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.
Yes I agree with everyone that we cant understand TMMs future without examining its past. We should spend some time going back over all the past failures, which was everything as we all know. All the failed contracts with Iterated, which was all of them. All the failed product launches, because there wasnt really any products. All the failed management teams, too many to count. And lets not forget the HUGE lawsuit that TMM LOST!
I'll get started on this right away. I know all of you are anxious to weigh in on each topic! Sounds like fun right?
Fooled, the 3+ year court battle was reported here by many daily and links to the county court site were there to check official filings. After TMM dropped its frivolous claims the countersuit continued and resulted in the court's judgement I have posted for you twice in the past day. If you read it it says TMM LOST, pretty easy to understand. Its the court's words, not mine.
I could argue the finer points of all of that over the next 100 posts but you would pretend to not understand and the point is that the judge in the California trial and the judge in the Nevada trial have already decided all of it in Dimensions favor. TMM has challenged that finding and we will all know the results of that in the next few months, maybe sooner.
I will look for that post but first you should read the court document I posted yesterday that says TMM LOST THE LAWSUIT and that Dimension owns the VDK 2 codec. It also explains some of the duplicity that TMM and its minions like Simpson participated in. The judge wrote this, you should read it carefully.
TMM LOSES LAWSUIT!!!
DIMENSION, INC., a Nevada Corporation;
DIGITAL FOCUS MEDIA, INC., a dissolved California Corporation,
Counterclaimants,
v.
TMM, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and DIGITAL FOCUS, INC., a California Corporation;
Counterdefendants.
Case No.: A-13-678054-B
Dept. No.: XI
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT
This matter having come on for non-jury trial (footnote 1) before the Court on November 16 -18, 2016, F. Christopher Austin, Esq. and Ryan Gile, Esq. of the law firm of WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. appeared on behalf of Counterclaimants DIMENSION, INC. and DIGITAL FOCUS MEDIA, INC., and Joe Laxague, Esq. of the law firm of LAXAGUE LAW, INC. and Arash Shirdel, Esq. of the law firm of PACIFIC PREMIER LAW GROUP appeared on behalf of Counterdefendants TMM, INC. and DIGITAL FOCUS, INC., and the Court having read and considered the pleadings filed by the parties; having reviewed the evidence admitted during the trial; and having heard and carefully considered the testimony of the witnesses called to testify; the Court having considered the stipulations of counsel; the oral and written arguments of counsel; and with the intent of deciding all remaining claims before the Court pursuant to NRCP 52(a) and 58; the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
The Counterdefendants moved to voluntarily dismiss its Complaint. The Court granted that motion by order entered on February 22, 2016. Following certain motions related to the counterclaim, the remaining issue for trial related to the claim for declaratory relief in the counterclaim. (footnote 2)
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The PVS/SGI Code also known as the VDK 2.0 Code (the "Code") was created by Iterated Systems, Inc. ("ISI") who is the predecessor in interest of MediaBin.
2. TMM, Inc. ("TMMI") is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of the license to the Code.
3. Digital Focus, Inc. ("DFI") is a California Corporation, who entered into an agreement with ISI, for a license to the Code.
4. Digital Focus Media, Inc. ("DFMI") is a California Corporation, who alleges it obtained the license to the Code from DFI.
5. Dimension is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of a license to the Code who is the successor in interest of DFMI.
6. Larry Panik ("Panik") was a shareholder in TMMI, DFI, and DFMI.
7. Panik is currently the president and sole director of Dimension.
8. Panik also at certain times served as an officer of DFI and as a director of DFMI.
9. In early 2000, a group of twenty-nine investors transferred their TMMI stock to Thomas Simpson ("Simpson") to use as collateral for a loan for TMMI. Simpson sold the shares without the prior authorization of those shareholders. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the shares, $500,000, was needed to pay ISI for the License to the Code.
10. On or about March 2000, DFI entered into a license agreement with ISI for the license to the Code ("License Agreement").
11. The License Agreement was executed by Simpson on behalf of DFI and by Alan Sloan on behalf of ISI.
12. The License was purchased for $500,000, and Simpson put the License in a pre-existing inactive company that Simpson owned called "DFI."
13. Under the terms of the License, ISI was to receive 5% of DFI 's stock in exchange for the License. After execution of the License Agreement it was determined that as a subchapter-S corporation, DFI could only issue stock to individuals and not to a company such as ISI.
