M&A business
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.
This I understand, but as soon as they sell 1 bulb, you can be sure, that sooner than later somebody will claim the patent rights and sue them, but who knows, first up and the destruction. Would not be the first time and I hope, you are smart enough to know, when to take the chips from the table or who to protect the position. Frankly, this I wish to all longs.
Just think one minute: If the guy, with whom they entered the licence-agreement would have the patent (it was rejected) do you really believe, he would make the deal with ZVTK. He would go to a company with money, marketing skills and a brand name. This says all.
THEIR PATENT HAS BEEN REJECTED; read it very carefully and then you know what you get into it.
Patents and Trademarks
On April 2, 2005, Mr. Ryu (and Mr. Chang Min Lee the co-inventor) filed US Patent Application No. 11/097,767 (Publication No. 20006/0078460) entitled “Anion General for Incorporation into Lighting Apparatuses and Other Appliances” with the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The initial application was rejected on various grounds. Mr. Ryu filed a response and amendment to the initial application with the USPTO on September 9, 2007. Mr. Ryu filed a continuation-in-part (CIP) application on August 7, 2008, serial no. 12/221,908, which claims the benefit of no. 11/097,767, now abandoned. The CIP application adds some new enhancements to the bulb design that further distinguish the invention over the prior art. As of the date of this Annual Report, the CIP is pending and has not yet been examined. We cannot offer any assurance that the application will ultimately be approved by the USPTO. In addition, there is an international patent application on file under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), No PCT/KR2005/002997 (Publication No. WO/2006/031036) entitled Negative Ion Emission Lamp. We intend to file additional applications, as appropriate to protect our rights in the Ionic Bulb.
A divisional application, serial no. 11/820,915, is pending. It is directed to an ionic air purifying device in an appliance such as a fan (rather than in a CFL light bulb). A response to an office action is due October 28, 2009 with one 3 month extension of time. No further extensions are available. .
The initial application for trademark protection for the “Ionic Bulb” brand name was rejected. There is no assurance that trademark protection will ultimately be procured.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Ryu’s and our efforts to protect proprietary rights in the Ionic Bulb, existing trade secret, copyright, and trademark laws afford only limited protection. Further, the assignment of the US Patent Application by the co-inventor has not been perfected by filing with the USPTO. Until such time as this filing is perfected, it is possible that the co-inventor could license the Ionic Bulb to another party. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights and other intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products, obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary or misappropriate our copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, and similar proprietary rights. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to as great an extent as do the laws of the United States. Our means of protecting our proprietary rights may not be adequate. In addition, our competitors might independently develop similar technology or duplicate our products or circumvent any patents or our other intellectual property rights.
You will not get any reply. I asked for the CV of the board, never got it. I said for a longtime, they have a weak board and do what is told to them, by Interstellar. This is the company who gives the convertible loans and makes sure, that the printing press keeps busy.
You will agree with me, that ZVTK has a problem, as being said in their filings with the SEC, that the patent had been rejected.
Patents and Trademarks
On April 2, 2005, Mr. Ryu (and Mr. Chang Min Lee the co-inventor) filed US Patent Application No. 11/097,767 (Publication No. 20006/0078460) entitled “Anion General for Incorporation into Lighting Apparatuses and Other Appliances” with the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The initial application was rejected on various grounds. Mr. Ryu filed a response and amendment to the initial application with the USPTO on September 9, 2007. Mr. Ryu filed a continuation-in-part (CIP) application on August 7, 2008, serial no. 12/221,908, which claims the benefit of no. 11/097,767, now abandoned. The CIP application adds some new enhancements to the bulb design that further distinguish the invention over the prior art. As of the date of this Annual Report, the CIP is pending and has not yet been examined. We cannot offer any assurance that the application will ultimately be approved by the USPTO. In addition, there is an international patent application on file under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), No PCT/KR2005/002997 (Publication No. WO/2006/031036) entitled Negative Ion Emission Lamp. We intend to file additional applications, as appropriate to protect our rights in the Ionic Bulb.
A divisional application, serial no. 11/820,915, is pending. It is directed to an ionic air purifying device in an appliance such as a fan (rather than in a CFL light bulb). A response to an office action is due October 28, 2009 with one 3 month extension of time. No further extensions are available. .
