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.
Lloyd was/is high up on the food chain at NASCAR's automotive aftermarket licensing....he would have had plenty of contact with Hunsaker. uh-oh
Oh my EarnestDD.......Defense motion to dismiss was DENIED....
AND......new affidavits filed by.....Jordan Cherrington..uh oh.. and Mr. ODIS LLOYD.....uh oh....not good for Hunsaker IMO.
'lucy'......."WCFC is anticipating RECORD ATTENDANCE for its October 16th Beginnings event at the Rail Event Center..."
I thought all previous events held at the Rail Event Center were annouced as sell-outs? Hmmmm
The reconciling of shares would not apply if Expo Holdings simply divested itself of the subsidiary known as D&D Displays.That way JD and Co. still have access to dilution via EXPH shares to fund their private entity D&D Displays.
Perhaps the *new* CEO then merges his company or another freshly minted private company that has huge upside potential (LOL) into the EXPH shell...sort of a *trade-off*...these moves of course require a huge reverse split.....i.e. rinse and repeat.
IMO
How on earth could EXPO HOLDINGS divesting itself of D & D Displays benefit shareholders of EXPH? Other than insiders of course.
There are many examples of non reporting and reporting public companies divesting themselves of operating subsidiaries. Can you think of any examples where the common shareholder(non-insider) reaped any benefit?
Can you cite any examples of common shareholders being shafted under like circumstances?? After all...we are all in this together...right? TIA
Let us be clear......how will shareholders(other than insiders) of EXPH stock benefit in the event Expo Holdings divests itself of D & D Displays?
What will your EXPH shares be worth if this happens?
A quick reference point would be a company called Aero Performance products. The company divested itself of TTR HP, Inc(It's subsidiary) in a transaction which took TTR HP, Inc out of AERO Performance products and into the hands of a private entity....how did shareholders of Aero Performance products benefit from this? TIA
You're right....some were probably done LOWER.
Where does it say they were not done lower? TIA
the private placement "price points" were done at .001 and "OTHER PRICE POINTS." It's all there in the SHM Q&A recap PR. nice try though
Just because JD and Co. stated the shipments were VALUED AT $290k may not tell the entire story.
For example.....a CEO of a strugglimg company decided to raise the A/S of his publicly traded company by 250 million shares.
The day before doing this the PPS closed at .0009. The CEO sold the newly printed 250 million shares in a private transaction at a price of .0003. Could it not be said that the CEO sold 250 million shares valued at $225k?
or let's say after working all night printing the 250 million shares that same CEO was extremely hungry. The CEO decided to stop at an all you can eat a $9.99 Buffet. The hungry CEO sat down and gorged himself....let's say he consumed eleven pounds of deep fried onion rings, three hundred chicken wings, four platters of fried pork skin, a seven pound burrito and washed it all down by drinking four gallons of creme soda. Could it not be said that the CEO devoured a meal valued at roughly $225.
On a side note, The same CEO was asked never to come back.
hmmm.... the word VALUE.....could mean several things.....
Perhaps JD used the $290k valuation to describe the truckload of product if each UNIT were sold separately...since Lowes bought in bulk the actual revenue derived from said shipment would be less due to a bulk order discount.
IMO
Righty.....the patent application in question.....
what are the time limits regarding amending an application after publishing? Would missing out on the deadline give you a hint as to what the applicant has in mind?? LOL .....OOPS
malcolm better strike oil...eh?
"Your patent Attorney then has to go back and, one by one,explain why the quoted patent does not apply."
'Doc'.....hopefully you are better versed in medicine.
The patent APPLICATION in question is not for seedless apples,oranges nor watermelons....your description of the patent application process is lacking and flawed.
search reports do NOT REJECT Patent applications.
patent applications are sent back for non conformity reasons.
search reports serve as a guide to the applicant as to PATENTABILITY however the applicant is free to proceed as he or she wishes.
A patent application is rejected much further into the process.
The patent application in question has NOT been rejected....it was sent back for corrections BEFORE the International search report was performed. The corrections centered around inconsistent language used by the applicant regarding the TITLE/description of the PATENT APPLICATION.
The International search report in this case was a rather focused and "easily" searched per the ACTUAL REPORT. The REPORT has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the STATUS of the Patent application.The Application remains PUBLISHED and ACTIVE. These REPORTS offer educated opinions as to the CLAIMS made in the application and are useful to applicants in regards to assessing whether or not the invention is PATENTABLE. The applicant can then amend the application via a PROTEST OR move to the National phase, ignoring the report(If negative)and continue the process...or the applicant can simply do NOTHING while the time runs out on the application.
The "Observations" cited in the report were as follows-Regarding the APPLICATION:
"As all searchable CLAIMS could be searched WITHOUT EFFORT....this Authority did NOT invite payment of additional fees."
The only features common to ALL of the claims are providing a FEEDSTOCK STREAM comprising suitable feedstock material under pressure to a MIXING vessel at a predetermined feed rate and injecting a stream of reactant gas capable of dissolving into the feedstock for mixing."
