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, Butters, and I will go one step further and assert that UNTIL there is a court win, no formal or legal proof of any infringement would exist. There would only be allegations and assertions by the abused party, which would do little to enhance the value of VP's IP, and provide less in terms of leverage in negotiating future settlements. Nothing could enhance the market value of VP's IP like a jury verdict finding in favor of Voip-Pal. Even an award in the millions (if not billions) would say to the other infringers that VP is a force to be reckoned with. Thus, it stands to reason that I am hoping VP's leadership will see this very strong and winnable case through to a trial next month.
JMHO.
Profit, I appreciate all of the thought you put into your post. You may even be correct, as I have no hard data to rebut your opinion piece. I will admit that it is frustrating to be this close to the climax of something long hoped for, and yet see the share price languish as it has done. Still, I remain guardedly optimistic that VPLM shareholders will be rewarded for their patience. We are just one major announcement away from transforming everyones' doubts into elation. I have seen this stock skyrocket on positive news before, and it can happen again! GLTA.
If you read the 8-k filing carefully, you would see that Dr. Hauser's first priority for HDC is to become SEC compliant. Of course, this is the pathway back to the OTC and retail trading of the stock.
Also, gleaned from the filing is that Dr. Hauser's salary contains a performance based incentive in the form of HDVY shares.
We are not privy to the exact terms of the settlement as it was negotiated out of court.
Perhaps you may recall that there was a settlement with Intel?
It's alive! 😊
Thanks Zenos! This is fantastic news!
I don't think so, but we are long overdue for an update. Let's wait and see if we get a farewell message, or a lifeline.
Rapz, thank you for your astute summary of the evolution of telecommunications technology, showing the crucial role played by Voip-Pal's patented technology in today's market.
It would so appear that all of the major players are using VP's patented technology without a license, which means that they are infringing.
I don't know just how VP will play their hand in these pending court cases, but I agree with you that getting a court verdict in VP's favor would do more to establish the true market valuation of VP's IP than would any other option. It would also appear that VP's leadership knows this and is already looking ahead at a possible appeal, based on their recent addition of Mr. Leon to the team. Whether it's a buyout, settlement, or court victory, VP has never been in a more favorable position to monetize its IP than it is in right now.
Zenos, your post was a pleasure to read.
You may very well be correct, Locwolf. Who am I to say? However, as I have said before, time will tell.
I tend to agree with you that George would not have settled for such a low sum. Remember, he extracted over $6 million from Neogenomics for far less infringement (ostensibly). However, it is still not a foregone conclusion that we will never recoup any of our investment. JMHO.
You raise some good points, and I wish I had some better answers, however, we are not privy to what goes on behind closed doors in these cases. There is a reason for this delay, even if we do not know what that reason is. You are correct that a looming trial date could prove to be a huge catalyst to motivate the defendant to the negotiating table. As curious as it may seem, I still do not read any negative connotations, meanings or interpretations into this apparent delay. As I see it, VP has the goods and they have never been in a better position to monetize their IP.
Digdeeper17, I really wouldn't know beyond what I have already said. However, I do recall one item from HDC's rebuttal to certain Vennwest assertions in that court case (after it was re-started), a statement to the effect that Mr. McGovern could have claimed private ownership of the patents (meaning that he had the right), but instead loaned his money to HDC. One could assume that this was to avoid hurting the shareholders. If Colleen and Ed follow in George's footsteps, it could then be assumed that they would want to protect the shareholders (many of whom are family and friends).
Regardless, I was aware of a certain danger of HDC's IP falling into private hands in the event of a worst case scenario, but I don't think that we are there yet.
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
Yes, VVVVVV, that is an interesting question. If I had to speculate, I would say that, since Amazon has already settled with VP in an earlier (smaller) case, they may still be negotiating with VP to settle the '606 case out of court, although this would be a much larger settlement. Of course, I would have no way of confirming this but it does seem logical, and could explain why we haven't seen a trial date yet. JMHO.
