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.
I usually would not respond but I believe you are wrong, I do not believe the settlement was anything more than inept negotiating skills and the fear on the part of the CEO to take the stand. Too many skeletons in the closet (like why he was fired the first time and who knows what else Diac had been privy to). Testimony on the record in open court could certainly hurt his standing with the shareholders (and anyone else he may have to deal with). Since he was pretty much our only witness the case largely hinged on his credibility. Hard to say how a Texas jury would assesed his trustworthiness.
The deal is what it is ... if we can get it signed. If we can, we still have a substantial asset that is currently making us money (as long as we are willing to go to court and get paid for it). If we can't, then it is back to square negative one.
I see there is nothing really new to talk about here so I will only say that the settlement should be a priority. Not to say that other things should/could not be happening concurrently; only that most everything else hinges on that event.
Yes, I am restating the obvious, but clearly we have beaten the dead horse long enough. Starting to feel like teenagers fighting over whether they like Edward or Jacob or whomever. Events will unfold when the time is right. Until then, the settlement is what matters.
Thought it was Grand Slam, could have been wrong.
My opinion that management had as much responsibility if the current situation the company finds itself in as Dave does has never changed - I always believed that. Others here would like to lay the blame solely on Dave.
The opinion that management is actually manipulating shareholder opinion, not being completely honest, and having an agenda other than what is best for the company, that is new.
Anyone can argue that a certain business decision is the right one or the wrong one and only time will tell which is true. Even then, we may never know if a different path would have yielded a better result. That I accept as reality. So, for example, if management chooses to take the deal with Diac I may not like it but I accept that management believed at the time it was best for the company.
This is the first time that I believed that management had an agenda based not on a different interpretation of the best path to follow but that the path they have chosen is leading towards something other than what is best for the company. Just a feeling, an opinion, nothing more.
No, never spoke to the CEO. Was working the day of the forum so no I did not attend. No, I am not related to Dave nor and I "in his pocket". I have spoken to him on several occasions.
If you were following you would know that I formed my opinion after the Forum. I was not a fan of the forum because I thought we were broke. I continued to believe that until Grand Slam posted that Turrini told him he spent $10K of the company's money on the legal action in California. It was after that things really did not seem to make sense. Hence, the comment that the company could have gone another route if they had wanted to. That,as a shareholder, I felt I was being conned.
As for the deals you cite, I have no knowledge of them. I only recall Acadia. If there were others I would love to know about them.
Again, other than your allegations that I am biased this is all irrelevant to where we are and where we need to go. We can all cry about the past. It is not going to get us anywhere.
P.S. My shares are still out there at .11.
Irrelevant to the question posed, but another expense the company currently cannot afford.
Diac is the larger issue. He will be the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone seems to ignore.
I understand the principals behind the action but I would not advise it. You certainly could file an action in Delaware or Texas (or apparently in California too, since we now have an office there) claiming that the company is in violation of Delaware law by not having a meeting and get a court order to have one, but that is only part of it. Holding the meeting requires notice to each shareholder, an expensive proposition. In addition, Diac is now a major shareholder. His block of shares would be hard to beat. A major reason why the state court action should have included Diac returning everything he got from his illegal actions after the 2008 settlement. He could very well replace the current BOD with his own choices. So I would not be in favor of that action at this time.
You are absolutely right that the patent has value. That has never changed. I doubt anyone would realistically claim otherwise. How much has been a question at time of much heated debate, but I don't think anyone would question that hundreds of millions of dollars are potentially involved.
I too remain optimistic, although I feel I spend more time on this company than it is worth (doing research, checking facts as best I can, trying to figure out what is actually happening versus what we are being told).
1. There were no 8Ks around the time of the stay.
2. As the CEO, Turrini was the sole decision maker (unless he had abdicated that responsibility).
3. See answer to Number 2.
As for Ms. Pierce, I have not made my mind up on her. I have spoken to her on the phone. She seems pleasant but a bit over her head. I know she has a personal hatred for Dave, but I though it was only personal. She did not like is coarse demeanor and plain talk, attributes I actually find refreshing. Clearly why Dave is no front man. I offered to mediate between her and Dave some time back but she turned down the offer.
My point is simply that this whole matter has minor relevance to the company. It could have been settled if that is what management wanted. Instead it was used for other purposes.
I am still waiting for what is important.
1. The settlement with Diac
2. A contingency lawyer for T-Mobile
3. An analysis of whether Acadia is still viable
4. Some indication that we are working with the SEC to fix our filings (I don't expect to come off the greys until we have an income source).