14. Simpson formed DFMI as the "vehicle for the License Agreement."
15. On or about September 2000, DFMI and ISI signed the Second Addendum to the License Agreement. The Second Addendum indicated that a merger between DFI and DFMI had occurred. (footnote 3)
16. The investors were issued DFMI stock in exchange for the TMMI stock they had previously transferred to Simpson.
17. Simpson conducted business between DFI, DFMI and TMMI without conducting any shareholder or board meetings.
18. The shareholders, who had transferred shares from DFI to DFMI, were repeatedly assured by Simpson in writing that the License-the only asset held by DFI-had been transferred to DFMI:
• In June 2000, Simpson wrote to shareholders "since DFMI is the owner of this technology, it can pursue the licensing of this capability to various providers around the world." (Exh. E1) (footnote 4)
• On September 11, 2000, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders "We have spoken to Iterated Systems about the transfer of the source code and they support the move in amendment and state that the original contract allows for this. All the source code is at DFMI." (Exh. E2)(footnote 5)
• On October 26. 2000, Simpson wrote to DFMI shareholders "There is a great deal of work ahead of us to complete the task of making your CODEC the only choice for producers." (Exh. E3) (footnote 6)
• On October 27. 2000, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders "The code that DFMI has reengineered from the fractal source code is DFMl's and DFMl's only. .. . TMM has no rights implied or otherwise to use or view DFMI's source code." (Exh. E4) (footnote 7)
• On April 18. 2001 , Simpson wrote a letter to Hoyt that an interim board of directors of DFMI would have authority to "nsure the safety of all DFMI assets including but not limited to the Fractal Codec." (Exh. E5) (footnote 8)
19. Simpson also assured the shareholders that the documents needed to transfer the License from DFI to DFMI had been executed:
• In a November 2000 communication with shareholder Hoyt, Simpson said: "Paper work transferring the Codec's contract from DFI to DFMI is available for review in the DFMI and DFI due diligence books. (Exh. E6) (footnote 9)
• On April 25, 2001, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders, "I contacted Robin Haskins [CEO and Chairman of DFI] . . . and asked him to please send me a letter explaining that the Codec that was purchased in the name of DFI was in fact the property of DFMI. He was happy to do that and I received his letter shortly after that. (footnote 10) I also informed ISI, who had no problems also, and made note of this with an addendum to the contract. (Exh. E6). (footnote 11)
• Haskins confirmed DFMI's ownership of the PVS/SGI Source Code in a letter to Simpson, "I have also informed the DFI shareholders that all Iterated source code will be delivered to DFMI and DFI warrants that it has no claims on said code. This code was paid for and belongs to DFMI and will be held by DFMI." (Exh. E8). (footnote 12)
20. In December 2000, Panik filed a derivative lawsuit against, among others, DFMI.
21. As part of the settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit, on June 1 , 2001 , Simpson resigned as officer and director of DFMI.
22. Also as part of the settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit, on June 1, 2001, Simpson, Joe Stratter on behalf of DFI and Panik executed a "Letter Agreement" in which they all acknowledge that DFMI may have some rights to the License Agreement, through a merger or assignment.
23. This settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit was approximately 10 months after the alleged merger between DFI and DFMI.
24. Simpson, (footnote 13) as the primary corporate representative of the company, (footnote 14) cannot now claim that those activities were unauthorized by his failure to follow proper corporate governance procedures which would detrimentally impact the other shareholders who relied upon his representations and actions.
25. In 2002, DFMI filed suit against, among others, TMMI regarding the ownership of the License Agreement. That agreement ended in a settlement agreement, in which Simpson agreed to turn over to DFMI an executable version of the source code, which could not be modified, in exchange for approximately $150,000 subject to an audit called for under that agreement.
26. DFMI never provided Simpson with $150,000, as a result of the audit which found additional monies were owing from Simpson.
27. Simpson signed both the DFMI and DFI federal tax returns for 2000 and that he used the same tax accountant to prepare both returns.
28. DFI did not list the License as an asset in its 2000 return.
29. DFMI did list the License as an asset in its 2000 return.
30. The schedule for the form 1120 filed by DFMI for the tax year ending 12/31/2000 identified in the section "other current assets" the property "Fractal Codes" a beginning value of $0 and an ending value of $846,500. This is consistent with the acquisition of the license as a result of the execution of the assignment and second addendum executed effective March 28, 2000.