Keepmecloser, you pose an interesting perspective, however, it falls on its face in view of the facts. I can assure you that I have never been paid to write what I write. In fact, I could not be hired to write anything that I do not believe. I am a retail shareholder with 1,000,000 shares presently, and I am above water with VPLM. I wish I had more shares. You make the VPLM team sound like gangsters, however, 38 out of 38 IPR wins makes this a legitimate investment. A scam company may be able to fool some of the shareholders some of the time, but there is absolutely no way that a scam company could fool the astute patent examiners and judges at the USPTO. The infringers' well paid attorneys have fought long and hard to invalidate VP's patents, and THEY HAVE FAILED 100%. Let that soak in. It says far more about the validity of VP's intellectual property than I could ever say. What does baffle me is why you don't see it. VP is now requesting treble damages for infringement occurring after 2021. VP is planning for a trial, and they WILL win in a court of law. They own game changing technology which is being illegally exploited (i.e., infringed) by virtually all of the big players in the communications industry. Think about this for a moment, a court win would make VP a household name, and they would become a force to be reckoned with. Institutional investors would likely include VPLM in their portfolios. This may well be the opportunity of a lifetime. A court win is one plausible scenario, however, there are other avenues which VP could choose to take, such as a settlement, buyout or merger. Disclaimer: As everyone knows, with stocks, there are no guarantees. When you buy shares, the presumption is that you will make money, but you also assume the risk. Investing in stocks is not for everyone, as some folks just don't have the temperament for it. Good luck to all VPLM longs who have put your money where your mouth is, and more, where your due diligence affirms that this is where some of your investment money should be.
On another note, I would like to address a recurring theme, which is that "insider selling is what is keeping the price down." Really? Insider selling has always been occurring, even when the price rose rather dramatically to $.11 in the not too distant past. Why didn't insider selling prevent that dramatic rise? The answer is obvious. Those insider sells were vastly outnumbered by record buying. It will take record buying volume to once again overcome the steady resistance of insider selling and catapult the pps to new record highs, which I believe is just around the corner. One obvious question is why would someone with a negative outlook for VPLM frequent this message board? Could it be to save VPLM investors from poor judgement, or from investing in scams? I don't think so. One plausible explanation is that they are here to do whatever can be done to keep the price down for the benefit of those seeking to accumulate cheap shares. Have you noticed that these same naysayers tend to vanish during bull runs? As Deerballs has astutely pointed out, the price of VPLM is not tanking, nor is it sinking to new lows daily. It is holding steady within a narrow trading range. My hunch is that somebody wants in bigtime, and at bargain basement prices! JMHO.
I will say it again, sunspotter, you have a hilarious sense of humor. Reading your posts puts a broad grin on my face, even though our sentiments regarding VPLM couldn't be more diametrically opposed.
Digdeeper17, with all due respect, I was aware of the loan terms from several years ago which did stipulate that, in the event of bankruptcy, Mr. McGovern would receive as compensation for his loan, HDC's IP. Your theory, unless I misunderstood, is that HDC has been dissolved and is now defunct, thus the patent portfolio goes to the heirs of George H. McGovern, namely Colleen Hutchinson. I now posit a different perspective which would dispute that theory.
First, the referenced loan to HDC by Mr. McGovern did stipulate that, if the loan could not be repaid and the company filed for bankruptcy, he would receive as just compensation the patent portfolio of HDC. However, if my memory serves me, that loan was repaid in full when NeoGenomics settled with HDC for a sum of around $6.6 million. This happened just prior to HDC suing Intel, and is in fact where the money to sue Intel came from. Now, with McGovern's loan having been repaid in full, the "bankruptcy" clause contained within that loan document which stated that HDC's IP would revert to McGovern in the event of bankruptcy, should no longer apply or be relevant today, as that loan has been satisfied. Besides, HDC has NOT declared bankruptcy as evidenced by the fact that they are still filing docs with the SEC, even though they did admit to their accounting firm that they "may not" be able to continue as "a going concern." Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but this accurately describes my understanding of these events.
Furthermore, I would assume that, should HDC declare bankruptcy in the future, all of HDC's assets (and those patents are the company's only asset) would be distributed according to the articles of incorporation which should be on file for anyone to read. If those articles stipulate that, in the event of bankruptcy, the patent portfolio falls into private hands, then you would be correct, sir. But we are not there yet, and I believe that the company's Board is making every effort to prevent that from happrning. JMHO.
Buylow2, I was beginning to think that, given the accounting firm's resignation, HDC was at the end of their rope. However, I will give this a little more time to see what they may come up with to salvage this. After all, the family and friends of GHM represent millions upon millions of shares, which I am sure they don't want to see expire worthless. Thus, the motivation to save this company should be there for them if not for us.
Sunspotter, just because a patent owner does not produce any products (properly referred to as an NPE or non-producing entity), does NOT in and of itself make them a "patent troll," when DEFENDING their exclusive rights to ownership in a court of law, as you seem to suggest. Furthermore, the term, patent troll, carries a negative connotation, as if the patent owner is somehow the villain when defending his/her intellectual property rights against unlawful infringement. The law does not require the patent owner to produce a product as a condition of ownership.
And yes, the fact that you are here is none of my business, however, I have every right to question your motives for being here. Since, by your own admission, you are not, nor have you ever been, a VPLM shareholder, I have to wonder what purpose your presence here serves? Is your motive altruistic? That is, are you trying to save VPLM investors from themselves? If so, how is it that your due diligence and judgement are superior to all other VPLM investors? Do you have inside knowledge about the company? If so, it would be illegal for you to share it with us.
