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 wonder which compensation option Drew chose? 300K shares in a lump or the option to purchase 300K shares per quarter? I hope he chose the option.
Noticed this video:
http://droneaviationcorp.com/video01.html
Big IF...and realization of the asset value is locked up fully for 15 months with a partial amount available after 13 months.
Is the lockup clock ticking as of today?
Plus it gets interesting if they can restate some of that legacy debt. 9M in old promissory notes is a lot of dough.
Wayne Jackson (WSGI Director) listed as DRNE COB in the following PDF presentation:
http://content.stockpr.com/droneaviationcorp/media/98b9934ae1e27788a00e7964d8b920ee.pdf
Glenn and Barb (she is designated part time) both took salary reductions which is a step in the right direction.
Drew seems to be the most relevant fit given our current mix of tech. But enthusiasm is tempered until he makes his first influential move. How many others seemed like good appointees only to later leave without much to show?
At least we are still alive and twitching.
DRNE news:
JACKSONVILLE, FL -- ( Marketwired ) -- 06/05/14 -- Drone Aviation Holding Corp. (formerly MacroSolve Inc. ) (PINKSHEETS: MCVED) a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), announced today that it completed a share exchange agreement pursuant to which all of the capital stock of Drone Aviation Corp. , a privately held Nevada corporation ("Drone Aviation"), were exchanged for shares of either Common Stock or Series D Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company on a one-for-one basis (the "Share Exchange") making Drone Aviation a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Shares of the Company's Common Stock are currently quoted on the OTC Markets under the symbol "MCVED," which will soon change to "DRNE."
On May 5, 2014 , Drone Aviation acquired Lighter Than Air Systems Corp. ("LTAS") from World Surveillance Group in a share exchange (the "LTAS Acquisition"). Following the LTAS Acquisition, Drone Aviation became an aerospace company principally focused on developing and producing tethered drones and tethered aerostats for military and commercial applications. Drone Aviation's flagship products the Blimp in a Box ™ (BiB) and the Winch Aerostat Small Platform (WASP) acquired in the LTAS Acquisition, are currently utilized by various military and commercial customers as a safe, effective surveillance and communications system. In addition, Drone Aviation is leveraging its experience from military applications to develop specialized drones that utilize a unique tethering technology where all data, controls and endurance are built into the tether, thus permitting the drones to fly within FAA guidelines.
The Company, now headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida , will continue the business of LTAS. The Company's new management team includes Felicia Hess as its Chief Executive Officer, Kendall Carpenter as its Chief Financial Officer, and Dan Erdberg as its Chief Operating Office.
Simultaneous with the closing of the Share Exchange, the Company completed a closing of the sale of 2.7 million Units (consisting of one share of Series E Preferred Stock and one three year warrant with an exercise price of $1.00 ) in a private placement to accredited investors, at a price of $0.50 per Unit, resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $1,350,000 (before deducting commissions and expenses of the offering).
The Company's Chief Executive Officer, Felicia Hess , said, "The completion of these transactions was a key piece in our strategic plan to penetrate the military and commercial aerostat and drone space. Our investors recognize the potential tethered aerostats and drones have as safe, lower cost and effective systems, that comply with current FAA regulations, for various military and commercial applications. We expect the capital raised from this financing will assist us to expand our customer base and allow us to accelerate our research and development of our next generation tethered aerostats and drones."
The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the offering principally for sales and marketing, research and development, and general and administrative expenses.
About Drone Aviation Holding Corp.
Drone Aviation Holding Corp. designs and develops specialized tethered aerial surveillance and communications solutions to government and commercial customers. Drone systems are designed in-house utilizing proprietary technologies and processes that result in compact, rapidly deployable tethered aerostat solutions that have been proven to fulfill critical requirements by the military and law enforcement in the U.S. and around the world. For more information regarding Drone, please visit www.DroneAviationCorp.com, or view our reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission on http://www.sec.gov.