31. From 2002 to 2011, DFI never listed the License as an asset on its tax retums. (footnote 15)
32. Panik entered into a secured promissory note with DFMI in March 2007, to provide a cash infusion for continued operations. As a result of DFMI 's inability to repay the loan, Panik foreclosed on all of DFMI's assets, including the rights to the License Agreement.
33. Panik then transferred the rights to Dimension.
34. Simpson on behalf of DFI assigned the License to DFMI. (footnote 16)
35. Simpson on behalf of DFI represented to various individuals and entities, including the IRS, that it had made such and assignment.
36. DFMI and its shareholders detrimentally relied upon the representation made to them.
37. TMMI had notice of DFMI's and its successor-in-interest Dimension's claims to the License at the time it acquired DFI.
38. Simpson was not a credible witness. The Court relies to the extent possible on the documentary evidence.
39. Any finding of fact set forth herein more appropriately designated as a conclusion of law shall be so designated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. DFI assigned the License to DFMI.
2. Dimension is the successor to DFMI 's rights in the License.
3. Dimension is the sole holder of the License to the Code.
4. Simpson listed the right to the "fractal codes" on DFMI's federal tax returns and not on DFI's. This representation is one which is given great weight by the Court especially given the representation made in communications Simpson made to the shareholders.
5. The representations made by Simpson were relied upon by Counterclaimants to their detriment.
6. As a matter of public policy, DFI is prohibited from asserting a position contrary to that which it took on its federal tax returns.
7. TMMI is not a bona fide purchaser because TMMI had actual notice that DFMI, Panik and Dimension claimed rights to the License at the time TMMI acquired DFI in 2012.
8. Counterdefendant DFI is estopped from denying the assignment of the License to DFMI.
9. Because DFI also represented, contemporaneous to the execution of the Assignment and thereafter, that DFI had assigned the License to DFMI and because the Court has found that DFMI relied to its detriment on that representation, DFI is also estopped from now denying it made such an assignment.
10. Any conclusion of law set forth herein more appropriately designated as a finding of fact shall be so designated.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that Counterclaimants are the sole and exclusive owners of the License to the PVS/SGI Source Code, also known as the VDK 2.0 Code.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of November, 2016
TMM has no rights to any VDK software. Thats what happens when you never finish paying for anything. Already covered here years ago.
Remember the letter posted here from the Iterated lawyers confirming that? I do.
Thats true its not clear if anyone is using the fractal tech any longer. But what is true is that Dimension has 5 patents on it and TMM has, well... none.
And by now all the Iterated patents have expired I doubt HP has kept any of them up this long.
Read the court decision I posted, its VERY clear that Dimension owns the code.
I sincerely doubt TMM is using any VDK codes, of which they have no rights to any, although they claim they are. Most likely it will turn out to be one of the open source codes same as the last time they pretended to have something "new".
Fool read the court published trial result I posted it has your answers.
Healy and Wiggins control 54% of TMM through shell LLCs they can do whatever they want with the company.
Good News!!! I found this old post about the trial. Warning! It may cause sudden illness for many here. LOL
TMM LOSES LAWSUIT!!!
DIMENSION, INC., a Nevada Corporation;
DIGITAL FOCUS MEDIA, INC., a dissolved California Corporation,
Counterclaimants,
v.
TMM, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and DIGITAL FOCUS, INC., a California Corporation;
Counterdefendants.
Case No.: A-13-678054-B
Dept. No.: XI
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT
This matter having come on for non-jury trial (footnote 1) before the Court on November 16 -18, 2016, F. Christopher Austin, Esq. and Ryan Gile, Esq. of the law firm of WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. appeared on behalf of Counterclaimants DIMENSION, INC. and DIGITAL FOCUS MEDIA, INC., and Joe Laxague, Esq. of the law firm of LAXAGUE LAW, INC. and Arash Shirdel, Esq. of the law firm of PACIFIC PREMIER LAW GROUP appeared on behalf of Counterdefendants TMM, INC. and DIGITAL FOCUS, INC., and the Court having read and considered the pleadings filed by the parties; having reviewed the evidence admitted during the trial; and having heard and carefully considered the testimony of the witnesses called to testify; the Court having considered the stipulations of counsel; the oral and written arguments of counsel; and with the intent of deciding all remaining claims before the Court pursuant to NRCP 52(a) and 58; the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
The Counterdefendants moved to voluntarily dismiss its Complaint. The Court granted that motion by order entered on February 22, 2016. Following certain motions related to the counterclaim, the remaining issue for trial related to the claim for declaratory relief in the counterclaim. (footnote 2)
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The PVS/SGI Code also known as the VDK 2.0 Code (the "Code") was created by Iterated Systems, Inc. ("ISI") who is the predecessor in interest of MediaBin.