The initial application for trademark protection for the “Ionic Bulb” brand name was rejected. There is no assurance that trademark protection will ultimately be procured.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Ryu’s and our efforts to protect proprietary rights in the Ionic Bulb, existing trade secret, copyright, and trademark laws afford only limited protection. Further, the assignment of the US Patent Application by the co-inventor has not been perfected by filing with the USPTO. Until such time as this filing is perfected, it is possible that the co-inventor could license the Ionic Bulb to another party. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights and other intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products, obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary or misappropriate our copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, and similar proprietary rights. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to as great an extent as do the laws of the United States. Our means of protecting our proprietary rights may not be adequate. In addition, our competitors might independently develop similar technology or duplicate our products or circumvent any patents or our other intellectual property rights.
Silly question? No, he was asking the right question. This board remainds me of a group of childern, waiting that "Christkindl" is coming to town. What a joke: Do you really believe, just because they promote their product on TV, you will get rich. Do your math. To me it looks, you never have been in a retail-business; if this would be the case, then you would now, what margings remain left after all is paid for. Now based on a reseller basis, what P-E you think the market will give them - 1 - exactly what you get in the IT business.
I will hang in, with or without a promotion; the product promotes itself and I am pretty sure, 2010 will show the first revenues and as markets trade perception, this will be the trigger. In short: They are in the market with the right product, at the right time and if they are good in execution it will do wonder. By the way, they are on the Radar-Screen of some small-caps and it doesnt need a lot, that they move in. In the meantime, buying at the low end is not the worst advise. IMHO
FORM NT 10 K from September 1, 2009. In this declaration for late filing, SPNG repeats again their estimates for the fiscal year ending May, 31.2009.
Important to read: Sales for the year ended May 31, 2009 were approx. $ 50 Mio compared to $ 5.6 Mio and as a result, our net profits for the year ended May 31, 2009, also increade to approx. $ 11 Mio. This means, that the profits were actually higher than estimated. So, we only have to wait, until the audited figures will be out, but i would assume, there wont be much of a change and some groups who have attacked this company, will have a lot to explain.
http://secfilings.com/searchresultswide.aspx?TabIndex=2&FilingID=6783800&companyid=383951&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fticker%253dSPNG%2526amp%253bauth%253d1
I would agree with you, this company is not a SCAM, on the contrary. They have a real product and their distribution contracts are real.
Golf Anyone: Very good thoughts and one of the possibilites to entertain among others; Bravo
You hit it again. These 2 contributions from your side, the best for a long time.
Excellent Summary. Congratulations
Your thought would make sense if this would be a company with a business record and not with a dilution record. They guy was smart: If somebody owes you money, however, doesnt, have the funds, wouldn,t you take at least take this chance. I would. The bird in your hand is better than the birth on the roof, so the saying goes.
SETTLEMENT. Please look at it from 2 sides. For ZVTK it is good, that they could settle with 3o Mio shs. It is always good for a company, to get these things out of the book. However, the compensation of 30 Mio shs. which gives approx. $ 69.000.-- could be a negative signal to the market. Why: If the claim would have been strong, he could have negotiated for a better solution. Or, the claimant thought, this company has no $ in the books, I better take what I get. Be it as it may; I am not so sure, that this is a positive sign for possible shareholders.
It think "our Street" Message Nr. 264707 explained it well. Your short-cut is correct as well, but, SEC Rules, Finra Rules are a minefield, which - as far as I am concerned - leaves the door wide open for various interpretations. We can guess and play ping-pong with opinions which are for sure constructive, at the end, we all gonna be smarter, once all is out. IMHO
Well explained and I go for it.
On this one you are right, but "filing" and "releasing" is a different kind of shoe. At least this is my opinion.
You can do better than that. I certainly hope, you don,t believe what you wrote.
Reading the complaint, Spongeables won,t have any chances to survive. I would make a bet; they will surrender and SPNG will take them in. That is the way it works in markets, Spongeables tried and played Russian Roulette. Old rule: Know when to stop.
Of course they have to show it. I am pretty sure, the lawyers, defending SPNG had the audited figures on their desk. You are not filing an amendment out of the blue.
The rest, why we are waiting here to go back to normal, is rather obvious. If they would release the filings, would not help much, SPNG would stay in the grey. The need the 5C211 to be signed by a broker (Market-Maker) and this has to be in sync. with Finra. So, once those documents are signed, Finra may give the go ahead and Spng would be back on .OB. At least this is the way I see it. As I am not en-current with this kind of process I could only guess, this is a kind of bureaucracy like with any other exchanges. Not exactly a high speed version. But I would assume, that we are closer to this end than not. And by the way, nobody will ring the alarm bell.