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this release constitute forward-looking statements. These statements include those regarding: the date our OTC market symbol will change, the safety or effectiveness for any specific application of any of our products, the use of any proceeds from our private placement, the potential of tethered aerostats or drones, the Company's ability to expand its customer base or accelerate our R&D program, our relationships with our customers and our ability to continue and/or expand such relationships, the suitability of the our products for any particular application, the ability of our products to satisfy customer demands or requirements or meet any specific challenges, the ability of our products to function in accordance with their design expectations, the capabilities, characteristics and advantages of, and costs related to our products and services, the further advancement, development or commercialization of any of our products, the ability of the Company to secure further business with new customers or grow revenues, and the ability of the Company to execute on its strategies or to accomplish any of its goals or objectives. The words "forecast," "project," "intend," "expect," "plan, " "should," "would," and similar expressions and all statements, which are not historical facts, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, any of which could cause the Company to not achieve some or all of its goals or the Company's previously reported actual results, performance (finance or operating) to change or differ from future results, performance (financing and operating) or achievements, including those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The Company assumes no, and hereby disclaims any, obligation to update the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.
Contacts:
Drone Aviation Corp.
Kendall Carpenter
Phone: 918-932-2000
kcarpenter@droneaviationcorp.com
Source: Drone Aviation Corp
Thank you for the heads up...many WSGI folks are trying to piece the puzzle together.
New symbol: DRNE
12:54 6/5/2014 MCVED DRNE Drone Aviation Holding Corp. NEW Common Stock
From poster Renee on old MCVED board
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102893716
Scarlet, they were there earlier, but maybe they were taken down?
Indy, was this demo for the rehab and corrections folks?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ohio-wants-drones-to-constantly-monitor-its-prison-grounds
Even Google has their share of problems.
http://www.dvice.com/2014-6-4/uh-oh-google-internet-balloon-crashes-power-lines
Both Google and Facebook are intent on putting things into the sky to deliver Internet to the world, particularly where none yet exists. Both companies are investing in solar-powered drones for their projects, but Google is also trying out balloons and satellites. But just how feasible and safe are these aerial Internet-delivering devices?
Last week, one of Google’s Project Loon balloons crashed into power lines in Washington state, resulting in a small power outage in that region. The balloon in question began its test flight in Nevada, before making its way north. In Washington state, the landing went wrong, although a reason has not yet been determined. The balloon hit a power pole in a remote area, taking out electricity for a small number of residents for about five hours. Utility employees reported finding what they thought was a weather balloon “with blinking lights” caught up in power lines.
According to Google, the Project Loon balloons are capable of staying in the Earth’s stratosphere for about 100 days, but test flights are, obviously, much shorter. In this particular instance, Google did inform the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of their plans, so no other aircraft were in the area at the time, but one can imagine a circumstance where a balloon or drone might interfere with the flight path of a commercial aircraft and cause a much more dangerous, and deadly, situation.
The FAA is already looking to set up guidelines for privately-owned drones, so it’s probably a good bet that we’ll see the agency looking at similar rules for commercial ventures, as well. In the meantime, Google might have better luck with its Internet-delivering satellites, which will, hopefully, be out of the way of things like power lines and other aircraft.
Indy, looking at the media page on LTAS, the white trailer pix seem new. Was this related to your demo?
http://www.ltascorp.com/media.html
Indy, is this BIB model related to the purchase announced in Jan 2014 or is it a new one?
Just guessing but maybe the point of all this is to get DAC shored up so that it can start trading and we can realize some sort of asset on our books. Couple that with a debt reduction and our balance sheet looks better if they can pull it off.
The contract had a 3 month limit so maybe they want to tie it in with the SHM and bring some other item up for vote.
Does anyone know, how much lead time are they required to give for adding something to the proxy that will require a vote? They did add to "virtual" SHM to the latest proxy so maybe something of note is going to come up?
fly, I went back to look at the older filings and see reference to 2 unsecured promissory notes and attached interest. These amount to 9M or so of our debt. No payback terms specified.
Do you remember what person or entity these belonged to? Was it Huff, Kostro, or any of the booted scammers?
I don't know how the accounting or legal process works for making this sort of debt vanish, but if one of our consultants can make it so, that would go a long way to helping the balance sheet.
