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.
USPTO recent Filing - IPR2021-00550
_____________Notice: notice of appeal_______________
https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/documents?proceedingNumber=IPR2021-00550
Say what?....those words blew my socks right out through the bottoms of my shoes?
First words/thoughts? is Intel setting up for another Supreme Court decision far beyond the PTAB and Texas Court?
Is it at all possible that Intel had this planned anyways?
Now you recall from the Zoom 2/17 discussions that both parties were talking about a a time line to gather information to submit together to Texas Court - JA's Clerks.
Who above Intel's Attorney that handled the 2/17 Zoom dealing is pulling the strings?
I can't help but believe that in some fashion our patent might really be worth Billions? I don't see how but how can we now not think so? If so maybe Intel knew all along that Vennwest might side with HDC and support the end results in teaming together?
What in the world are our Attorney's now thinking?
Maybe there is now a massive reason for all parties involved in HDC to come together and get this stock trading again?
All longs here probably feel as I do which is how in the hell can this get deeper and deeper as we have seen. This company/stock is making massive history yet has no money but has pulled Intel's pants down to around their ankles.
I never thought I would see a day like this with Intel crying back to the PTAB so my thoughts are pressure is going to come from far above again so grab your underwear and hold on.
I haven't pulled any documents nor were anything at the Texas Court System but believe a venue change will happen soon enough. I wonder if it is odd that JA hasn't at least determined the issue we had with the two court cases dates one being 2020 and of course 2022
Results from 4/10/23 Court HDC/Vennwest........
The settlement conference reconvened. The Court addressed the parties
and asked that they inform the Court as to whether the settlement
conference should be continued or if the Court should inform the district
judge that the parties are ready to proceed to trial. The parties informed
the Court that the settlement conference should be continued. The
settlement conference will reconvene on April 25, 2023, at 10:00 AM.
Mr. Wedekind indicated that subject to the execution of a NDA, he will
share some of the information requested by the Plaintiffs.
The Court directed the parties to exchange documents/information, subject to the
NDA (if necessary), prior to the next mediation date.
Proactive link........ HLYK
<yt>NcrxeOkGtpc</yt>
Let me just say if I were that company that had anything to do with the wording or rewording the Inventors words as in/for Dr. Dent, the patent writer I would be extremely embarrassed if that is the case. Dr. Dent used probably one of the biggest companies in the world to handle that patent. Do you recall me stating a couple years ago that a patent can be provisional up to 1 year but by that time if not completed it would fall. There are slight exceptions to extend but not generally. What happen was when Dent initiated the start/paperwork of that patent he worked on it the first 6 days then nothing and it was booted out after the year however, they refiled. We need not talk any events past this point except we have the ability to use the patent as worded. Also we don't want to tough on patenability either, but by all means how in the world can Dr. Dent and O' Leary move into a new direction that would attract large shareholders not us retail holders.
I view Dr. Dent like this...he is very close with the NWC and all those professionals and will do what he can to protect them but us retail investors are a dime a dozen and can come and go in a flash to try and make a quick dollar. He works with these professionals he never sees any of us so all bets are off for him to salvage the "HealthLynked" part of the business.
______________________________________________________
Sometime people tend to think if a company goes private that that is good for investors that is so far from the truth. Now anyone who reads this I am just making this statement and it does not apply or am I implying that HLYK would go private.
Good_Stuff over on Yahoo might be thinking the dude over on Stocktwits referencing HDC thinks he knows the most recent document is from JA - Texas Court but look closely at the document expressed on stocktwits and note the documents numbers #54 and #55...The document number that comes after # 62 isn't hard to figure out is it?
As it stands HLYK is not sitting in a comfortable chair meaning all us retail shareholders. I do know we have a present cap of 500 million authorized shares and presently as of 3/30./23 we were at 259 million OS however to cover various options and things like warrants that aspect will take roughly 93.5 million common shares that will eventually call for 352.6 million OS leaving roughly 147.3 million shares to work with. Now O' Leary might possibly allow 100 million shares of the 147.3 be used in some manner but with say 47.3 shares remaining will either call for a RS and or increasing the AS to around 750 Million..