1. I have no idea. I would assume we go back on the waiting list for a trial date. If he delays until after the October deadline then we start from square one. I always thought it was foolish not to continue the action until we had a settlement signed. We did the same thing with T-Mobile and look where it got us.
2. It was the way it all played out. File-gate was a red hearing. The company had the money to do the reproduction. Instead it just chose to use it on court actions and the forum. The ground was prepared by a flurry of postings here by a select group of people that the company was never going to come off the greys without those files and then followed up by statements at the forum that they could not afford it, yet at the same time they were maintaining an action in the California court, citing the files as a major issue, when reproducing the files would cost less than the court action itself. We were being played. It was all a con game that had its foundation in something other than the best interests of the company. It is a shame because I thought Turrini had the potential to be a great front-man - someone who could open doors.
As for Sharma, I don't know. He is an asset but he would have to make his own choice whether he in in because he believes in the patent or if he is in because he is a friend of Turrini.
I disagree with your base assumption. The statements to the court in the T-Mobile case that we were in negotiations were only that; statements that we were in negotiations. We were never close to a settlement - or at least one that would benefit the shareholders. We might have gotten them to give us one or two million dollars to go away but that would have only set us up for pennies on the dollar on other contacts we needed to negotiate. If we are at square one then that is where we are.
I would love to replace management and the BOD, but that is not realistic. Who (of those people who ar actually capable and would not cost us thousands of dollars) would want to take over this train wreck. I have no faith in Turinni. I sincerely believe he is a con man and a thief - which is a shame because I did not believe that prior to the Forum. I also believe that management and the shareholders have separate interests; the shareholders looking to build value in the company while management is only interested in getting enough funds to pay their salaries.
I believe I know where were need to go. As long as we keep headed in that direction the opportunity to replace members of the BOD or management may present themselves, but for now, we just need to keep progressing in the right directions.
The effort to raise money for the reproduction of files is nearly complete and the files are being copied. This issue should no longer distract shareholders.
Questions that need answering;
Where are we with the final settlement with Diac? (time is running out until we loss the case for failure of prosecute, the equivalent of default ... again). If we are not going to meet the timeline, are we ready to renew the litigation?
What is the status of a contingency attorney for T-Mobile?
Is Acadia a viable option? How does it compare to a contingency attorney for T-Mobile and then our own licensing efforts?
Where do we stand on getting off the greys? what else needs to be done? Will it (unfortunately) need to wait until we have an income source?
Anything else is simply another distraction.
Interesting. 1.9M shares for a total sale of $129K puts the ask at about 7 cents, yet the price of the stock has been higher than that since then. Clearly he changed his mind.
Question remains, why look to sell and why change your mind.
What is the tie over?
You are correct that the issue may be moot. The records are already being copied.
As for opposing it, I would. Why would a broke company want to bring in someone they have to pay $550 an hour for. It will take $25,000 or more just for him to catch up on the company's status. Why are you wasting money on this when there are things that need to be done.
Lets close the Diac litigation with a settlement. That is what our attorneys need to be working on.
For once I have to agree with Drago2, this sidewhow will have its next act in October. Till then it is just wasted typing. What is important now is finalizing the deal with the other Drago, getting the financials done, getting off the greys, and either getting a deal or re-initiating the action against T-Mobile.
Just to be clear, now management is acting "on principal" not pragmatically, to get rid of Dave, not to get the files.
Since the only issue seems to be the files, and the files could have been copied for less than $8K, and this action has to cost more than $8K, then the company made a determination that getting rid of Dave is more important than simply copying the files and moving forward as many posters here have said.
The company has left the payment for the copying of the files to the shareholders ... literally.
Just an observation.
Yes it is, but where it was is not that I can tell. Unless you knew the jurisdiction and the case number.
So, how did you come by the case number?
I tried that so please, give me the parameters of the search that is going to find this case without including the case number. (I can't even find it using that). If the site does not allow search engines into their files to allow categorization you won't find it one a search engine.
Why didn't management accept his candidate?
As a concept obviously he does not. But, as you point out, it all depends on who it is and their history. From the filings the last time the management tried to get a person on the board it was Rohan Russell. His views are well known to people on this board since he posts here regularly (and now it is clear where he gets his insider information). If it is someone who is going to blindly follow management then I suppose he is going to be against it.
It will all depend on who.
He is not, if you read the filing you will not that he recommended it first.