NIE 14.2 should be wrapped up. Maybe we get an idea of how many units DAC will be supplying.
Indy, where would we look to see if a COA is filed and/or granted for the demo?
Also, page 17 of this article has some UAV info referring to Allsop and also, LTAS.
http://issuu.com/vishmeh/docs/armada_apr_may_2014_-_main_magazine
fly, I agree that time will tell.
Assuming Argus technology can reach 65k feet. It also must have an advantage over the Google balloon and Facebook plane that someone would be interested in.
Goog and FB have taken different approaches to reaching the same area of the stratosphere so it is a place that important players are attempting to conquer - still....after many years and no one can say they did it and commercialized it with a persistent and sustained vehicle.
That means we still have a chance. The military was interested and the consortium has now taken it on. After all of these years, we might finally be 'this close'.
I am not so sure about the financing angle until we have money in the bank and we see who is willing to give us 1M when we sued our last finance partner, defaulted on two promissory notes, and are allegedly in debt to our last PR firm.
I will still give Glenn the benefit of the doubt for now. After all, he was able to orchestrate the partnerships that led to the BIB/WASP business. Whether it is a success or not remains to be seen, but it at least gave us a chance at a legit business and brought in sales the likes of which we have not seen.
Glenn maybe trying to fleece us as some, including myself, have thought at one time or another, but after considering our current circumstances and our precarious cash position relative to debt, I think he is trying to make something happen with what limited resources he has at his disposal. If he pulls this off, it will be a miracle given our legacy.
I am not sure how the segmented design fits into this, but wouldn't Dr. K have filed an infringement case if there were a problem?
ITEM 1.01
ENTRY INTO A MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT
On March 22, 2011, Sanswire Corp. (the “Company”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) with TAO Technologies GmbH (“TAO”), Dr. Bernd-H Kroeplin (“Kroeplin”) and Global Telesat Corp (“GTC” and together with the Company, Tao and Kroeplin, the “Parties”) pursuant to which the Parties agreed to, amongst other things, the following:
·
To terminate all existing agreements between the Parties (the “Old Agreements”);
That TAO and Kroeplin are to keep all cash and shares of the Company’s Common Stock previously paid to them and that the Company is to ship back to TAO the old STS 111 (SD34) airship;
To discharge $2,474,753 in debt owed by the Company under the Old Agreements;
To cooperate to wind down and dissolve the joint venture, Sanswire-TAO Corp., which was formed on June 8, 2008;
·
To negotiate the potential terms of a revised relationship among the Parties for the next 60 days;
·
To a mutual non-disparagement clause and a mutual release and covenant not to sue for any claim related to the Old Agreements and for any claim that may exist currently;
·
The Company warranted that to its knowledge, it is not using any trade secret rights of TAO or Kroeplin and that it will not intentionally develop products that use any trade secret rights of TAO or Kroeplin, nor will it intentionally infringe any patent of TAO or Kroeplin in any country where such patent is valid; and
That the Parties will not use the name, logo or trademarks of any of the Parties in any commercial activity or promotional or advertising materials, including on its website.
this is Deja Vu:
back in 2005, didn't they do a 1:15 reverse split with over 1B in shares outstanding? At the time, they were communications and payment processing and were just starting to look at Sanswire?
We have 1B shares authorized, GTC, and there is the Argus Consortium.
Note to self: if this is a repeat, be sure to sell when the announcement from Russia comes out.
While unknown for now, my hope is the consortium has better tech and partners than Sanswire.
LOL - c'mon risk, that is downright, un-neighborly.
Hinton, Kostro, Clark, Bleckman, Christian, Dumas, Klein, Matrrese, Soroussi, Kimble, Molen, Kroeplin, Jones?
This Harvey Kesner is listed with the firm, Sichenzia Ross Friedman. I think Sameer Rastogi was from there and represented GTEL during the SEC investigation. No one should know our history better than these folks so I find it interesting that there is a connection with DAC, WSGI, and our old law firm.
good catch, be_real. I hope it turns out better than the webcast from June, 2006. Someone didn't check for the existence of a quality internet connection. They did record it, though if took a few days to post on the website.