The recent Patent, the patent is at least an effort to try and use the original PAH (hardware) Idea but as I see that at present will need refining and that I don't see happening anytime soon simply because money is going to get tight much quicker now without previous income.
HLYK was forced to let part of the business go and that is seen simply by looking at the various wordings within that sale. Maybe we were headed to a merger with these guys as we had hope prior but just didn't work out, who knows but if that money/merger deal with that company that could possibly IPO then that money could support us or at least give us some breathing room.
Do know if we fail that it is my opinion that Dr. Dent will end up doing what he does best at and for the "Woman's Center in Naples".
I see HLYK continually changing as we go and we must. Things...or some are just not working but regardless and we may not be successful we at least have a management team meaning O' Leary who is trying to make the numbers work and without him staying ahead of the game and out of as much danger financially or at least doing the financial structure in reporting as he has this no doubt would be called a scam by many but if each one of us as myself too (in which case) I have, read the SEC filings they are clear and straight forward.
We need a player with money that also has a new medical direction, probably a private company that may have poor management but needs a public traded corporation and someone to run it like Dr. Dent and O' Leary. Might be a high order but we can not (in my opinion) survive in the direction we are headed and the clock counting down.
As much as someone might need us is as much as we need them....simple said.
I will check the other boards first then maybe download the new documents. I gather you are talking about Texas Court, anyways that document is most likely the minutes from prior 2/17/23
I see on stocktwits... talk about the transcript so I'm not even going to view that and besides I always record the legal events and video/pictures....but I will go and check Albrights calendar.
OK...so maybe some type of agreement with Intel such as hey HDC you settle your legal disputes first then we will settle ours? If that is so one might figure that numbers were strongly tossed around? Why do I say this? Why would we not hear something from the Texas Court by now? Intel knows JA doesn't like BS and needless delays. It would seem to me why not proceed with both lawsuits as we have in the past in case Intel is stalling...call their bluff? but on the other hand I really have no clue, discussions here between us shareholders with remaining hope should entertain more discussions.
HDC, in closing at the 2/17/23 Motion hearing was fired up with getting with Intel to obtain pretrial elements to submit to Albright by way of his court clerks. That took place over 48 calendar days ago? Again, JA doesn't like unnecessary BS, & delays and Intel knows this so yes, a settlement deal must be on the table but how if at all can HDC try to control Intel or is Intel controlling HDC referencing "Laurie Vennwest" as George (so it seems) doesn't trust him nor to many others if at all from within HDC's past or since becoming CEO of HDC.
Cathy over on the Yahoo message board....Reference Judge Albright allowing the parties to pick a trial date. That is FALSE so someone tell her she is correct. What Judge Albright was talking a about is for the parties to get their questions ready for Jury Trial and that when they are ready let the court know and then we will proceed. In short you can't set a trial date in this type of case without the parties being ready but once it starts who knows?.
So once both parties contact the Texas Court Judge Albright will set things in motion, dates as "needed." and for pretrial hearing(s).
The Rule will become effective 60 days following publication of the amendments in the Federal Register. The Rule will have a general compliance date that is nine months after the effective date as well as a compliance date that is two years after the effective date regarding provisions to require an issuer’s financial information for the last two fiscal years to be current and publicly available.....or is June 28, 2023 THE ABSOLUTE DEADLINE?
9/28/21 compliance date starts? <<<<< This is when compliance date stated correct...and if so do we have until 9/28/23 to file the past SEC FILINGS?
Aside from that
07/22/22____ Zero shares traded as seen by us traders.
07/21/22____ 2 million share traded.
07/20/22____ 6 Million shares traded - Was that Citadel trying to unload?
10/19/22____ Jim Murphy resigns.
06/22/22____ Marty Delmonte resigns.
OK... it seems to me that the other that must resign as director would be the CEO's daughter Colleen. That would call for 3 directors to be replaced and hopefully satisfy the concerns within this area.
