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.
Agree. Unless DOE comes galloping to the rescue. Their backing is absolutely key! Unless CCTC can announce substantial (like matching investment) DOE support at the WY Mining Conference in June they are DOA IMHO.
"Start looking for another form of cash flow" is exactly what George Waller and the guy hired for marketing and the other guy hired for sales this winter have been doing. You completely discount the possibilities that these three have brought home the bacon. Mark stated the fins will improve in the second half of the year. I believe him and will reserve judgement until I see if sales figures have improved due to any deals. A previous Q stated OEM packaging is our greatest growth area. Let's see if it is in the second half of the year. Another thing you completely discount is the possibility of any of the seven IP infringers agreeing to a settlement. The odds are seven to one and they are not in your favor on that!
The massive dilution you allude to is impossible. By the legally binding provision of the DART/Citgo note the ability of the company to do so is "restricted". The note holder would act if any dilution of maginitude was planned. A small amt. in conversion from preferred to common (to take advantage of pps appreciation) is O.K. but nothing of the significance you imply!
They are when they appear on the one year charts I look at like SFOR's.
Yeah, that's their 1% chance of winning IMHO.
Paperwork can be expedited when required. That paperwork is not required of SFOR so far. The hidebound civilian banking sector doesn't fully comprehend that the DoD procurement system is much more dynamic or we wouldn't prevail in the battle space. Operational needs will be met because the operators still run the DoD not the paper pushers. RDY2ROCK knows exactly what he is talking about!
Funny, the 1 yr ascending triangle still looks rock solid to me. Then again I completely ignore short term pps fluctuations because I'm an investor, not a short term trader. I know what I own!
Thanks but I'll trust the guys that worked in the DoD procurement cycle after I retired in 2002 to be more current with the how things get done in support of operational needs rather than people who have never stepped foot in the Pentagon.
Yeah, in all fairness Mark and his small band of brothers deserve to be fairly compensated after their years of struggle, sacrifice and risk!
I'm 99% in agreement with you. In all fairness however, I cannot discount the very slim chance (1% IMHO) the decision could go against SFOR. The Microsoft IPR deision set a powerful precedent. But every infringing company has its right to a fair hearing in which their lawyers and technical experts may prevail.I doubt they will but the possbility exists. The 99:1% odds are what any bookie would have given you when our little David, SFOR went up against the Goliath, MSFT.
I hope you're an extremely patient individual because youmay be waiting quite awhile!
Thanks for so well articulating the other point of view as you always do!
Keep dreaming! Long & Strong SFOR.
I think you may be on to something there. However, much depends on the IPR.
That makes logical sense to me. R&G could have insisted SFOR have some skin in the game before agreeing to go on contingency. That would help account for the $800K entry on the Q.
I have seen absolutely nothing indicating Ropes and Gray are working on contingency as Blank Rome is. So yeah, Ropes and Gray would be charging SFOR hourly rates for each lawyer assigned to each of the four cases.
My favorite contender is TPG. Another poster's is Intel. Who's yours? I never said I "knew who was paying the freight".
That's my point! Some entity with very deep pockets is paying for all those expensive Ropes and Gray lawyers hourly rates for all four cases IMHO.
Time will tell which of us is right. However, as far as the "DoD crap" is concerned your arguement was completely debunked by RDY2Rock's post # 161060 written at 8:54:07 on 5/5/17. (newbies follow the entire thread to see this) and other posters who have actually operated within the DoD procurement cycle.
O.K. that could cover the R&G retainer fee but how are all those expensive R&G hours being paid for?
O.K. then how on earth can SFOR afford to pay the most expensive IP legal gunslingers to fight on its behalf in four seperate engagements?
Really? You neglected to quote the rest of his statement "in the cyber security landscape." Now the Bloomberg interview was about the Intel/TPG spinoff of Mcafee as a stand alone cyber security company. Mcafee is good anti-virus software but it has an Achillies heel. The lack of adequate keylogger protection. SFOR IP can plug the chink in that armor. Also, multi-billion dollar Intel and TPG amazingly share something in common with small cap SFOR, the same Ropes and Gray lawyers. R&Gs M&A office recently consumated the Mcafee spinoff. What a coincidence!
Possible that the R&G half million dollar retainer fee could be reflected in the $800K row under operating expenses but IMHO not probable.
There is an entry for legal expenses on the latest Q. I base this on SFOR's statement about retaining R&G. O.K. where's payment of that retainer fee reflected let alone the high R&G hourly rates? Inquiring minds want to know!
"We will be acquiring small computer software companies in the cyber defense landscape." This was the response from a TPG partner when asked by the Bloomberg reporter about this years plans. Another message board member posted a link to that interview earlier this week, I believe in bold blue. Listen to that interview yourself to verify this information.
Thank you for that clarification on the IPR and possible timeframe for the SFOR proceedings.
That's right. Both the (up to half million dollar) retainer fee and all Ropes and Gray's expensive hours are not accounted for anywhere in the latest 10Q. Some entity, with very deep pockets, is picking up that expensive legal tab because it sure isn't SFOR!
Really? BR is working on contingency on the Duo, Centrify and Trustwave cases. Also who paid the retainer fee (300-500K) for Ropes and Gray? Who is paying their hourly rates for the other four cases. It wasn't SFOR. Those charges were not on the Q were they?
Sweet! It's geat to see the Real Estake market embrace MFA. Thanks for
finding and posting that article.
Thanks for that info. I look forward to June 19th then unless of course the IPR is dismissed. That would change things dramatically! Ram actually contributed a good bit of DD. He wrote IPRs take on average 6 months. We are about 3 months into the process. This makes me look forward to the 3rd Q even more!
We are in perfect agreement!
Is the Duo, Trustwave, Centrify hearing (last time the judge termed it a settlement hearing) still scheduled for June 5?
In the trade show interview he stated he wanted to sell SFOR in a couple years and retire! After all he's done for the company he deserves to at his age. He already retired once from JPM and then got in the fight of his life with Microsoft on behalf of SFOR.
So you honestly believe SFOR can't survive another 3 months until that ruling? I beg to differ!
What are those PACER updates? I and others not having an account would appreciate a summry of them. Thanks!
Yeah and how long has the clock been ticking?
So Mark Kay would do nothing to conserve cash? This is the guy who put two million dollars of his own money in the company and he would bankrupt it! Not very probable IMHO.
Man, I wish my crystal ball was as clear as yours!
How doe SFOR have "no money"? The lastQ stated SFOR had $360K available. That is TEN times what they had on hand prior to the Microsoft settlement. Do you know what their accounts reievables have been since 3/31? You believe Mark Kay to be dishonerable. I do not. Once again we agree to disagree. Finally the odds of all seven lawsuits "getting dragged out" are not very high according to probability & statistics.
Question for the board. Who do you think paid the R&G retainer fee of between $300K and $500K? Who do you think is paying all those high priced R&G lawyers in the four SFOR IP defense cases? My favorite contender is Texas Pacific Group (TGP). Another poster believes it is Intel. Who do you think it is?
CEO Mark Kay put an $8 Billion value of SFOR. You honestly think he will accept a one cent a share buy out offer in light of 7 lawsuits that could produce a settlement any day among the other catalysts detailed by ZPaul? If so why?