The recent filing had a 150K SPA. If I were to guess, I think it will be used to repay those two promissory notes that were in default for that exact amount. I would also guess that they were funded by the person named in Anthony B's separation agreement - the person important enough to warrant bi-weekly updates with Barb.
If Glenn is sincere about cleaning up the books and building the business, I would look for this to get resolved.
indy, would you happen to know if the Space Florida performance data package is available for public viewing? Just curious since the Argus was tested in Yuma and NV for many months, yet we never heard about any results other than it was completed and we saw a short video of flight along the desert terrain.
flyby, did we get assigned any patents from the TAO deal with Dr. K or did we just get the licensing and marketing rights to certain parts of the world? Or did something happen where we lost that right?
Skydragon, STS-111, smiley face in the crop field, photo taken from the school balcony - man those were the days.
Indy, thanks for sharing the photo. Does the consortium control the flow of PR info or WSGI? It's been really quiet since Argus was handed over to the group. With the exception of the update in the 10-k which made it to the corporate site, there has not been much shared.
Is it the intent to ramp up the marketing efforts of Argus, or is the plan to keep it quiet? Lack of shareholder info for our flagship product could mean many things and just fuels the negative speculation especially given the LTAS surprise.
does anyone have thoughts on the possibility that WSGI could be preparing to turn out the lights?
They mention the legacy issues and we know there are millions in liabilities. They put Argus in the consortium and also got rid of LTAS. The only thing they have with revenue is GTC, but Phipps can easily transition business to the UK.
If they restructure through BK (7? or 11?), have they positioned and protected the assets with these latest moves? We always see that "going concern" line in the filings, we are a "risky" pink sheet stock now. It would be crappy, but they could wipe out the common shareholder without much recourse - could they not?
montanar,
I thought we paid 250K and 25M in shares for LTAS? But I do get the point. Unless one only invested in WSGI with the last few years, you would have bought shares based on the ARGUS and GTC relationship since the BIB only came about recently.
Here is the part that bugs me:
When was the first time we ever heard that our legacy issues could pose a problem with our LTAS relationship? WSGI asked for an increase in authorized shares last year. We all remember that plea through the Letter to Shareholders. What about those private placements that were issued? All along, we continued to deliver the BIB/WASP components as announced and were anticipating the results from NIE as they tested our BIB which was invited back as a baseline system. Now they tell us that there was a problem integrating WSGI and LTAS for the past year due to financial issues? Is this a way of telling us that they landed the big contract that they were anticipating, but now cannot fund the manufacturing piece?
If no contract results from NIE or JIEDDO, selling off LTAS will look like a good move.
If DAC does land a sizable contract, and our DAC shares become a decent sized asset, Glenn might look like a shrewd man. Maybe the only way for LTAS to get the contract is for it to be distanced from WSGI. Better to get something by selling rather than holding onto it and get nothing.
BUT, if DAC becomes bigger than anyone could imagine, AND the reason we could not hold onto it is because of the LJC debacle, the increase in authorized shares, and falling into the pinks, that falls squarely on the shoulders on Glenn and company, IMHO.
I am curious as to who really came first - did WSGI ride on the tails of LTAS or did LTAS get invited to our party and end up walking away with the prize if they do get a contract?
There is a lot that still needs to play out before we can fully evaluate what happened here, but for me, the sting will remain until they can restore some shareholder value and confidence.
We gave LTAS 250K plus 25M in WSGI shares for merging in 2012. So we got some cash back plus the 10M shares ties us to the success of DAC.
The big IF is whether the NIE 14.2 results in a long term contract. Timing is interesting since the 14.2 is done in a few weeks. IF that happens, we will have to see how DAC handles the news and if they can get some traction on registering and promoting their stock price. What if they can capitalize on it and pump or whatever the share price to .50 - 1.00 or some substantial price? Let's say it is 1.00, that would be a 10M asset, potentially translated to cash after the lockup period without the overhead or responsibility for producing the product. Could we realize 10M in cash in such a short period of time if we owned LTAS?