Comments anyone?
Good Sport...as you know but Sir John doesn't know that 1:20-CV-3386-LMM... Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Divison.) is about and between Vennwest and HDC has nothing to do with Intel. In general to catch the gist of the case complaint it is about the 3 loans, timing of the loans, Series "D" shares, not having independent directors, shareholder meetings and of course HDC lack of other fiduciary duties. No doubt a mixture of several other items but this might help some who seem to think it is about Intel as it is NOT.
As for what Judge Linda T. Walker said at the 3/22/23 Settlement Conference about the director or adding them I doubt that is something mandatory it is a recommendation to try and start the parties on a level field, my opinion!
We all know there are many things are wrong within HDC and something sincerely needs to change as this isn't a private corporation.
Anyways the court document #19 filed on 11/30/20 is 28 pages describing the case complaint Vennwest has with HDC.
Look at that...stock price is on a run...........
I see the talk over on Yahoo and can't blame anyone for their feelings involving the patent and our share price. I don't know if people understand this patent is just the right to use it, it doesn't mean it is proven patentability and I personally believe it won't since the wording customer was substituted for patient just for starters. The reasoning is Dr. Dent definition of customer is the patient (device). Now it is a positive move that Dr. Dent did so don't think this patent is junk unless we don't see them build on this patent. Who knows this patent could be used for other businesses and not by a patient. One other word is ALL patents you see that are issued regardless doesn't mean they are patentable meaning if they are challenged the PTAB will end up dealing with it but also the Federal District Court may have the final say depending on the challenges and rules of each court meaning PTAB and District Courts are different depending.
Digdeeper....at this point do you have any thoughts on Vennwest/HDC?
No "Good Sport" I don't post on Yahoo, Stocktwits or even Reddit. Many years ago did on RB and SI boards however there are more message boards around but know not like you the only alias I'm using this Loc.
If you were the CEO of this company what would you have done years ago that no CEO or director aside from CEO George H. McGovern has done.
What would you do or not do in relations to dealing with "Laurie Vennwest?"
What would you do or not do just with reading the past SEC filings but more so known what really transpired behind closed doors at HDC? Would you not be incline to do as George as done involving NEO but how did he proceed to get past the board and what were the real conversations between all of the insiders and we know of arguments within HDC not to proceed/pursue "NeoGenomic Corporation" and don't even think of messing with the huge "Intel Corporation."
We look at "Laurie Vennwest" and don't forget about "Kevin Kowbel?" ...now hold on, let's cut through the BS, what did any HDC officer or director in our past with the exception of George really do for us except lip servicing. Now don't get me wrong I'm sure we had a few pass through this company and just shake their head and moved onward as quickly as they came into HDC.
The truth to me is that George H. McGovern has been the only CEO and director that got off their a$$ to do something for this company and us shareholders...for starters George has been invested in HDC since 2007, it seem he stands up to a leak instead of sitting down....but what do I know?
What would be the reasons you would or would not want officers and directors from the past to become active in HDC?
"Canada?" ...seems to me it isn't worth trying to short HDC at these levels but makes you wonder about our past?
So maybe George will bring in 3 new directors of his "own" selection for a vote by us shareholders but under the circumstances of our share structure our vote does very little like nothing but maybe everyone would feel better and could that release enough stream from the Vennwest kettle?
So we have another settlement conference on the 10th? I wonder what else was talked about that "Laurie" is pointing at and no doubt I can't blame him with for his concerns but what is the real motive, I mean both him and Kevin Kowbel seem to have this Canadian connection in which I'm leery of and no doubt believe our CEO is too.
Sorry about that last post...no doubt a bad day for me and should have waited for Tuesday morning to post it. I hope you can figure out what in the world I was trying to say?
Zenos.... referencing 1:20-cv-03386-VMC I just pulled the minute sheet for that hearing and it is as YankeesFanInOH stated. What is interesting is the time spent in court that day 10A- 2:40PM....4 hours 40 min This to me tells me Laurie and George are keeping any personal feeling at bay.
