can do is get paid off at par". i.e. The muppets view the common shares as a better trade because the there is no cap on the gains, where was bonds usually would only trade up to par.
That is why you get prices between the bonds and common shares that do not make any sense. Since the bonds recover ahead of the common shares in a bankruptcy, the bonds should trade near par if they were going to be made whole, and then it would make sense for the common shares to trade up also.
The fact that the lower tiers of bonds are almost dead means no one expects the bonds to recover much, so the common shares should be trading way off. Instead, the muppets are all piling in and pushing the common shares up, meaning they are all setting themselves up for one big loss once the effective date is confirmed.
This stuff goes on almost every single time with Chapter 11 trades. There is some kind of press release that the muppets think means the existing common shares have value, and the stock spikes, when in reality the common shares are usually dead.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Markman and total number of common shares
The Markman hearing press release was issued on June 29, 2015.
At that time there were around 112 million shares.
Form 10Q for quarter ending June 30, 2015
Trading volume with Markman press release
If the Markman was not already part of the stock price, wouldn't the trading volume have not spiked on the press release by the company?
As you will see with the chart, the day the Markman announcement was made, the stock volume was over 3 million shares. The trading volume in the days, for weeks, before and after, the announcement were all under 1 million shares in trading volume.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Markman not already reflected in price?
The Markman ruling was issued on June 26, 2015 with a press release on June 29, 2015 by the company.
At that time, there was a spike in trading volume, and some increase in the stock price, but that faded within a few weeks.
It looks like any benefit from the Markman ruling faded within a few weeks of the ruling.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Stock price
Stcok volume
Have or Had Markman hearing?
My posting was asking and meant to ask;
Did you know that the Markman hearing had already taken place?
In your original posting, you wrote 'have' about the Markman hearing, seemingly to imply that you think that the Markman hearing had not been done yet and would take place in the future, and that you are expecting a spike in the stock price when the Markman hearing took place.
The problem is that the Markman hearing was held, a ruling issued, and it is done with months ago, so any Markman effect on the stock price is already part of the stock price.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Will have a positive Markman? already happened
I am not sure if you meant to say had instead of have, as far as the Markman ruling is concerned. The case already had the Markman ruling issued on June 26, 2015.
Worlds Receives Favorable Markman Ruling in Lawsuit Against Activision Blizzard
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Posting a reply to ones own question
I understand that it looks unusual, and at first I wondered when a reply should be used instead of posting a new message.
The problem is how do you continue a thread within the board when the messages are related or better understood if view together?
After thinking a little about it, if the reply to one's own message is additional information on the original message, then a reply should be used because it keeps the thread within the message board organized and allows other to see the related information.
The other situation is that the reply message is related to the original, so it seems better to reply than the post a new message.
In the two messages in question, the original was my first intital impressions, and the follow up was after I had a chance to look at more information discussed in the first posting, so I posted my followup as a reply.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
PTAB ruling will probably not move the stock
If you look, you will see that over time WDDD has had lower highs and higher lows.
You will also notice that the spikes on favorable events has been less than what it was in the past on other favorable events, probably because the present value of any expected win has dropped over the years.
I think part of the problem is that there are tens of millions of more shares out there than there use to be, plus as the stock trends lower over time, there are more people trying to get out at break even so as a run up starts, people start selling sooner instead of waiting a few days to see how high the stock will trade up.
The best result that WDDD can get from a PTAB ruling is that none of the claims are lost from the ruling. i.e. WDDD stays in the same place as it is today. A favorable PTAB ruling does not and can not add anything positive to WDDD, so it is at best neutral and that is without taking into account the additional months lost, plus additional shares issued in the lost time.
The worst that can happen is that the PTAB ruling invalidates more claims, and makes it harder for WDDD to win anything when they finally get through a trial.
Contingency
What difference does it make if the case is on contingency if WDDD can never get it to trial?
You seem to forget that on the original timetable, the trial was supposed to be finished by now, and it has not even started yet.
WDDD has no cash on hand and is unable or unwilling to raise any amount of cash. Why would ATVI ever even think about settling the case when WDDD may simply be unable to operate at some point and just needs to drag everything out long enough?
WDDD 10Q report for quarter ending 06/30/2016
WDDD allegedly does not need that much cash to operate, but it raised $421K in the quarter ending 06/30/2016, but only has $16K remaining at quarter end? Where did the other $400K plus go if 'there are no expenses'?
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Win against Apple
yet the stock, VHC, is still down almost 90%.
