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 think part of the problem with the pps is that the 'market' for this stock is just a few peeps. We are at .0001 and no bid with a 1:1000 R/S pending. I know I'v just stated the obvious. We existing shareholders have our positions and are mostly holding becuase of our DD. For someone new to get to the point they felt comfortable buying and holding GERS they would have to do an awful lot of research and then take a great leap of faith.
Regardless, what money is left in the pennies usually goes to the stocks with momentum, not mere potential.
So, like many of you, I don't really expect the stock pps to move significantly higher until either a.) the capital structure is modified in favor of the common shareholder(ie YA debt and the Pref Conv.), or b.) we see some order from the court on prelinary injunction or summary judgement or settlements. With such a strong markman ruling, this is possible now IMO. Im convinced both will happen in time.
If im wrong and pps moves sooner, I'll be very happy.
Thanks Nobody for sharing the info. I replied on skunk's blog too that i believe any appeal of the markman ruling could only take place after the trial. Is that your take too?
I think the preliminary injunction bond may cost 1-2 percent of the face value/year. If that's true, and based on GERs cash at end of last quarter, they could get a bond for close to 100 million.
Maybe their strategy though is to get the PI granted on one infringer, IBEC. That would send a message to all that they should quickly settle without disrupting their operations with an injuction-- which is our future revenue stream.
Im getting way ahead of myself.
Sorry I did not know what you were referring to. Yes, Im glad the ruling came down before the end of the quarter.
what did??
Who said KK moves in mysterious ways? it's so true.
I honestly don't know what we might see from KK in terms of news or the PPS just yet. I assume we still split at some point unless told otherwise. Im very happy this ruling came out before the split.
I am NO legal expert but the ruling seems to support an order for preliminary injunction and/or the notion that we'll see settlements - all IMO!
What do i see happening?
I bet there are a number of anxious people on the infringing side sitting in conference rooms with attorneys pouring over every detail in the ruling. I bet a lot of meetings were cancelled, schedules re-arranged so damage control and assessments can be done. I bet they wish the ruling did not come out on the last day of the 3rd quarter. I bet ICM is taking calls from and making calls to their clients to discuss the order and what happens next.
That's a good friend to have right now. thanks.
Congratulations GREENSHIFT!!
YES, YES, YES
ITS GOOD....happy reading...
https://ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?12010ml2181-169
Morning All - We have a Ruling on the Markman....Im just taking my first look and skipped right to conclusions but i think i see that GERS claims construction was accepted on some very key points. don't take my word...i need to read it carefully.
BIG DAY HERE - EVERYBODY AND "NOBODY" lets here what you think.
will post doccument asap!
This location using Google maps brings you to what looks like a vacant lot. Use the same address with Google Earth and it brings you to a location that seems more conducive to business operations.
According to David Rector, IR for SAGE:
News for SAGE
Sagebrush Gold, Ltd. (OTCBB:SAGE) announced today the Company has renegotiated the existing Net Smelter Royalty ("NSR") on the Company's recently acquired Relief Canyon Gold Project in Pershing County, Nevada (see News Release dated Aug 31, 2011 for details of the Relief Canyon Gold Project). The NSR, held by Royal Gold, is now 2% rather than the original 4%.
Company President David Rector commented, "We are pleased to have negotiated the NSR down and believe that this will be of huge benefit to the shareholders upon commencement of gold production at the Relief Canyon Gold Project by Sagebrush Gold. With the recent additions to staff and management, Sagebrush Gold believes that we will be able to fast-track towards this goal."
About Sagebrush Gold, Ltd.
Sagebrush Gold, Ltd. is a junior gold exploration company focused on searching for world class resources and seeking out potentially significant gold exploration and development targets in Nevada's leading gold districts.
Legal Notice and Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, those with respect to the objectives, plans and strategies of the Company set forth herein and those preceded by or that include the words "believes," "expects," "given," "targets," "intends," "anticipates," "plans," "projects," "forecasts" or similar expressions, are "forward-looking statements." Although the Company's management believes that such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it cannot guarantee that such expectations are, or will be, correct. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause the Company's future results to differ materially from those anticipated. The Company assumes no obligation to update any of the information contained or referenced in this press release.
how about that...lets see if it sticks.
Happy Anniversary to you and your wife - good advice - thank you!
Take a look at Skunk's blog - June 18 and July 1. I think Skunk gets these documents from Pacer. The July1 "defendents are desperate" doc in particular is a good overview of the contentious terms and GERS position on them.
Email from Tracy
My questions:
Has anyone read the claim construction briefs? are there any terms where you think the GERS argument is weak?
LOL - very funny.
Hope you are right Slash. Skunk also seems to be of the same opinion. What did you think of the Valero PR? In your mind does that rule out a Valero/Gers license using ICM equipment? I hope not. Reading your post on Valero from the other day, the numbers sure point to Valero being the mystery customer. Maybe they thought they had them but they slipped off the line??
Valero would be crazy to simply ignore the litigation and/or assume ICM could indemnify them. Makes me think there must be more to the story.
i agree. I don't think GERS team will back down. The markman ruling cannot come soon enough.
The timing of this PR by GERS implies it is in reaction to the Valero PR and that it is not possible to use AOS with a GERS license. If it were possible i think it would be mentioned. I'd love to be wrong on that.