So yes, you have every right to be here, however, your motives are suspect. By the way, based upon your own statements, I think that your moniker could be improved slightly. How does "scamspotter" sound? It's just a friendly suggestion. 🙂
Sunspotter, have you ever considered becoming a standup comedian? I think that you would make a pretty good one. I have long admired your "tongue in cheek" sense of humor, especially when it comes to stocks. Keep up the good work! We could all use a good laugh from time to time. Please forgive me if your last post was meant to be serious, as I mistook it for a joke. I would also assume that, if you truly believe what you say, you have already sold all of your VPLM stock. But if that is true, why are you still here?
LocWolf, I don't think that Colleen and Venning ever "held hands" (as you put it). What I do think is that Laurie Venning (CEO of Vennwest Global Technologies) has wanted to take over and run HDC for a long time, and he has the big bucks, personnel, and legal resources to do it. If HDC is on the verge of bankruptcy, perhaps a deal with Venning, as unpleasant as that may seem to Colleen, may just be the only way for HDC to survive. Otherwise, the stock, coupled with HDC's IP, would likely become worthless. Even worse for shareholders, is that in such a scenario the stock could become worthless (due to HDC filing bankruptcy), but their most valuable asset, the IP, could fall into private hands.
On the other hand, when a company files for bankruptcy, they have to disclose all of their assets, so I am not sure how the value of their IP would factor into the equation for shareholders.
Thanks for that update, LocWolf!
Warren Buffet wantabe, what "rule" could they possibly be breaking when they were simply exercising their RIGHT to redeem their options before the expiration date? The very point of having an option is that it gives the option holder an incentive to own stock in the company at a below market price. But options have expiration dates, and if they are not exercised by those dates, they expire worthless. Also, at the time of the exercise, the current retail price, the strike price, must be ABOVE the option price, or there would be no point in exercising that right to buy. My understanding is that two VP employees held options to buy VPLM stock at $.005/share. However, those options were set to expire on 6/1/24, and if not exercised before then, they would expire worthless. So, in essence, when those employees were selling at $.015, they were actually buying back the same number of shares at $.005. It is a perfectly normal and customary business practice to give employees an incentive to own shares in the company at a reduced price, through the granting of options. For the benefit of all readers, could you please cite the specific rule violation that you are alluding to?
Warren Buffet wantabe, you made the following statement to Deerballs, "But I would appreciate a post or PM telling me why they are selling. If you want to quiet me that is the best way to do it."
With all due respect, two independent contributors to this board have offered what I consider to be plausible explanations as to the reasons for insider selling. Deerballs has suggested that certain insiders were selling to raise the necessary capital to defray the enormous expenses associated with a trial, in the unlikely event that these cases make it to trial. Also, according to Deerballs, it is a little late to start raising capital AFTER you find yourself in a trial.
Indyterp has posited another plausible explanation which is that two insiders were selling prior to a June 1st, 2024 expiration date on options to buy shares at $.005/share. Thus, those sells were followed by buying back in at a cheaper price point.
I would point out that neither of these plausible explanations amounts to a negative reason for selling.
I would also hope that this satisfactorily answers your question.
Sounds good! Thanks LocWolf!
Buylow2, now that you put it that way, I probably would pick up a few million shares, with virtually no downside risk, just to have my name in the pot. I truly hope that this long wait will be over soon, and that the wait will not have been in vain. GLTA!
Thanks rapz for that excellent expose on treble damages. So, this award is not so much to compensate the patent owner as it is to punish the infringer. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, it is now much easier for the plaintiff to establish willfulness in a District Court. This is another reason why I believe that VP would fare much better with a court victory under Judge Albright than with an out of court settlement, where the terms are often undisclosed, and where the compensation to the abused patent owner most often favors the infringer, and where infringement itself is NOT proven in a court of law, thereby adversely affecting the other pending cases. Of course a buyout would be another great option for VPLM shareholders, and no one (myself included) would object to a fair and reasonable settlement. But, as shareholders, we are in the back seat of the VPLM bus. We are not the driver and, as such, we are are not privy to the driver's view of the road ahead, nor do we hold the roadmap. However, we are getting closer to our destination, and I truly believe that whichever route this bus takes will be a win win for all VPLM shareholders.
LocWolf, I am glad that you explained about the "surgical stuff" as I was having some difficulty following your previous post. I do get the frustration, however, and frankly, if I were a new investor and could buy shares of HDVY, I don't think I would at this time. Neither am I dumping all of my shares. I am waiting for closure in some form. Again, you may be right in your fatalistic prognosis of HDC's chances of survival, however, I believe that there is still a chance that our patient, who is on life support, may actually pull through in the end. We will just have to wait for confirmation, one way or the other, which I believe will come soon.