I will have to review the tapes but I do not remember anyone mentioning this case by case number.
OK, so the hearing on the 16th was to try to have the court appoint a fifth director before the forum, arguing that the forum would not go on if the fifth member of the board was not appointed (among other things). I will have to guess that that request was denied since it was not announced at the forum.
From what I can tell from the LA Court web site before it told me it wanted $10 to look at a copy, he wrote the second affidavit in support of the filing.
I can't really tell but it looks like whatever was attempted by the company on the 16th was either denied or was passed over till trial. In any case there does not appear to be an order of the court associated with that hearing.
But no, he was not who I thought he was although he is associated with the same firm.
So, what is the date that Ms Pierce's term ends? You seem to be in the know.
Again, information that should be disclosed in an 8K.
Uhhh, got me. I never said her term ended.
Thanks, thought i heard it before.
OK, so I can't find this with a google search - changed the parameters several times.
The only way to know about this is if you were given the information by the company or one of the attorneys. Pierce is the prominent name on the filings.
Why is the company in such a hurry to get this out, before trial? What has changed?
Noticed the first hearing was the day before the forum yet it was never mentioned there, why make it "public" now and why through back channels?
If the company was going to release this shouldn't have been in an 8K? Wonder how many SEC FD disclosure rules this is violating?
Who is Richard P. Ormond?
Just curious how you came across this information. Which manager released "material" information?
A board moderated by SOSA that implements its own rules of censorship, no thanks.
Any rumors on the settlement.
Apparently you believe that you can fly an attorney from Texas to California and hold a presentation at a hotel in LA for under $1501.00. A person cannot be terribly smart if they believe that.
Give me an address
Heck, just find the block of 208,500 shares at .11. Its out there.
You haven't brought my shares like you promised.
Is it ok for say the husband of the CFO to post here without revealing who he is?
How about the best friend of the husband of the CFO?
At what point does it become OK for someone to come on this board and express an opinion?
So, if I understand this correctly, management, without the permission of the board (or perhaps in contravention of the board), used money from somewhere to hold a forum after which the value of the companies share plummet by over 50%, and everyone is upset with Dave.
interesting.
Sosa seems to think Ed is being blackmailed. Any indication of that in your conversation with Ed?
You really believe the attorney showed up for free ... out of the goodness of his heart ... cause he loves Turrini that much? You really believe that only cost $1500 and Kyle paid that out of her own pocket.
Discovering it, and proof of who was involved in it, are two separate things.
§ 223. Vacancies and newly created directorships.
(a) Unless otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation or bylaws:
(1) Vacancies and newly created directorships resulting from any increase in the authorized number of directors elected by all of the stockholders having the right to vote as a single class may be filled by a majority of the directors then in office, although less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining director;
(2) Whenever the holders of any class or classes of stock or series thereof are entitled to elect 1 or more directors by the certificate of incorporation, vacancies and newly created directorships of such class or classes or series may be filled by a majority of the directors elected by such class or classes or series thereof then in office, or by a sole remaining director so elected.
If at any time, by reason of death or resignation or other cause, a corporation should have no directors in office, then any officer or any stockholder or an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian of a stockholder, or other fiduciary entrusted with like responsibility for the person or estate of a stockholder, may call a special meeting of stockholders in accordance with the certificate of incorporation or the bylaws, or may apply to the Court of Chancery for a decree summarily ordering an election as provided in § 211 or § 215 of this title.
(b) In the case of a corporation the directors of which are divided into classes, any directors chosen under subsection (a) of this section shall hold office until the next election of the class for which such directors shall have been chosen, and until their successors shall be elected and qualified.
(c) If, at the time of filling any vacancy or any newly created directorship, the directors then in office shall constitute less than a majority of the whole board (as constituted immediately prior to any such increase), the Court of Chancery may, upon application of any stockholder or stockholders holding at least 10 percent of the voting stock at the time outstanding having the right to vote for such directors, summarily order an election to be held to fill any such vacancies or newly created directorships, or to replace the directors chosen by the directors then in office as aforesaid, which election shall be governed by § 211 or § 215 of this title as far as applicable.
(d) Unless otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, when 1 or more directors shall resign from the board, effective at a future date, a majority of the directors then in office, including those who have so resigned, shall have power to fill such vacancy or vacancies, the vote thereon to take effect when such resignation or resignations shall become effective, and each director so chosen shall hold office as provided in this section in the filling of other vacancies.
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc07/index.shtml