We the same pattern repeating with WDDD, with the stock down over 80%.
Even if somehow and someday WDDD ever collects, it looks like the stock will only be about $0.18, which would leave it lower than where it was years ago.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
The only one loss
Don't worry, unless and until Congress does something, I am sure there will be more losses.
You will note that even thought 'there was only one loss' for VHC, it killed the stock, that day, and has been in decline ever since.
We see the same pattern with VRNG, and soon with WDDD. The one loss with the GOOG case killed the stock and it has been limping along ever since. (VRNG did a 1:10 reverse split and changed its name to FORM, so that stock is down something like 80%+ also.)
I was shell shocked to see VHC go from $30+ to $22 in just a few minutes on that day it lost to Cisco, but I am glad I did not stay in to where the stock is today at $3.50.
While taking a 30% loss is not good, it is better than to hold on for an 80%+ loss.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Correction - it was Cisco
VirnetX Loses Patent Trial to Cisco Over Private Networks
I find it hard to keep track of all of the losses.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
VHC and Apple, and compared to WDDD
I know, but has VHC collected anything?
I bet not and expect they never will.
I was holding some VHC bought at around $30 to $35 the last time VHC won against Apple, and shocked when VHC lost on appeal and the stock crashed to $22.
Looking at VHC this morning, I see that it is limping along at $3.50, down over 80% from when I got out of it at $22 a few years ago.
Not exactly an impressive event to support the case that software patent stocks are a great investment.
Watch, I bet VHC never collects anything. Something will happen, and the case will get 'kicked around' in the court for years until it all gets ruled against.
We see the same thing playing out with WDDD. When I bought into WDDD, I was buying in or trading when it was in the $0.10 to $0.20 range. There was another poster here who kept telling people that he knew WDDD was going to fall to $0.05 at some point. I, and others, thought that was impossible since anyone, even that guy, doing a present value analysis of an award with all kinds of margin for safety, expected the stock was worth over $0.50, and maybe as much as a dollar or two.
Instead, today, we find that WDDD is lower than the worst case given back then of $0.05, and see that within the last 52 weeks the stock has traded as low as $0.0075. The 180,000 shares I held at one point could have been bought for less than a few thousand dollars recently. There was another poster, years ago, that held 400,000 shares. His shares would have cost $30K, $40K or more back then; now they could have been bought for under $5K if one waited for the right time.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Precedents and collecting cash
That all may be true, but the problem is that no company seems to be able to get any cash out of any software patents in the last few years.
We can cite to all of the other information we want, but if no company has been able to collect any money from software patents in years; it tells us that 'it just does not work'.
Again, I was one of many people shocked at the VRNG vs GOOG result at the appeals court. I had thought about taking an options position on VRNG in the few weeks leading up to the publication of that decision, but decided not to since I expected the appeal court to uphold the trial court. With that expectation, which a lot of people had, buying calls would not have been profitable since the stock price was not expected to move at all. Buying puts prior to that decision didn't make sense since no one was expecting VRNG to lose.
The problem for patents is that there is, in a sense, a two track system. There is the USPTO and its process under the executive branch, and then there is the court system under the judicial process of the judicial branch. The USPTO track clearly agrees, allows and grants software patents. The problem is when anyone tried to collect on the patents, the judicial track usually prevents that on issues of the software patent being a method that can not have a patent, or that the patent was obvious, and not allowed to be a patent.
The solution for software patents is for Congress to enact new legislation to clarify what can and can not be a patent for software patents.
If WDDD had brought its case in the early to mid 2000s, I think the judicial environment for software patent cases would have been much more favorable. The problem today is that the tide is still running against software patents, and until someone is able to bring a new 'landmark' case up to the SJC that would give guidance to all of the courts, I do not think we are going to see any software patent case winning.
I think one of the big mistakes WDDD made was not selling off part of the case to VRNG when sentiment was running high, and could have allowed the company to stockpile several million in cash in order to be able to get through the entire process with only ONE round of funding. I can understand the view that WDDD thought they would have been giving away something 'on the cheap' and holding out for everything, but they ran the risk of things going wrong with the case. So far, it seems that everything that can go wrong with a case, has gone wrong with the case.
I know how hard it is to monetize a patent. For a while I was a 50% owner of a patent in the early 2000s. Shaped multilayer ceramic transducers and method for making the same
I tried for a number of years to get the original work duplicated with the target of having a prototype for a commercial product produced.