2. TMM, Inc. ("TMMI") is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of the license to the Code.
3. Digital Focus, Inc. ("DFI") is a California Corporation, who entered into an agreement with ISI, for a license to the Code.
4. Digital Focus Media, Inc. ("DFMI") is a California Corporation, who alleges it obtained the license to the Code from DFI.
5. Dimension is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of a license to the Code who is the successor in interest of DFMI.
6. Larry Panik ("Panik") was a shareholder in TMMI, DFI, and DFMI.
7. Panik is currently the president and sole director of Dimension.
8. Panik also at certain times served as an officer of DFI and as a director of DFMI.
9. In early 2000, a group of twenty-nine investors transferred their TMMI stock to Thomas Simpson ("Simpson") to use as collateral for a loan for TMMI. Simpson sold the shares without the prior authorization of those shareholders. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the shares, $500,000, was needed to pay ISI for the License to the Code.
10. On or about March 2000, DFI entered into a license agreement with ISI for the license to the Code ("License Agreement").
11. The License Agreement was executed by Simpson on behalf of DFI and by Alan Sloan on behalf of ISI.
12. The License was purchased for $500,000, and Simpson put the License in a pre-existing inactive company that Simpson owned called "DFI."
13. Under the terms of the License, ISI was to receive 5% of DFI 's stock in exchange for the License. After execution of the License Agreement it was determined that as a subchapter-S corporation, DFI could only issue stock to individuals and not to a company such as ISI.
14. Simpson formed DFMI as the "vehicle for the License Agreement."
15. On or about September 2000, DFMI and ISI signed the Second Addendum to the License Agreement. The Second Addendum indicated that a merger between DFI and DFMI had occurred. (footnote 3)
16. The investors were issued DFMI stock in exchange for the TMMI stock they had previously transferred to Simpson.
17. Simpson conducted business between DFI, DFMI and TMMI without conducting any shareholder or board meetings.
18. The shareholders, who had transferred shares from DFI to DFMI, were repeatedly assured by Simpson in writing that the License-the only asset held by DFI-had been transferred to DFMI:
• In June 2000, Simpson wrote to shareholders "since DFMI is the owner of this technology, it can pursue the licensing of this capability to various providers around the world." (Exh. E1) (footnote 4)
• On September 11, 2000, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders "We have spoken to Iterated Systems about the transfer of the source code and they support the move in amendment and state that the original contract allows for this. All the source code is at DFMI." (Exh. E2)(footnote 5)
• On October 26. 2000, Simpson wrote to DFMI shareholders "There is a great deal of work ahead of us to complete the task of making your CODEC the only choice for producers." (Exh. E3) (footnote 6)
• On October 27. 2000, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders "The code that DFMI has reengineered from the fractal source code is DFMl's and DFMl's only. .. . TMM has no rights implied or otherwise to use or view DFMI's source code." (Exh. E4) (footnote 7)
• On April 18. 2001 , Simpson wrote a letter to Hoyt that an interim board of directors of DFMI would have authority to "nsure the safety of all DFMI assets including but not limited to the Fractal Codec." (Exh. E5) (footnote 8)
19. Simpson also assured the shareholders that the documents needed to transfer the License from DFI to DFMI had been executed:
• In a November 2000 communication with shareholder Hoyt, Simpson said: "Paper work transferring the Codec's contract from DFI to DFMI is available for review in the DFMI and DFI due diligence books. (Exh. E6) (footnote 9)
• On April 25, 2001, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders, "I contacted Robin Haskins [CEO and Chairman of DFI] . . . and asked him to please send me a letter explaining that the Codec that was purchased in the name of DFI was in fact the property of DFMI. He was happy to do that and I received his letter shortly after that. (footnote 10) I also informed ISI, who had no problems also, and made note of this with an addendum to the contract. (Exh. E6). (footnote 11)
• Haskins confirmed DFMI's ownership of the PVS/SGI Source Code in a letter to Simpson, "I have also informed the DFI shareholders that all Iterated source code will be delivered to DFMI and DFI warrants that it has no claims on said code. This code was paid for and belongs to DFMI and will be held by DFMI." (Exh. E8). (footnote 12)
20. In December 2000, Panik filed a derivative lawsuit against, among others, DFMI.
21. As part of the settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit, on June 1 , 2001 , Simpson resigned as officer and director of DFMI.