Thank you, DB for that excellent clarification, which does make perfect sense to me. Thus, the so-called "contingency" is the "we go to trial" scenario, which I understand you to believe will not become necessary. Now this would imply two things. One, that a settlement is how this ends, averting the necessity of a trial, and two, that this settlement comes prior to any scheduled trial date on the court docket. This would suggest that we are looking at a matter of months, not years, for a resolution to all of this infringement litigation.
And, as per your explanation, the inside selling is simply to raise the needed capital to be able to withstand the cost of a trial, just in case that becomes necessary. And you are quite correct in that those funds would need to be raised in advance of a trial. Your new target of $.70/share, which I assume is in the absence of a trial, would be seen as a most welcome improvement to anything we have seen thus far. I hope that you are correct, and I note that this new target is not based on a whim. I also recall that whenever you venture to make a prediction, it is always a conservative estimate. I make no predictions except to state that I believe that the best is yet to come for VPLM shareholders, and that we have never been in a stronger position legally and strategically. Best of luck to you and to all VPLM longs!
Excellent post, DB, yet, I find myself intrigued by your statement, "The selling, in the big case, is a contingency, in my belief." How so? I would like to have a little more clarity on what you mean there. Could you please elaborate further? Thanks again, and keep up the good work!
I must admit, that it is often frustrating to see the share price behave in ways that seem to defy logic, yet that is often the whimsical nature of the stock market, where prices do not always reflect value. VP has nothing but wins, batting 100% with IPR victories making the patents iron clad (i.e., Alice-proof), and moving ever closer to a trial where victory is all but assured. Emil speaks optimistically and enthusiastically about VP finally having our day in court (a court, BTW, which is patent-owner friendly). Therefore, regardless of today's price, I believe that we are moving closer to that day when the market wakes up to VPLM, and the price moves dramatically closer to its intrinsic value. Besides, yet another indicator which lets me know that I am over the target, is that I get a poo poo from sunspotter. ☺️
The question has been raised that, in a buyout scenario, would a low share price negatively affect a serious buyout offer? I think that the intrinsic value of the IP would have to carry much more weight than the market value (i.e., the share price). A low market value would simply indicate that the stock is undervalued, and should not be the yardstick used to determine the intrinsic value of the stock. What is the intrinsic value of VP's IP? I do not know, but it is certainly higher than the current share price would indicate. Negotiations may be focused more on the intrinsic value of VP's IP, and less (if at all) on the market price. VP leadership may not be that concerned about the market price for this very reason. Will VP's market value ever catch up to VP's high intrinsic value? Perhaps that will happen when an acceptable buyout offer is on the table, or with a landslide court victory, whichever comes first. JMHO.
As shareholders, we are mere passengers on the VPLM bus. We are not the driver, thus we don't get to see the view from the driver's seat. We don't see the next turn or bend in the road until after the fact. We can only see where we have been by reading the filings, news releases, etc. The rest is speculation. We don't hold the roadmap, therefore we are not privy to the exact route the driver is taking. We believed in the VPLM story, so we bought a ticket to be on the bus. We have to trust the driver to navigate through some very treacherous legal waters, pitfalls and potholes, and bring us to the promised land in one piece. If we don't trust the driver (management) to navigate the VPLM bus successfully to that promised land, then we should not be on this bus. It is pointless to try to be a backseat driver, or to keep asking, "Are we there yet." We should all know when we have finally arrived. Just thought I would add my perspective to this smorgasbord of perspectives. GLTA.
Buylow2, you are incorrect. "The Expert Market is a market tier that serves broker-dealer pricing and best execution needs in securities that are restricted from public quoting or trading. In the Expert Market, quotations are restricted from public viewing, and only broker-dealers and professional or sophisticated investors are allowed to view quotations or trade in Expert Market securities."
Buylow2, when I go to my brokerage account and look at the posted stock price for HDVY, there is a footnote beside the price. When I read the footnote, it says, "The price listed may not be the actual price." What do you suppose that means? It means that the price listed in your brokerage account is the price for you, only if you are selling. It is not the price for insiders who may be buying. As I have stated many times, I don't believe that this is over yet, and I would expect that many shareholders will be quite surprised when this turns out to be the case. Do I have proof? Unfortunately, I can't offer that.
Really, How can you be so sure?
LocWolf, just take whatever I say with a grain of salt. After all, what do I know that we all don't already know? Will HDC, like the fabled Phoenix, rise from the ashes and fly again? At this point, your guess is as good as mine. Being a diehard Romantic, I choose to remain hopeful until I get a "Dear John" letter, or until I catch her with another man. Then I will know that it's over. But until then.....the verdict is still out.