Years ago I feel George needed to protect the company and only using employees or directors that he could trust... especially and all us shareholders know from looking at HDC crappy history with director and CEO fiascoism.
I think now since Laurie and George are somewhat force to listen to each other by way of attorney is just going through the motions and trying to understand each other a bit more. You can't blame Vennwest for wanting possible director change within HDC as we are at a point where even all typical investors are at reasonable distrust with George however, I am very grateful that George kept us from totally drowning but now.
So as I see us presently we need a CEO/CFO and a max of 3 directors. In short George, Marty and 3 new directors. ...and no we don't need any more than that until we become a real company. (if you know what I mean) Now where is the money going to come from to pay these people?
It also seems or at least a fleeing thought if George does agree to new directors as I just defined that would indicate seeing not just a 8-K but the other past filings and then share price off to the races.....or is George stalling Vennwest as long as possible.
Georges old friend Marty ...don't be surprised if you don't see him back on board in the near future but really who in heck knows what will happen at the next conference on 4/10/23 11AM.
Yes I agree we need 3 new director and it is up to George and not Vennwest nor the Judge period! That is no different then George giving Vennwest 3 names. George please do not select any past directors that were associate with HDVY before you became CEO to serve in what future we have left.
We don't actually know how many directors we still active in HDC they had to be present due to the legalities - ZOOM meeting.
I wonder if we were going to originally merge with PBACO, LLC I mean it has 9 entities within. Did Dr. Dent & O'Leary sell ACO Health Partners to PBACO because we had to have the money or were we originally going to merge with them but the ACO savings money that seem to be held back by the SSA signal our company we can't move into this area directly but if PBACO does do an IPO they will do the work and O,Leary will have his hand palm up with a smile saying place the money right here boys. At any rate there might be a good chance that PBACO might IPO or something as such especially with having 9 entities to manage.
I don't know what to think about this except is it possible some private company and Exicure will reverse merge. No way in heck will this (in my opinion) be able to maintain Nasdaq listing unless some type of merger is in the works. I gather the share structure is perfect or setup for this to possibly happen because we are too damn far away to rise high enough in the time span we need before any real (dream) of a product.
I hated the RS we went through and will look at the math in my account as to what share price this needs to fall to make it possible for me to reinvest but with the past fiasco involving past CEO David.... I'm incline to just let what shares I have left sit and hope and poke and not buy in again. At my age I ll probably be gone before I see anything to be excited about like we did in the past.
Sure is a damn shame this up and coming corporations to end up in a crappy fiasco and lose at least 50 institutional investments/investors so be very cautious in jumping back into this and besides the maintenance/lease on our 30,000 sq ft building is going to take a bite out of us. You probably can hear your voice echo on that floor especially losing no less than 50% of their employees but believe that percentage has risen since.
Under the past fiasco I don't think lawsuits were strong enough several should have been arrested and dealt with.
Nothing new in Texas Court regarding HDC/Intel...this means all Judges within the Western District, all calendars and past/present case numbers.
It seems to me that Intel and George are hashing out settlement numbers and I'm sure many investors are going to be very disappointed. What ever the number is it is but hope at least .50 cent per share but a $1 dollar per share would be cool but feel that is dreaming. Now of course like many others here accepting funds converted into Intel shares would be great.
New Proactive interview today
<yt>_Fp-Hblp_-U?t=5</yt>
SAY WHAT??? Open @.0002 and not .0001
What in the world is going on? Do we have a settlement or possibly an update from HDC or SEC filings coming?...so much for the "expect market" not being able to show a different share price.
I don't know as I haven't been watching that close but when in the same circumstances involving this stock it would seem 100k order would control the day depending on when it is placed and potential volume or needs of traders. I think all of us do that when we get stingy...at least I do.
The accumulation? could be but I am not even thinking about that but volume does attract me.
Now as for the recent Patent it is nice to have but only words and drawings on paper. I don't need to open up this avenue still early days so we can enjoy.