Summarize in a very short fashion:
Spongeables - among other things - accused SPNG of overstating their revenues. The owner of Spongeables has been quoted in the NY Post at that time, and this started the whole mess. Now, by defending themselves in the first version and again with the the amendmend against this false accusation, SPNG by doing so, signals to everybody, that their figures are up to the point right and the law office who handels this case, for sure must have seen the audited documents. Without that, they never ever would have taken such a step.
I was wrong, you are right with the $ 19.95. Sorry for that.
What he want,s to say is the following: If you get an order for a product, you should at least have goods on inventory, if you don,t have goods on inventory, it will be hard to satisfy the request for delivery. Now, commercials cost money, a lot of money and besides that of course, bulbs cost money as well, because the manufacturer want,s to be paid. But, as he said, based on their filings, now money in the account so the rest is then clear as well. Of course, Interstellar, who received a lot of heavy discounted shares for his loans, and recently sold them in the market, could give some money back to the company and against that of course he will demand a convertible loand and so on....; however, all this I have said in previous posts and explained in details. By the way: Their bulb costs $ 99.-- and you get one for free, if you take the time to do some shopping, you will find the same product cheaper and even with a better life of maturity, this not only in the USA and Asia, but as well in Europe. So may simple question: Why on earth should somebody pay that price, if he already can buy the same quality stuff at much cheaper levels?
Will be hard to dismantle your presentation, because 1.) it makes sense and 2.) there are always various ways for a company to get the best of shareholder value out of it but your thought,s are the closest to various scenarios. Again, well presented and follows the logic.
Before anybody questions the fact, that the State of GA granted Dicon.............
http://savannahnow.com/node/746649
When I saw the filing of PIKE, the same thoughts came up. After discussing all possibilities with friends of mine who have been involved in the stock, we came only to one conclusion, buyout. However, your presentation puts more salt on the egg, than ours, which now of course complets our thinking strategy. Thanks for your excellent thoughts.
I fully agree with you. Tried this yesterday, but through another door, when I said - based on the information I got from a professional - that SPNG is not in danger. Got then questionned for that wording, however, your findings and logical interpretation, supports that view.
Good thoughts on a subject we do not have much experience. However,I called a friend of mine who is a SEC lawyer and his opinion is "no" this rule doesn,t apply to SPNG. The good point he mentioned: As this company no doubt is surrounded by excellent lawyers - they have been mentioned and one has to admitt they are top - those people will navigate SPNG through this difficult time in a way, which in hindsight will be clear to the point and have no room left for further questions. As they know the SEC and FINRA rules we should not worry about exceeding a certain reporting limit.
You are right, they get royalties from them. Dicon is opening for SPNG not only the ASIAN market through Taikone, however giving SPNG another edge on the R&D side, which is value.
I agree you said so, but I forgot to mention this at the beginning with: I do agree with you ..........
Sorry, wasn,t meant that way, enjoy the Turkey while it lasts.
Being delisted - not exactly.
Found this on another board, so it is not from my brain, but would fully support it:
Reading the whole context of the rule, here my reply, which shows clearly, SPNG doesn,t apply to this rule, means, will not be affected. See input:
RULE:
(e)(1) Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraphs, a member shall not be permitted to quote a security if:
(A) while quoted on the OTCBB, the issuer of the security has failed to file a complete required annual or quarterly report by the due date for such report (including, if applicable, any extensions permitted by SEA Rule 12b-25) three times in the prior two-year period; or
(B) the security has been removed from the OTCBB due to the issuer's failure to satisfy paragraph (a)(2), (3) or (4), above, two times in the prior two-year period.
LOGIC INTERPRETATION:
As per the above, I believe the key words are while quoted on the OTCBB -- at the present time SPNG is not quoted on the OTCBB therefore this rule does not apply. Once SPNG reapplies under Rule 15c-211 and become quoted on the OTC.BB again then this rule would apply as it would then be considered to be on the OTC.BB.
Fair comment, let, give time.
Predicting the way a stock goes is the best way to the poor house. Despite a reservation towards this company - not because of their product - but because of their financing and some other things , I would purchase this stock if I would know which way it would move. So I am not smarter than you are, but I made my money because at least I knew and understood what I got myself into, if the odds are against me, I stay out and it served me well in the past.
