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.
Interesting that they were apposing the motion. Could be a sign of weakness - afraid to see the court look too far back into the past? I guess we will never know the answer to that questions.
Lets see how the court rules.
Yes, assuming they were an actual company. They have been using 8Ks for some time now as a substitute. Not correct, but something.
I believe it is due the 31st of October. This would just be the normal quarterly. Just curious what it would say.
When is the next 8K due out.
I agree with you. The history of this stock is probably not applicable in the short run. But is things do not develop by mid November, I think they will be very applicable.
I am normally not a chartologist, and I don't see any theories of market movement based on ideas from the Chinese market analysis (look it up) to be applicable in this case. I do believe that the "available" shares are drying up. I don't see a rise in the future, but I do see it stabilizing.
News came out on the 21st after close. See post 36095.
Prices over the relevant period.
Oct 1, 2010 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 713,344
Sep 30, 2010 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10 1,229,749
Sep 29, 2010 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 1,066,002
Sep 28, 2010 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 1,133,708
Sep 27, 2010 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.11 8,770,412
Sep 24, 2010 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.15 5,948,343
Sep 23, 2010 0.09 0.16 0.08 0.13 6,240,788
Sep 22, 2010 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.07 2,511,780
Sep 21, 2010 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 376,117
Sep 20, 2010 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 1,003,605
Sep 17, 2010 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 924,250
If took 48 hours to build steam and peaked within a short time because there was nothing to follow.
Where might I find this document?
I have been in the market longer too, but the "market" and this stock are not the same.
Time will tell.
I have been investing in this stock for four years. This is not the first time I have seen this. May not be the last. I give it a day or more before it goes over .20. Heck, by the time it goes it may be a day or more before it hits .08.
I would agree if this was a commonly watched stock, but it is not. Very few people watch this stock and most of them are fully invested in it. It may go, but it will take days to reach its full momentum as word of mouth spreads. It won't pop large until there is a PR putting it in the spotlight.
Since it is most likely that you will see a release of court documents before you see a PR that might garner wider attention will still be able to get in under a quarter.
So, I might get a 4 or 5 to one gain instead of a 10 to one, but I will still make a substantial profit without any real risk.
I believe it. The question is, do I post a lot to get the price to go up or do I not post in hopes of getting a better deal in a week or two.
I expect a small spike the first week of the month and right after the 15th , (more free cash), but unfortunately, I don't see any reason for the trend to change.
It is now a game of chicken. Be risky and jump in now. Be more risky and jump in later. Accept little or no risk and jump in after the news is out profiting off the momentum.
Someone better start posting ...
Just a friendly jib, and you are absolutely right about what I say.
Wow, I guess my deciding I was not deeply concerned about the change in venue did not automatically result in a rise in prices. Sorry Deet.
TBSI down to $4.60. About another dime or so and she should start to level out. Quarterly report due out the first week in November. Estimates are a loss of .40 a share. Not convinced she will beat that, but I think we should expect a gain in ground around that time.
Just a thought.
Any indication if, when the motion is granted, we will be able to keep the same timeline or if we go back the the end of the line and have to get a new date?
No, it would just be contempt initially. If Diac fails to answer the discovery questionnaires or show up for the depositions there are a number of other sanctions, including a bench warrant, that can be tried first. Eventually, we could motion for a finding of facts in our favor. I doubt it will get that far and it depends on the court and the judge.
If he, or his attorneys, fail to show up for trial, THAT is when you get to failure to prosecute. (usually).
How so? - Sorry, disregard. I was thinking you were responding to a different post.
I would say that was a preemptive strike by Markle foreclosing any argument for getting part way through and then filing to change venue. Or, it could just be what you said the first time - "I am tired of hearing your crap, move it wherever and we will see you in court".
No, I no longer feel this is as important as it once was. Again, I would like to see the defendant's responses when they come. But I will withdraw my general concern or "worry" about this point. Still, a long way to go and there is a lot that can happen (or fail to happen).
Clearly my agitation has been driving down the price of the stock (if only I was that powerful).
It does look like their strategy will be one of failing to respond until forced to. That could indicate a weak hand or it could just be Williamson's style in court. Time will tell.
I may even drop a buy order today.
Thanks, BTW, I have been thinking about your estoppel argument. Depends on what was said (or more correctly, what we can prove was said), but it might work. This is far more complicated than most people think (or I could be over thinking it) but I think you are at least giving it the depth of thought it deserves.
Diac was in now way able to handle licensing the patent. He needed the corporation ... to a point.
I understand now, from Ben, that it was Diac who wanted the change. While I like it less from that perspective (Diac with something up his sleeve vs us being proactive), until I see the pretrial motions, I can only speculate that someone is trying to take us back to the pre-settlement stage or they are trying to get a decoration or clarification about the ownership of the patent pre-settlement. It is really hard to say. But if this were just an contractual case where interference with corporate operations was the ONLY issue, then there would be no need for the change in venue.
Sorry, not sure the point you are trying to make.
Sorry, I am a big supporter of Dave and Turinni. As I have said before, Turinni proved his mettle when he failed to go along with Carlos' fabricated reasoning in the Bill of Review. It is hard to find an honest Man. I also remember supporting Dave on this board when others kept up the BS "there is no way we can lose" talk. He KNEW we could lose and he took action, at his own expense, and saved us all (well, at least the shareholders).