22. Also as part of the settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit, on June 1, 2001, Simpson, Joe Stratter on behalf of DFI and Panik executed a "Letter Agreement" in which they all acknowledge that DFMI may have some rights to the License Agreement, through a merger or assignment.
23. This settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit was approximately 10 months after the alleged merger between DFI and DFMI.
24. Simpson, (footnote 13) as the primary corporate representative of the company, (footnote 14) cannot now claim that those activities were unauthorized by his failure to follow proper corporate governance procedures which would detrimentally impact the other shareholders who relied upon his representations and actions.
25. In 2002, DFMI filed suit against, among others, TMMI regarding the ownership of the License Agreement. That agreement ended in a settlement agreement, in which Simpson agreed to turn over to DFMI an executable version of the source code, which could not be modified, in exchange for approximately $150,000 subject to an audit called for under that agreement.
26. DFMI never provided Simpson with $150,000, as a result of the audit which found additional monies were owing from Simpson.
27. Simpson signed both the DFMI and DFI federal tax returns for 2000 and that he used the same tax accountant to prepare both returns.
28. DFI did not list the License as an asset in its 2000 return.
29. DFMI did list the License as an asset in its 2000 return.
30. The schedule for the form 1120 filed by DFMI for the tax year ending 12/31/2000 identified in the section "other current assets" the property "Fractal Codes" a beginning value of $0 and an ending value of $846,500. This is consistent with the acquisition of the license as a result of the execution of the assignment and second addendum executed effective March 28, 2000.
31. From 2002 to 2011, DFI never listed the License as an asset on its tax retums. (footnote 15)
32. Panik entered into a secured promissory note with DFMI in March 2007, to provide a cash infusion for continued operations. As a result of DFMI 's inability to repay the loan, Panik foreclosed on all of DFMI's assets, including the rights to the License Agreement.
33. Panik then transferred the rights to Dimension.
34. Simpson on behalf of DFI assigned the License to DFMI. (footnote 16)
35. Simpson on behalf of DFI represented to various individuals and entities, including the IRS, that it had made such and assignment.
36. DFMI and its shareholders detrimentally relied upon the representation made to them.
37. TMMI had notice of DFMI's and its successor-in-interest Dimension's claims to the License at the time it acquired DFI.
38. Simpson was not a credible witness. The Court relies to the extent possible on the documentary evidence.
39. Any finding of fact set forth herein more appropriately designated as a conclusion of law shall be so designated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. DFI assigned the License to DFMI.
2. Dimension is the successor to DFMI 's rights in the License.
3. Dimension is the sole holder of the License to the Code.
4. Simpson listed the right to the "fractal codes" on DFMI's federal tax returns and not on DFI's. This representation is one which is given great weight by the Court especially given the representation made in communications Simpson made to the shareholders.
5. The representations made by Simpson were relied upon by Counterclaimants to their detriment.
6. As a matter of public policy, DFI is prohibited from asserting a position contrary to that which it took on its federal tax returns.
7. TMMI is not a bona fide purchaser because TMMI had actual notice that DFMI, Panik and Dimension claimed rights to the License at the time TMMI acquired DFI in 2012.
8. Counterdefendant DFI is estopped from denying the assignment of the License to DFMI.
9. Because DFI also represented, contemporaneous to the execution of the Assignment and thereafter, that DFI had assigned the License to DFMI and because the Court has found that DFMI relied to its detriment on that representation, DFI is also estopped from now denying it made such an assignment.
10. Any conclusion of law set forth herein more appropriately designated as a finding of fact shall be so designated.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that Counterclaimants are the sole and exclusive owners of the License to the PVS/SGI Source Code, also known as the VDK 2.0 Code.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of November, 2016
AND that Dimension was the rightful successor to ownership of that code.
Aside from the fact that TMM LOST the trial, do you deny that if TMM loses both appeals they will owe Dimension over $800,000?
Will Healy and Wiggins pay up or give Panik the company?
Are the memories here really that bad? Everyone here knows TMM lost the trial. What in the world do you think they are appealing? LOL
The judge declared that Dimension owns the VDK 2.0 code, end of story.
You guys seem to have a big problem admitting what the result of the one and only trial was. The judge determined that TMM lost. TMM is appealing the decision but that has nothing to do with the fact that they lost. Dimension is appealing the decision that TMM didnt have to pay their lawyer fees, what should have been an obvious conclusion.