.10 sure looks better than .08
Tommy...In some ways I'm shaking my head why the original delay referencing this patent perhaps it was due to a changes the company addressed... in using the PAH (physical HUB) or incorporating AI progression going forward. My thoughts are this...HLYK is or should be incorporating much more into this patent as we know Dr. Dent wanted to capitalize on the AI technology so I would expect other patents to extend from this new patent. If that is true the company should release new patent applications as quickly as possible to the public and also involving a PR of some sort plus updating this news on their website at the same instant.
My hope is that Dr. Dent has a vast plan involving AI incorporation. I do not see him selling HLYK simply because it is tied to his hip and if for nothing else Dr. Dent must keep enough going for HLYK so he can keep his medical operations and staff working and happy. In other words regardless if HLYK fails he will end up with the medical office period so let's hope this patent is a start for "big game hunting" well...at least a start for "small game hunting".
We can only hope and wait?
Yes you can see the documentations in these links
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/11600395.html
Actual defined ---- https://www.freepatentsonline.com/11600395.pdf <--- item (60) but the application was (21) 16/812033
I haven't been able to dig far enough yet but will say this patent will allow HLYK to License the the technology and sue if needed but in the same breath we could be sued too in a infringement conflict dispute. As for the patent it was in 2020 when I check the USPTO referencing HLYK and at that time (as I said corporations have basically 1 year to update the provisional) HLYK let that application hit a block wall and is the reason no information came up regarding patent application but HLYK did finally apply the same patent application again and finally success, what you see presently is a patent.
HealthLynked Corp. Awarded Patent 11,600,395 for "Secure Patient Access via Healthcare Service Provider Specific Wireless Access Point"
NAPLES, Fla. -- March 21, 2023 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- HealthLynked Corp., a global healthcare network focused on care management of its members and a provider of healthcare technologies that connect patients, physicians, and medical data, proudly announces that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has granted the company Patent No. 11,600,395 for its innovative "Secure Patient Access via Healthcare Service Provider Specific Wireless Access Point" technology.
The patented technology encompasses systems and methods for providing a healthcare service provider-specific wireless access point, or "HUB", that facilitates secure communication between patients, providers, and third-party services. When in range of the HUB (e.g., in a doctor's office waiting room), patient devices can connect to the healthcare service provider's (HSP) wireless access point. The access point can be configured to detect the presence of a patient device, obtain identifying information, and send the information to a server.
The server uses the obtained information to create or update a profile for the patient associated with their device. This profile can be updated with additional information derived from the patient's interaction with the network, provider input, or the patient updating their profile or inputting additional information. This innovative approach allows for streamlined communication and enhanced data security within the healthcare setting.
"We are thrilled to receive this patent, which represents a significant milestone for HealthLynked as we continue to develop cutting-edge solutions for the healthcare industry," said Dr. Michael Dent, HealthLynked's CEO. "Our team is dedicated to improving patient outcomes and creating a more patient-centric healthcare system, and this patent is a testament to our commitment to innovation."
The issuance of Patent No. 11,600,395 provides HealthLynked with a competitive advantage in the growing digital healthcare market, protecting its intellectual property and enabling the company to further refine and expand its offerings. As a result, HealthLynked is poised to make a lasting impact on the healthcare industry by offering patients and providers a more efficient, user-friendly experience and creating a more accessible and efficient healthcare system for all.
For more information about HealthLynked and its innovative healthcare solutions, please visit www.healthlynked.com.