The report went on to say: "HOWEVER THESE COMMON FEATURES ARE NOT NOVEL in light of; D1 US 2003/0221361 (Russell ET AL.) 4 dec. 2003: D2 US 6504068 B1 (matsubara ET AL.) 7 jan. 2003
D3 US 4396786 A (Bond ET AL) 2 august 1983."
THE KEY WORDS- NOT NOVEL.......look up lacking novelty and patent application reports and report back to this board 'Doc'. lol
NOT Novel...as in : "Makes no contribution over the prior art."
NOT NOVEL...as in : "Threfore, the CLAIMS do not satisfy the requirement of UNITY of invention a posteriori."
'Doc'...you do know what a posteriori is...correct? LOL
I suggest you read the patents cited in the search report...you'll find that apples were compared to apples. LOL
Your quote: "Your patent attorney then has to go back,and, one by one, explain why the quoted patent does not apply."
Who in the first place cited the previous patents as prior art? LOL
was it the APPLICANT? :) LOL
why do you figure the applicant has yet to file additional documents? LOL
why do you figure the applicant has not moved the application to the national phase? LOL
TIA better hope Malcolm hits oil....eh?
"Soooo what retailer is "etc" going into next week??? ANY IDEAS???" Hmmm..that's a tough one....I've narrowed my selection down to two.
either AUTREYS FLEA MARKET on US HWY 421, Wilkesboro or.... STANLEYS FLEA MARKET in Traphill, NC.
LOL....and a PATENT still hasn't been found. What you FOUND was a Patent application...an application that includes an international search report-which of course an applicant uses as a guideline regarding "patentability". And....WOW.....the International search report in this case could not have been any clearer:
Quotes regarding the search report conclusion:
"..MAKES NO CONTRIBUTION OVER THE PRIOR ART."
"...the CLAIMS do not satisfy the REQUIREMENT of UNITY of INVENTION a posteriori."
p.s.-- Malcolm described the flare gas technology as being PROPRIETARY........oops!
Thank goodness for International search reports(roughly 3-$4k in this case)...otherwise applicants would spend even BIGGER BUCKS by entering the application into the National phase(BIG,BIG BUCKS) only to find out the news contained in a search report....in this case ouch!
p.s.--- the application you FOUND has not been entered into the National Phase.....nope....IMO, after reading the International Search report the applicant made a well ADVISED decision to SAVE BIG BUCKS BY leaving well enough alone...
IMO
LOL...didn't mean to confuse you...the report is part of the record. And it states:
"The claims do not satisfy the requirement of UNITY OF INVENTION a posteriori."
Did you not state in an earlier post that the Report was "UNAVAILABLE.?" If so.....why would you state this? LOL
Nope....the International search report was published along with the Patent application on March 11, 2010. Hope this helps
If the APPLICANT wishes to dispujte the International search report by Filing additional or "follow-up" documents it is considered a PROTEST.....no such filing exists....the "PUBLISHED" material is the application itself along with the INTERNATIONAL SEARCH REPORT which concluded:
"The claims do NOT satisfy the requirement of UNITY of INVENTION a posteriori.
Hope this helps.....Malcolm better strike oil....eh?
Righty......ya need to brush up on Patent applications.
An International search report concluding that the applicant's claims do not satisfy the requirement of unity of invention either posteriori or a posteriori(As in this case), does not mean that the application is withdrawn.....and of course the applicant can file a statement(Protest) along with paying additional fees.......in regards to the patent application in question-what exactly is published? the PATENT APPLICATION along with the International search report
show us all where the protest has been filed. LOL
You do realize the time limits in place to file such a protest...don't you? TIA
Please tell me you are joking about the "one dealer location" being JD's papa-in-law's Hardware store.
Because they too probably read the International search report on the "flare gas technology" patent application.....and realize that the 2% odds of hitting commercial quantities of oil just isn't worth it?? LOL
what part of that International search report is your favorite?
Is it the:
"Therefore, the claims do not satisfy the requirement of unity of invention a posteriori."
Better hope Malcolm strikes oil....eh?
But....I thought you stated in an earlier post that the International search report was "unavailable"?? What does that mean? TIA
What does this mean?
International Search Report- International application No. PCT/AU2009/001170 : Date of completion 13 November 2009
Date of mailing 18 Nov. 2009
Citation of document,with indication,where appropriate,of the relevant passages:
Category- *X- relevant to claim numbers 1,6,7,10
Category- **Y- relevant to claim numbers 2,3,5
* "X"- "document of particular relevance; the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone."
** "Y"- "document of particular relevance; the claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one or more other such documents, such combination being obvious to a person skilled in the art."