Instead, I found that a lot of the people involved either didn't or couldn't spend the several thousand required to just duplicate the original work, never mind devote $30K to $50K that would have been needed for a prototype for a commercial application. Most of the people, in the various areas, seemed to be happy to just get a research grant every few years, so they could continue working on anything. None of them seemed to be too focus or seemed to realize that at some point it all needed to lead to something useful, something that people wanted or needed.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
The point is the the tide is still against software patents
All that may be true, but the point is that almost no one seems to be able to get a patent case through to the end where they collect money on.
WDDD is now years behind schedule for even just having a trial.
VRNG lost its patent case, even though it had all kinds of experts available, and even former patent clerks working for them. A number of people closely studied that case, including me, and were all taken by surprise when they lost on appeal.
VHC also lost against Apple, after an initial win, later lost also. A number of people followed and studied those patents also and years later VHC has realized virtually nothing.
There are other smaller patent plays that are going nowhere and probably going to run out of money at some point; PRKR, MGT, BYCP.
The point is that no one has been able to collect on their patents in recent years.
I think that hoping that all of a sudden there is a change of rulings in the court districts will not work, or would take decades, and that legislation by Congress is needed before the tide turns in favor of software patents. In particular, it looks like Congress needs to pass new legislation defining what is and is not obviousness and allowed for software patents.
A few years ago, in 2014, it looked like congress was about to take up the issue, but then nothing happened. Until that happen, I think that software patents will get granted by the PTO, and pass the PTO review and rereview processes, but will go no where in the court systems.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
That was back in May
Apparently, Mayer did not think that case applied or choose to write his decision to work around that. Mayer's decision is after that case and as such, in his district, would be the case on point for cases with similar facts.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Mayer retirement and Stare Decisis
Since Mayer has ruled on the case that was before him, his retirement would have NO effect on other courts following his decision under the doctrine of Stare Decisis, or considering his ruling as 'the case on point' for issues present before his court with similar facts.
Stare decisis
Mayer and ruling
That all may be true, but the fact is that in that district, Mayer's latest ruling is the last recent decision on point for those issues and the one to follow for any follow up cases. Mayer's ruling can also be used a persuasive argument in other districts.
While it is possible that the SCOTUS can review the case, in the appellate decision in VRNG vs GOOG, SCOTUS did NOT take the case on review; also SCOTUS only reviews about 1% of the cases submitted for review, so the odds are NOT that good of Mayer's ruling being overturned.
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
Any news from the company?
Anything going on?
For some reason, the company still keeps it corporate charter current.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Recent case on software patents
Federal Circuit Invalidates Three Software Patents; Judge Mayer Calls For Ban On All Software Patents
Published decision cited to in article
It looks like the tide of judicial cases are still running against software patents. I think the problem is that things were/are abstract ideas where granted patents by the PTO, and now the case are trying to correct that problem. The problem though is that the cases are going too far at the moment because software that is method done with computer hardware should be allowed to be patented.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Look at document #43
It is not posted yet on Plainsite.org but it should show up in a few days. The document you want to read is #43, the last several pages where it details some of what was going on with Laken and CMGO (now owns a lot of Good Gaming) shares back in 2012 through 2014.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Link for case involving Laken
I know that a lot of people do not have pacer access, plus pacer cost money for most downloads.
The case involing Laken (now part of Good Gaming) is:
CMG Holdings Group, as successor to XA The Experimental Agency, Inc. v. Wagner et al
The link to the case docket information at plainsite.org:
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2mxdomhvm/new-york-southern-district-court/cmg-holdings-group-as-successor-to-xa-the-experimental-agency-inc-v-wagner-et-al/
Plainsite.org is free BUT it is delayed in its postings from the case. The online court system is at pacer, but requires a login and cost money to retrieve documents. Plainsite.org is free but there is a delay in it getting filings.
I have not had a chance to review the full case or all of the documents, but in just looking at a few of the documents, it does look very damaging.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
Worse than churning
From what has been shown so far, I think this is worse than churning.
Churning is where a broker makes excessive trades with no real purpose except for the broker to collect the commission on the trades.
While part of what was going on, given the court filing, may be part of that, it is possible that the money and account that Laken had control over was being used to manipulate the price of the stock, or even worse, Lakken, people associated with Laken and/or insiders could have been selling their shares, unloading shares, and having the account that Lakken had control over to purchase the shares and sticking another person with the losses.
There would also be problems with the fraud and concealment of using another persons account to prop up a stock without their knowledge.
Louis J. Desy Jr.