About HealthLynked
HealthLynked Corp. provides a solution for both patient members and providers to improve healthcare through the efficient exchange of medical information. The HealthLynked Network is a cloud-based platform that allows members to connect with their healthcare providers and take more control of their healthcare. Members enter their medical information, including medications, allergies, past surgeries, and personal health records, in one convenient online and secure location, free of charge. Participating healthcare providers can connect with their current and future patients through the system. Benefits to in-network providers include the ability to utilize the HealthLynked patent-pending patient access hub "PAH" for patient analytics. Other benefits for preferred providers include HLYK marketing tools to connect with their active and inactive patients to improve patient retention, access more accurate and current patient information, provide more efficient online scheduling, and to fill last-minute cancelations using the Company's "real-time appointment scheduling" all within its mobile application. Preferred providers pay a monthly fee to access these HealthLynked services. For additional information about HealthLynked Corp., please visit www.healthlynked.com and connect with HealthLynked on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
Forward-Looking Statements & Risk Factors
Forward-Looking Statements in this press release, which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our actual results, including as a result of any acquisitions, performance, or achievements may differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as "may," "could," "expect," "intend," "plan," "seek," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "predict," "potential," "continue," "likely," "will," "would" and variations of these terms and similar expressions, or the negative of these terms or similar expressions. Such forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by our management, and us are inherently uncertain. We caution you not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which are made as of the date of this press release. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any of these forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, new information or future events, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting forward-looking statements, except to the extent required by applicable laws. If we update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward-looking statements. Certain risks and uncertainties applicable to our operations and us are described in the "Risk Factors" section of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and in other filings we have made with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. These reports are publicly available at www.sec.gov.
HLYK Contact:
George O'Leary
Chief Financial Officer
goleary@healthlynked.com
+1 (800)-928-7144, ext. 103
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/11600395.html
Actual defined ---- https://www.freepatentsonline.com/11600395.pdf
So I was wrong back in 2019 as they did have a provisional patent as noted in patent. Now I will go into the patent steps to see what changes or modification that may have been instruted from the USPTO however most here would not be interested in these details and I won't post anything referencing as such but on Friday happy hour I would comment in PM's.here on IHUB.
This is the format Vennwest & HDC must follow.......
A. FORMAT
1. The Court will use a mediation format, and private caucusing with each side; the
judge may address your client directly. The judge will not meet with parties separate from
counsule.
B. ISSUES
1. What issues (in and outside of this lawsuit) need to be resolved? What are the
strengths and weaknesses of each issue? What is your most persuasive argument?
2. What remedies are available resulting from this litigation including a trial? From
a settlement? Are there any remedies or structure of remedies available through
settlement that are not available through trial?
3. Is there any ancillary litigation pending or planned which affects case value?
What about liens?
4. Do you have enough information to value the case? If not, how are you going to
get more information before the conference?
5. Do attorney’s fees or other expenses affect settlement? Have you communicated
this to the other side?
6. Is each Defendant and/or its carrier solvent?
C. AUTHORITY
1. Are there outstanding liens? Have you verified amounts and whether they are
negotiable? Do we need to include a representative of the lien holder? If so,
contact the judge and a notice of the settlement conference will be sent.
2. Is there valid insurance coverage? In what amount? If coverage is at issue,
or the amount/type affects settlement value, have you notified the other side? Do
we need to include the representative from more than one company/carrier?
if so, notify the judge immediately.
D. NEGOTIATIONS
1. Where did your last discussion end?
2. Discuss settlement with the opposing parties before the mediation to make it
proceed more efficiently. At least one offer and response is required.
3. What value do you want to start with? Why? Have you discussed this with your
client?
4. What value do you want to end with? Why? Have you discussed this with your
client? Is it significantly different from values you have placed on this case at
other times? Does your client understand why?
5. Is there confidential information which affects case value? Why
can’t/won’t/shouldn’t it be disclosed? How can the other side be persuaded to
change value if it doesn’t have this information?
6. What happens if you don’t settle the case at the conference? What is your best
alternative to a negotiated settlement? Why? What might change the outcome of
the settlement conference? Pending motions, discovery, expert’s report, etc.
E. CLOSING
1. Have you discussed settlement formats with your client? Does the client
understand structured settlements, annuities, Rule 68 offers of judgment?
2. How soon could checks/closing documents be received?
3. If settlement is not reached, and further discovery is needed, what is your plan for
continuing settlement discussions? Do you want the Court involved in these
talks?
4. If settlement is not reached, be prepared to discuss it again at the pretrial
conference.