Just trying to brainstorm any positive aspect to this after feeling like getting sucker punched yesterday.
tsuguy, yes - this appeared in the last 10-k filing and was the latest bit of info shared since the Argus went to the consortium.
Makes me wonder why they didn't reiterate the following:
"Two Argus One demos are planned at the USIC this year" from the recent 10-K.
So they went from "planned" demos to belief and hope.
That is a good point. I was trying to think of a positive, and just maybe, those 10M shares will be a better asset than a large contract that is not able to move the share price due to the legacy burdens.
It's like being back in 2011-12 before the BIB was ever an option. We are left with Argus, advanced by the consortium of many rather than the one - Eastcor.
It remains to be seen whether our company technology toolbox is in better shape than in 2012 (Argus was finishing up at YUMA), but the share price was significantly higher, and less authorized shares as well. We do have more cash, now and the 10m DAC shares asset. GTC is generating some revenues too.
They contracted with someone to identify potential acquisitions? With what? Are they going to ask for another increase in shares?
Maybe Glenn will surprise us with something positive, but the track record has not been good. First LJC, and now this.
uh...yeah..I must have misread the previous letter to shareholders. Did they mean "jettison" shareholder value, not generate?
I can't remember if this was posted before. It is from NIE 13.1 in 2012, but it shows the STMPAS Helikite which, I believe, is related to the 7 winches sold to REF in early 2013.
What I found even more helpful, though, was the explanation of the NIE experience toward the end of the video. I understood the concept behind NIE, but to hear the participant soldiers speak of its importance and the process helps me to understand why it takes time to make a decision.
Welcome back! Ok, now I will read your post.
How and if the bill passes will be interesting as well as who is appointed. There are a lot of political and economic ramifications based on the outcome. I hope we have friends in the right places to benefit from the outcome and the products that merit our participation.
Nice find, "lopsided"!
I believe this shows that JIEDDO cuts may not have affected the use of our product going forward. AND this is just for JIEDDO.
I hope the NIE 14.2 will also result in the WASP being an integral part of the next communications capability set. The baseline term was used for our WASP, and hopefully everything proves out during testing. If they are inviting coalition forces to the integrated test, they must feel they are close to finalizing a deployable package which includes our baseline product.
rattle and others have posted the article that mentions the value added aspect of a WASP/BIB being operated by military personnel as part of their toolbox. It's smaller, more mobile, and does not require outside contractors to operate. Someone is going to lose business to us if this happens. A big leap in speculation is the eventual replacement of traditional, bulky aerostats from the competition and then someone decides to make a buy out offer a- la Force Protection - there, I said it, and yes, it's wild speculation, but after all, we are now a pink sheet, located in South FL, and the OTCBB wants everyone to know just how gosh darn speculative and risky we are :)
BBB or anyone else. Now that we are on the pinks again, I was trying to think of what is different for us?
I believe we are not required to file as many SEC requirements, and I am also not sure if financials are required as well. If the company figured this was going to happen, I wonder if there is any way this can be viewed as strategic?
I know there were past arguments about needing to be on a big board for institutional ownership, or for to better our chances at funding, but does that really matter if we do have a sizeable contract or Argus, re-engineered, proves promising? If the NIE results in a multiyear contract for BIB's, I can't imagine funders would not touch us just because we are trading on the pinks.
Also, they say trading on the pinks is ripe for manipulation. I realize that puff PR's and other forms of manipulation can be part of the circus, but from a trading standpoint, do they mean that trades can be less orderly and result in more violent swings up and down?
WW, first day on the pinks and you drop that in our laps? LOL!
I am thinking that is quite a prediction, but ever since the Barry Plans article, a large order may be possible. I know - it has been verified that Plans was not an employee of WSGI, but nobody has retracted the article, and no one has gone on record saying that what he said was false. If they were looking to hire 100 people and secure a manufacturing facility, something is/was up.
Such silence from the company since February maybe warranted in their minds, but I would have hoped that they would have said something about being back on the pinks, start of NIE, Argus update in a PR instead of making us dig into the 10K, etc.
SHM Proxy filed EOM