No, I am not in Diac's camp, but I, like Dave, read things as they are, not the way I want them to be.
I held this thing during the period when we lost the bill of review and the court was holding the patent. I will not give up that easily now. But, seeing how Diac had legal advise every step of the way, and he appears to win at court (at least with us), I am curiously cautious about the change in venue.
Agreed. Everything needs to go through the court. We have already seen how slippery he is in his interpretation of what terms of agreements mean.
My mistake, I was taking another poster at his word.
You base this on what?
The patent has value. Not really in issue. Question is, who will gain from their value.
Don't agree with you on your interpretation. Interference with the operation of the company and actions take to protect my security in property are two separate things. I know you don't see it that way, and it is very obfuscated by the fact Diac is both the signatory to the settlement and the creditor.
Again, We agree to disagree.
Agreed, but I have to make my own decisions based on what I see.
Again, depends on why. Buy you are right. All of this has gotten off course. I was fairly confident we were on the right track prior to the request for the move to the old court. THAT is what has me worried. Worried that we are posturing to be prepared to attack or reopen the original settlement.
Sorry, you lost me.
Sorry, it was the only example I could think of. And that will be a question for the court to decide - were his actions merely the activities of a concerned lien-holder or were they material interference with our ability to pay. Again, you have the "but-for" issue - but for that action we could have paid. I think it opens some doors.
OK, First, I think you have a winner in the T-Mobile interference, but there are still problems.
I see you have found the difference between law and equity. It matters in laches and estoppel. First, part of a definition of laches
"Laches is a defense to a proceeding in which a plaintiff seeks equitable relief. Cases in Equity are distinguished from cases at law by the type of remedy, or judicial relief, sought by the plaintiff. Generally, law cases involve a problem that can be solved by the payment of monetary damages. Equity cases involve remedies directed by the court against a party."
So, if we are asking for an injunction or a decloration of rights (as to ownership of the patent), laches matters. If we are asking the court for damages, it does not.
However, laches only acts as an excuse for failing to bring a cause of action - getting past a statute of limitation (like the thirty day requirement to file for a review in a default judgment).
"The law encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute. Cases in law are governed by statutes of limitations, which are laws that determine how long a person has to file a lawsuit before the right to sue expires. Different types of injuries (e.g., tort and contract) have different time periods in which to file a lawsuit. Laches is the equitable equivalent of statutes of limitations. However, unlike statutes of limitations, laches leaves it up to the court to determine, based on the unique facts of the case, whether a plaintiff has waited too long to seek relief."
Since it deals with timing I am still confused as to how you see it applying. Again, I think you would be better served by the contractual theory of waiver.
Estoppel is usually used to stop someone from asserting a right. I am guessing you are saying that, because of Diac's alleged promises, he can not assert his right to foreclose. I am not sure I see it working, but it is worth a try.
BTW, I don't see threats of foreclosure in a case of non-payment as being interference.
As part of our defense we have to prove that "but for" the interference (failure to join T-Mobile or his not allowing us to negotiate with T-Mobile) we could have paid. I think that is where we run into problems with the court.
Can't say you have convinced me - too many things still have to fall into place - but I do think you have made a hell of a case for the good guys. Glad you are on our side.
BTW, that waiver defense works both ways. If we never complained about his interference (again, I doubt that is the case), then we cannot use it as a defense now.
WOW, you have been doing your homework. Laches, estoppel and the mitigation of damages. Laches and estoppel are both equitable causes of action neither of which apply here. Laches excuses failure to act (which might help us in the bill of review but won't here) and estoppel is pretty much the basis of Diac's original claim (you promised something and I acted based on the promise you can't now deny you really meant it). Estoppel might help us if Diac ever claimed that he would not foreclose on the patent even if we failed to pay. Doubt that ever happened. Mitigation of damages is pretty much what it says, a person can act to mitigate damages on property and expect to be paid for that action (I think, feel like this is a quiz). The question of interference will help us but probably won't be decisive. Not relevant to the case.
For the interference has to be material it has to affect our ability to pay. If we got in the situation where we could not pay on our own, we are screwed. What does excuse it is the failure to join in the T-mobile case. Of course, we have to show that we could have had the money if we had started sooner. The current situation bears that out - maybe. As you point out, we had already been in default for six months. That might bring up estoppel, but I don't think it applies. It COULD open him up to a claim for waiver (Clark v. West), that Diac knew of the default but took no action, but I think the threats constitute action. But again, what will be Diac's retort? I was advised I did not need to be joined? They did not want me interfering (bad choice, but he could try)? The one that will work is " I was protecting my interest in the Patent". But (here is the beauty of the law), that claim is not relevant here.
So, The failure to join (or disallowing the Acadia deal) would be valid defenses to the default claim. But will we still have to cure? Maybe, those payments that were part of the settlement just don't disappear. All this takes us so far but no farther. We don't know what the court will do even if things go our way.
I would agree that meeting in the middle is best for all parties. It just never appeared to me that meeting in the middle was Diac's style. He is an all or nothing kinda guy. That worries me.
I have to choke on this as I say it, but I would be happy to see some form of mediated settlement. Anything that does not lock us out.