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.
The last filing was on April 30, 2021. If QMC received revenue of any substance they were obligated to declare it in the "Subsequent Events" section.
Show your proof that Squires hasn't misappropriated funds. (See how that works?)
$0 thru April 30, 2021, is >0 evidence that 100's of millions of Innova have been sold without QMC receiving any compensation.
As of April 30, 2021 QMC logged $0 in revenue for their HealthID technology.
Pointing out the foolishness of multiplying units x the dollar value of the test sales is not making a statement disputing what was being offered, just the silly math.
WRT to the offering, multiple folks from the UK have stated here and other places that the app offered in their tests was the NHS app. The UK government may have been offered the QMC app but they turned it down and went with their own. People receiving the tests did not get the QMC option.
The fact the they told the world it was optional. (A citation of their words can be found in past posts.)
This is interesting...
DECLARATION OF BRANDI COSSAIRT, Ph.D
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00186%2F2030
Sony announces the world’s first QD-OLED 4K TV, coming later this year
https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/4/22865220/sony-a95k-qd-oled-qdoled-4k-tv-announced-features-explainer
Any promises broken recently, LOL.
They are not QD solar cells. Apples and oranges. The glow of the QD's are guided to the solar cells.
Lots of documents available via Pacer.
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Marshall)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:20-cv-00038-JRG
Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Assigned to: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
U.K. courts? Their case is in East Texas.
This is incorrect. The trial has been delayed as both parties have agreed to first have the the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board review five of the company's patents. Once this is completed by May of 2022, the parties will no longer be fighting about validity but whether Samsung infringed. Regardless, getting a top infringement law firm and a 3rd party to finance up to ~$10M in court costs (after spending a year on due diligence) is a pretty good indication of the strength of Nanoco's case.
This is apples and oranges relative to QMC's nuisance case with K&L Gates. If most of the key claims in Nanoco's patents hold up, they have suffered actual financial damage that will be in the hundreds of millions, maybe even a billion over the period of infringement. QMC has suffered little to no loss from their relationship with K&L.
10/13/2021 Notice of Hearing
Set - 10.27.21 @ 9:00 am
10/14/2021 Notice of Hearing
Set - 12.08.21 @ 9:00 am
10/27/2021 Motion to Compel Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Boyer, Bruce)
12/08/2021 Motion to Compel Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Boyer, Bruce)
Court Activities:
10/05/2021 Subpoena (Issued By Attorney)
Steven Morse; Issued 8.23.2021; Executed 8.24.2021
10/05/2021 Subpoena (Issued By Attorney)
KCCW Accountancy Corp; Issued 8.23.21; Returned Unserved
10/05/2021 Subpoena (Issued By Attorney)
Morse & Morse PLLC; Issued 8.23.21; Executed 8.24.21
10/05/2021 Subpoena (Issued By Attorney)
Weaver & Tidwell LLP; Issued 8.23.21; Executed 8.23.21
10/05/2021 Subpoena (Issued By Attorney)
Craig Lindberg; Issued 8.23.21; Executed 8.23.21
10/06/2021 Subpoena (Issued By Attorney)
Amended - KCCW Accountancy Corp; Issued 8.23.21; Executed 8.25.21
10/08/2021 Motion To Compel
Defendant's Second
All of this except the last paragraph. Art was just a true believer.
Definitely not John. John was a fool not a BS'er.
Good thing I sold them when we could, huh?
Still embarrassing.
No. Actually, I am just providing information.
Sherida (Sher) Collins 11 months of employment ended in September.
Let's just show your math:
PURCHASE: 50,000 x $0.10 = $5,000
80% PRICE DROP: 50,000 x $0.02 = $1,000 ($4K loss)
1:50 R/S: 1,000 X $1.00 = $1,000 (No change, still a $4K loss)
BREAKEVEN: 1,000 x $5.00 = $5,000
You are twisting yourself in a knot for some basic things that are true regardless of a revere split.
- If your stock price drops 50%, it needs a 2X move to breakeven, regardless of the number of shares that you own.
- If the same stock were to drop 80%, it needs a 5X move to breakeven, regardless of the number of shares that you own.
That assumes that the problem was just the filing, or lack thereof, and not the lack of capabilities.
Also, there is a reason (or reasons) Squires chose not to file. I do not believe the accountants are to blame. LOL, unless holding the company accountable for following acceptable financial practices qualifies.
Dude, in your scenario, you lost 50% before the split. Like in every case losing that amount, the price will then need to appreciate 100% to breakeven. So $5 to $10, not $50.
100 x $1.00 = $100
100 x $0.50 = $50
10 x $5.00 = $50
10 x $10.00 = $100
I'm not proposing this as the current scenario. Really just investigating whether it is an option going forward; assuming the folks at Pasaca have not slammed the door closed. As we have seen here for years, reverse splits are perceived negatively. So, it makes sense that QMC wouldn't ask shareholders for approval* until after getting back into compliance and securing a new commitment from Pasaca.
* WRT the R/S and A/S combo you referred to.
Doing a little reading and if I am understanding it correctly, by doing a reverse split, QMC would reduce the number of issued shares while not impacting the authorized number. By this approach, even 1:2 gives them enough for the Pasaca 51% needed. I am not sure why they would do it this way, and all signs point to the deal being on hold or dead, but it seems to be a method by which the 2B shares is sufficient.
NARRATOR: QMC was never the company that could do it all.
It was a joke. Read the room.
I see it in the "Outside US and Europe" but move the cursor over the link and a strikethrough line appears across the "Learn More" button.
Thanks for revisiting this Ted. I thought it was in that neighborhood and that we both previously expressed the thought that they would ask for ~2.5B in order to have some flexibility and not need to repeat the exercise again soon.
The stupidity isn't even funny any more.
Nope. Looks like it was Mattias Bertelsen, Engineering Director.
And I'd guess there is a little time lag. As I've opined previously, people don't necessarily race to LI to update their profiles.
But when we take all of the available info-- the downsizing, the pivot away from HealthID, the Pasaca website, etc.-- I'm getting a bit of a vibe that they dropped the Pasaca agreement into the proxy to justify the 2B shares with no guarantee the deal is still on. Like you say, even by reducing headcount they are burning cash and will need to sell more shares. I'll have to check Ted's math again, but I think they'll need more than 2B shares. 2B is fine if Pasaca isn't taking the rest they need to get to 51%.
I'm not saying the deal is dead but as usual, there is a heavy dose of ambiguity.
Actually, a couple of us thought 2.5B.
I have to admit to being confused by this. On one hand the Pasaca distribution agreement is mentioned and "that the Company would receive cumulative gross royalties and/or gross sales, licensing or other revenues under the Distribution Agreement of no less than $15,000,000..." And on the other, QMC says that they, "anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future."
Anyone hear back from Amber Lane?