The following was posted on 2/26/23
As for Vennwest/HDC.......On 2/19/23 The Georgia Court has "Ordered Setting Settlement Conference" March 22, 2023 at 10AM via ZOOM.
Case 1:20-cv-03386-VMC
Court document #65 and it is 6 pages.
_______________
My personal view of any outcome on conference date are absolutely ZERO.
________________________________________________
The reason why I feel this way is from reading this document back then coupled with the personalities at hand. Also know it is fact that these conferences generally produce lip service and nothing more so a few conferences may take place later. I also don't know if George doesn't want to show his hand at this time but he must be represented by a legal team at this conference and NOPE this ZOOM meeting will not be extended to the public.
Excellent post....only a few days away....I believe both sides are dug in and not moving. That is why this event on the 22 is scheduled. In the end I think Vennwest is just keeping pressure on George until a settlement between Intel/HDC.
.... It was indicated by BQ that Vennwest would drop the lawsuit if things transpired in a positive way involving Intel. So I ask will that happen or was the just talk? Why is it that BQ stated Vennwest might/would drop the lawsuit under those conditions. I ask is BQ in direct contact with Vennwest and if so would be a god reason why George would not allow him and others back on board as directors. Just my thoughts?
I checked yesterday and nothing was new involving Vennwest.
Just check Texas Court system moments ago, absolutely nothing to report and also no new SEC filings yet!
I'm really shocked that we haven't seen any results since last hearing on 2/17/23 which leaves me thinking that both sides are sincerely into settlement figures. I mean I have only been wrong or made mistakes twice in my life, 2 ex-wives : -) Now it would be cool if this works out to be at least $1 per share and if it means 28 shares of HDC stock to 1 share of Intel stock, that deal is far more than our stock has ever gained. This is far more realistic than the reads over on Yahoo.
If investors/traders in these message thread want to see a share price such as $2 -$5 dollars per share that would only happen if HDC trades again coupled with a lot of hype.
I'll take Intel stock 1 sh for every 28 that I have every day of the week and twice on Sunday. People complain about waiting the time it will take for Intel stock to climb back to $40-$50 per share...well I'm sorry but I'll gladly wait like others since many of us have been here since May of 2003.
Dr. Dent, I see not much new and so far we are still moving backwards in share price plus what in the world is our present business plan since nothing to date seems to work? What happen to the great AI technology talk or was that a bunch of BS. Do we even have a real business plan or was all this to set up for retirement with rolling all the past corporations into HLYK? I mean you did this same act years ago and it worked for shareholders but doesn't look good to date.
If one plays in these message threads expect anything and yes everyone has an opinion. Even "Sir John" with 10 shares of HDC being worth 1 shares of Intel stock @$27.00.... yes it gets embarrassing but at least some are posting their opinions.
...I wonder in a settlement maybe George would not be able to do anything with those options since we are in the expect market? Could he still wheel and deal the warrants?
Zenos...I really don't know what I'm talking about but I figure (and please add to this posts) that at the most we could obtain $500M settlement from Intel at TOPS!!! Just tossing numbers next I figure 500M shares diluted to be safe and next our legal team will easily swallow 40 to 60 percent of the $500M. Let us say $500M net bottom line awarded next deduct 50% of the $500M settlement and you end up with $250M to be paid out to 500Million shares which in my mind mean .50 cent per shares at most.
I need thought from you and others on how others see this possible payout.
This is why it is so important that George files back SEC filings. If he does so I think hype may drive this stock into the dollar figure but without hype do to traders and people who want to make a fast buck we are stuck simply because (and you know too) that HDC could have $900 million (bullets) sitting in a bank but but no gun nor anyone with what it takes to move this tired company out of the rocking chair again we are simply done after this lawsuit with Intel zero bullets and no portfolio holster to put the gun or bullets in just an old can of gun cleaner that probably isn't worth the effort?
I sincerely thank George for hanging in here for so damn long although this company venture has probably taken a toll on his entire family.
Still as of right "now" no new publicly accessible document from Texas Court nor new calendar date