Documents cited: US 2003/0221361 A1 (Russell ET AL) 4 December,2003: US 6504068 B1 (Matsubara ET AL.) 7 Jan. 2003: US 4396786 A (Bond ET AL.) 2 August, 1983.
and this: "PCT Rule 13.2, first sentence, states that unity of invention is only fulfilled when there is a technical relationship among claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. PCT Rule 13.2, second sentence, defines a special technical feature which makes a contribution over the prior art." "The only features common to all of the claims are providing a feedstock stream comprising suitable feedstock material under pressure to a mixing vessel at a predetermined feed rate and injecting a stream of a reactant gas capable of dissolving into the feedstock for mixing." "However these common features are not novel in light of: D1 US 2003/0221361 A! (Russell ET AL.) 4 December 2003: D2 US 6504068 B1 (Matsubara ET AL.) 7 January 2003: D3 US 4396786 A (Bond ET AL.) 2 August 1983." "THis means that the common features can not constitute a special feature within the meaning of PCT Rule 13.2, second sentence, since it makes no contribution over the prior art." "Because the common features do not satisfy the requirement for being a special technical feature, it follows that they cannot provide the necessary technical relationship between the identidied inventions. Therefore, the claims do not satisfy the requirement of unity of invention a posteriori." TIA
Benefactor Funding is yet another invoice factoring/receivable company.
Bingo. They remain ENCUMBERED ASSETS.
NateJones......check this out: ** "All property of the Debtor, now owned or hereafter acquired of every type and description including but not limited to all of Debtors EQUIPMENT."
And this: *** "COLLATERAL: ALL ASSETS of the Debtor."
** Source-Active UCC on file with the State of North Carolina
Creditor-Southern Community Bank & Trust. Debtor-D&D DISPLAYS
*** Source-Active UCC on file with the State of North Carolina
Creditor- Crestmark Commercial Lending LLC. Debtor-D&D DISPLAYS
What is your definition of "PAid Off"? TIA
Then why was the VWAP in the low 3's? TIA
Already been answered previously.
Those wanting more clarity should wait.
Fortunately~ for *moi* and others who interact through other means we are able to compare coded notes and fit the pieces to the puzzle *together* as one.
The clues have been laid out~ *bits* & pieces.
Caveats are just that~ *caveats* and the real question is~~ have caveats really met one another?
Together we all share the hope that ALL Lowes and Home Depot top level managers remain in good health along with the owners of the mystery Hardware Store with nice restrooms...
in the meantime i'll enjoy bid~sitting which should not matter nor should it be confused with bed~wetting**
oh....no coincidences and like many others sitting on the sidelines...NOT buying at these levels.
LOL......makes NO DIFFERENCE what month you take your beating in...good grief! This went NO BID some time ago...LOL
There are literally Billions of shares for the taking at .0001.....problem is finding a buyer......those unfortunate enough left holding the bag more than likely have been trying to exit their position with NO LUCK......
Are you saying that December is the only time to sell a stock in order to claim a loss on your TAXES?? LOL!!!!!
Dumping shares at .0001 is tough when the company in question is a no income, NO BID, judgment ridden, 5 Billion count O/S, homeless, phoneless entity that has had it's license revoked in the State of Incorporation.
Why wait until December? TIA
Those not knowing the "WHY" really should think twice before entering the cesspool of manipulated pump and dumps. Hope this helps.
As for the sudden rise in a company's stock from 'nothing to near a dollar'...... What company are you speaking of? What are the dates in question? Supply that info and get an explanation...capiche?
IMO
No...that was Hunsaker's gem of a deal. Hunsaker signed off on the Flo Co LLC 'deal' mid-April....McCoy entered the picture after Hunsaker "resigned" in late June.
If anyone thinks McCoy is willing to take a bullet for Hunsaker...LOL....aint happening boys.
IMO
I believe Hunsaker had to open the books to NASCAR in order to secure the NASCAR Partner agreement in the first place....OOPS!
It certainly appears to be the case. Courts are rather strict when it comes to Plaintiffs amending complaints which are designed to cast a wider net. Nascar must have made a rather compelling case IMO.
FYI...regarding going dark and or going private...anti-fraud laws still apply
LOL....nah....won't be Peacock IMO....look for additional interrogatories ....maybe MCCOY will make the guest list ;0
Exactly, remember...it was the PLAINTIFF-NASCAR that moved for the default be set aside......then of course NASCAR filed to amend complaint to include at LEAST ONE additional ALIAS.....I think you are correct regarding Richards.....and RECENT records show SUMMONS being issued...:).
Generally speaking....you need TO SHOW DA JUDGE the goods to mount a successful motion to amend your original complaint to include additonal parties.
AMEN to the 1st sentence.
Certainly not good news for Mr. Hunsaker or AERP bagholders.
It appears that NASCAR is aggressively following the trail left behind by the failed companies AERP, TTR HP, Aero Exhaust, Flo Co LLC and of course the former CEO Hunsaker.
Hunsaker apparently was served with the notice of INTERROGATORIES- meaning he will be forced to produce answers as well as DOCUMENTS IMO.
The new summons issued broadens the net IMO....perhaps Hunsaker setting up shop with Richards will be called into question :).
This is one heavily contaminated empty shell and it's about to get worse...if that's even possible.
IMO
Yes...Factoring expense for 2009- $51,910
Investor expense 2009- $61,433
Source-EXPO Holdings latest filing- G&A
What is the rate of expense regarding invoice factoring in EXPH world? TIA