Actually you could be right, if the other names would have nothing to do with ZVTK, however, if you study the filings of QMIN, BSLM - now BSOM - you will find the same name with ref. to the toxic financing. I am sure, that at least at this point, a light should go up. If you wish, I can give you another list of companies, where the same name comes up, but I want to keep the list short as possible, but I can tell you one thing, there is a common red line crossing through all this: Investors lost in all those names almost 95 %. If this still doesn,t convince you: Please go, take your funds and invest here.
Where I do agree with you: Reporting is better than non-reporting. But there are approx. 60 % of reporting .OB stocks, where people lost all their money. At least you cannot go out and sue them, because all is clearly stated in the 10K and 10Q and believe me, the people behind are smart enough to know this. If something goes wrong, they will be able to say: What is the problem - it was published. The very old rule: Never ever touch a stock, where the dilution goes out of balance still applies. No money can be made under such cirumstances. If this company would refinance themselves through an Privatplacement, one could take a risk and say, okay, but this company is refinancing itself through a Toxic vehicle and this through a name, who has a record of destroying value, this is the point. First they tried with Diet-Coffee, did not work - but the same people are involved - then the "Light" story came to the table and this for obvious reasons - it gives the company a green profile and you can use under the umbrella of commercials here and there, the phantasie of would be get rich investors. Now, put on top of this the announcment, hey we are legitim we are going .OB and then you will trap in some other buyers. Sorry, that is not the way it works for the investors. Finally, all what I have said up to this date can 100 % been investigated by everybody, only go through the various filings of this company and the companies like QMIN and BSOM -previous BSLM.
Filings. All those filings cost money. A lot of companies do not have the funds for the filings, so they remain non-reporting on Pink. As ZVTK decided to go to .OB of course they need money. After reading the last filing, they have not 1 $ available. By the way: If you get an order, you first have to pay the company who is producing the product - common sense -. L/Cs wont do it in this business. To say it painless, ZVTK needs more cash and they only will get it from the same source INTERSTELLAR. As you may know by know, outstanding shares jumped min. more than 400 Mio shs.in short order which of course is the result from the loan conversion into equity and which of course means, that over the last couple of weeks Interstellar sold it to the "public" and which of course means, that part of the proceeds - lets say 10% - will go back as a loan to ZVTK so as to have some cash versus this of course ZVTK will issue more shares at a huge discount to Interstellar and to stop this mantra, we could say, it is a deadly spiral where only Interstellar will make money and of course the board members as well, because they will get some shares for their hard job, but not you, means the one who buy,s the shares. Let,s make a deal: Wait for the next 10 Q and then you will all have confirmed, which I have been telling you here with this post.
And so what? Credibility, please. Going back to .OB means only, that you are fully reporting. QMIN was.OB as well and lost 90 %, now Pink. BSLM - now BSOM - has been .OB and lost 99 %. Nobody will touch a stock because it is .OB. You buy the stock because you trust the management - which I dont - you consider the board constructive - which I cannot see - and the company has a healthy balance sheet - which ZVTK doesn,t have - and the financing is straigth and sound - which in this case is the absolute catastrophe - Toxic pure. The rest, I just do not want to repeat.
Don,t hold your breath. This is a very weak company. The balance sheet is a disaster. The toxic financing is a dead spiral. They issue shares faster than you can count. They have a weak board and up to this date refused to issue a CV on this people - which every company as a rule is proud of to do on their webpage, unless of course, there is nothing to be proud of -. They do not own the patents (read 10K) and their various announcments always are full of landmines, so as later on nobody could sue them for misleading promises. But one thing has to be said; the 10K says all their problems - financing, patents, distribution rights etc. - but of course one has to take the time to read it. If the person behind Interstellar get,s his way, he will do what he can best: Dilute the stock, then hype the stock to be able to sell more shares to the uniformed public then as next step a reverse split and more. As a guidance how it works and how the outcome is, just go back and study the 2 years chart of QMIN and then you will get the future picture of ZVTK. You could as well study the way BSLM went - now BSOM - and then you will have another example. I do know, certain people on this board don,t care about fundamentals, they want to make money by trading, - possible - but ask yourself if you are fast and smart enough to beat the counterpart. In a ratio of 95 to 5 - Interstellar will win - for this he has a track record.
I am sure, you will support your statement by a copy of said Email. To accuse somebody of having lied to you is easy, but then you shoud deliver hard facts.
Excellent written; This is exactly the opinion I have entertained as well. They will take a lot of people by surprise, however by facts and not by rumours and this is exactly what the doctor ordered (or the lawyers) : go ahead with your excellent business we will take care of the rest, once and for all.