NEWS:GreenShift Files Motion to Amend Complaints
Date : 09/20/2011 @ 8:00AM
Source : Business Wire
Stock : GreenShift Corporation (GERS)
Quote : 0.0001 0.0 (0.00%) @ 7:21AM
GreenShift Files Motion to Amend Complaints
print
Greenshift Corporati (OTCBB:GERS)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Tuesday 20 September 2011
GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB: GERS) announced it has filed motions to amend its complaints against all defendants, including Colwich, Kansas-based ICM, Inc., in GreenShift’s ongoing litigation for infringement of GreenShift’s patented corn oil extraction processes.
GreenShift’s current complaint alleges that ICM is infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, titled “Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the “’858 Patent”). GreenShift has sought leave from the court to amend its complaints to include GreenShift’s newly-issued U.S. Patent No. 8,008,516 (the “’516 Patent”), a continuation of the ‘858 Patent. The ‘858 Patent and ‘516 Patent broadly cover processes for concentrating and recovering corn oil from stillage, a precursor to the distillers grain co-product of corn ethanol production.
Earlier this year, ICM announced the filing of its own patent application for its so-called advanced oil system, a process which ICM alleges “does not separate oil directly from concentrated thin stillage” and therefore does not infringe GreenShift’s patents.
“ICM’s attempt to design around GreenShift’s corn oil extraction patents continues to include concentration and recovery of oil from thin stillage with a centrifuge – a process that is covered by our issued patents,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s Chief Executive Officer.
“We invented, developed and commercialized this technology, and we were very thorough in protecting our rights. Our patents are pioneering patents that dominate the field. If ICM actually wants to innovate and add value to the industry without incurring ever-increasing exposure for its clients, then it needs to do so lawfully. We have pledged to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees and we will continue to do so here by prosecuting ICM and any producer concentrating and recovering corn oil from stillage without license from GreenShift.”
The following is a current list of the defendants in GreenShift's pending infringement action:
David Vander Griend, personally
ICM, Inc.
GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc. (f/k/a GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc.)
Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc.
ACE Ethanol, LLC
Adkins Energy, LLC
Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC
Amaizing Energy, LLC
Big River Resources Galva, LLC
Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC
Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC
Bushmills Ethanol, Inc.
Cardinal Ethanol, LLC
Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., LLLP
Heartland Corn Products, LLC
Iroquois BioEnergy Company, LLC
Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC
Lincolnway Energy, LLC
United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC
GreenShift’s technical services staff are available at 888-ETHANOIL or sales@greenshift.com to respond to quotation requests and to answer any questions about GreenShift’s patented corn oil extraction and other technologies.
About GreenShift Corporation
GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB: GERS) develops and commercializes clean technologies that facilitate the more efficient use of natural resources. GreenShift is focused on doing so today in the U.S. ethanol industry, where GreenShift innovates and offers technologies that improve the profitability of licensed ethanol producers. Additional information on GreenShift and its technologies is available online at www.greenshift.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains statements that may constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Those statements include statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of GreenShift Corporation and members of its management as well as the assumptions on which such statements are based. Prospective investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, and that actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by such forward-looking statements. Important factors currently known to management that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-statements include fluctuation of operating results, the ability to compete successfully, and the ability to complete before-mentioned transactions. The company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results.
absolutely. TY.
Great post Slash and very interesting. Thank you.
According to Tracy..
I asked about the change in the timeline necessitated by the new discovery. From Tracy:
Latest with EIGH..suggestion of forged stock certificates in circulation
8000 Inc Shareholder Update
Sunday, August 21, 2011 6:53 PM
From:
"investors@8000inc.net" <investors@8000inc.net>
To:
enquiries@8000inc.net
The company has received many email from shareholders, how have received certificates named 8000, Inc. (Please note the comma - these certificates are not from 8000 Inc.)
The only valid certificates are named 8000 Inc.
We are aware of a company, based in Florida named 8000, Inc and we are investigating this as a matter of urgency as this appears to be suspicious.
Please review the link:
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/West-Palm-Beach/8000-inc-4221150.aspx
We ask every shareholder to check their certificates and report any findings to the Company and the TA.
Thank you.
8000 Inc
New Customer: ADVANCED BioEnergy
This is the company we read about on Skunk's blog last Friday. This news release makes it official - they have signed with Greenshift!
Yes, GREAT NEWS!
my opinion on the possible reschedule of the Markman is that it is a VERY WISE thing to do. Hope the judge agrees.
Be sure to read Skunk's blog for news on the markman hearing
Email response from Tracy:
My questions to Tracy:
Good morning, Im trying to come up to speed and understand the significance of the information in the latest NR. If you could answer these questions it would be a big help.
1. Regarding the “new discovery”, is it that the original target for possible further exploration was found to be part of a much larger system than originally thought?
2. Is the new discovery the reason why addition time is/was needed to complete the SRK report?
3. Is the submission of a permit application pending further analysis of Tombstone?
Her replies:
Skribe, I beleive your assumption was incorrect. We never were down to 5.8b.
count me in! When we get a little closer we'll have to form an organizing committee.
GERS would be a billion dollar company under that scenario. We may be just a Markman hearing away from that becoming a very real possibility.
Ah...here's the reference to etrade and 999,999. Sorry, not a restriction but a default? maybe this has something to do with the trades we see today.
I expect revenue from sale of corn oil to be greater in q2 but not to surpass the revenue PLUS bonus amount we saw in Q1.
I have heard that - i want to say it was etrade???