That LOL news has nothing to do with the actual trial result which TMM LOST. Its about attorney fees that are now being appealed by Dimension. I expect TMM to lose once again but we should all know sometime this fall I would assume.
Actually TMM lost the court case it maliciously started and is now scrambling to not have to pay over $800k in Dimensions lawyer fees not to mention the other money the court already ordered TMM to pay. Last I heard TMM still hadnt paid that court ordered payment. Appeals courts are notoriously a crap shoot but no doubt TMM is as guilty as it gets.
Well I have nothing to do with them but if TMM loses its appeals they may become a tiny division of that company. I dont believe they have an outlet in Fargo yet. LOL
Fargo, North Dakota. Yes a real hotbed of Hollywood activity there for sure. Do we reach it by sled dog or wagon train? Probably depends on the season.
Assembly and Distribution Center? Is that next to the Server Farm? LOL
My point was that about 80% of the days volume was dumping in the last half hour of trading. Not big money but still a bit curious.
Big TMM dump right before closing. Whatup with that?
Yes maybe they will be selling something in the fall. My concern about that though is if they have only been spending about $8k a month on development which is about half a tech how ready could this new stuff be?
Wow down about 2/3 from that 13 cent high the other day, not pretty. Reminds me of that drop after TMM hit 25 cents a few years back. That big company turnaround turned out to be a nothing burger. Will this one?
I doubt there's a difference for TMM this guy will have no authority.
But seriously I think we all know how these "advisor" jobs work. The company gives them a bunch of stock to rent their name as a company advisor. In the past 7 years TMM has had over a dozen similarly talented advisors yet we have seen nothing come from any of those relationships have we?
Maybe this one is different but the odds are against it.
Yes he sounds like great guy he just cant seem to hold down a steady job. Looks like he's worked at like 20 different places. Maybe we should start one of those gofundme pages for him to get some job counseling. It would be the right thing to do.
I can hear the concerns over this new Tmm advisors inability to hold a steady job.
I dont think money is a problem for TMM. Healy and Wiggins control 54% and they are both rich. The question is what do they plan to do with TMM. We dont know their true purpose yet.
I believe the key point of the TMM financials discussion is that they are only spending about $8k a month on development. That's about half time for ONE programmer. Images of rooms of programmers pounding away into the night finishing up ground breaking technology are fantasies.
TMM costs under control? LOL They spent over $300k last quarter and only $24k of that went to development. Less than 10%. Doesnt paint a pretty picture of what is really going on.
If you check the computer programming expenses in the quarterly report you find that TMM spent about $8k a month on development in the second quarter. Thats not even a full person working on this hot new tech. should we be concerned?
Its not that its that hard to increase the authorized to cover it but I just find it sloppy that it hasnt already been done. I also find it misleading in the financials once again that Healy lists himself as a 0% beneficial owner while controlling the largest shareholder in the guise of an LLC with Wiggins doing the same with the second largest shareholder LLC. Together they control 54% of TMM. Seems like an important point that should be clearer in the financials.
What happened to transparency? Oh yeah, its TMM.
TMM has never let the lack of a legitimate asset slow them down when they've got their mojo rolling. One problem they do have is with 545 million shares outstanding and 750 authorized they wiil be at 766 million if fully diluted, a serious math problem unless they expand the shares or do a reverse.
Yes I am big Tmm shareholder of course but not selling yet will wait for real news lot of volume today but the news was weak only good for flipping. Real news would keep the price up.
Wow down more than 2/3 from today’s high. Feeling bad for those that paid too much. I guess we will see if there is any real follow up that gets them out of the dumpster!
Yes the Tmm speed dial list is here and accounted for! LOL
Well that sounds exciting everyone loves a good Fall conference. I wonder if Cavanaugh will be there, he is the designated Fall guy right? Other than the company lawyer and chief investor who are now in the big house for a loooooooong time.
So what I am hearing from all of you is that a Tmm reverse split would be a good thing? Srange but i guess strange is Tmms middle name.
Quarterly report due in 10 days guess we will find out more about these new exciting developments then. Or not.
The new version of TMM has been sneaky about their hype. They use insiders to post links to new information and drop tidbits nobody else knows because it hasn't been made public yet. Maybe we can get Martha Stewart to comment on how that works. But I have no doubt that the news releases are coming somewhere down the pipeline, this is just prep for it.
As a major shareholder I too would like to see TMM make a big run but am concerned that they still have unpaid judgments they owe and a potential large appeal loss coming up. Uncertainty is never a good thing for a company trying to rebuild their scandalous reputation