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.
My main interest was the appeal. I know that the it isn't checkmate yet, but the chances that we win have slimmed down IMHO. Yes, there is still the possibility that we will win and if so, the reward will be the same. But I'm not going to add to my portfolio.
Nice activity today. Always nice to see. Bid's up again.
It wasn't really clear who you where referring to. I've been here for a while (since 2013) and I found that there have been a fair share of people that have been very honest in their findings. Of course there are people on this board that where (acting) convinced that they knew all was going to be great. But these are on every board. Most of those shouted how great things where going to be, and left again after a couple of days and cashing their profits on the pump.
I was there to tell those, that they shouldn't buy the hype. In fact I didn't buy myself until GERS stopped filing, because that felt to me like the moment things where going to change.
I could get out with a very nice profit at that time, but took the gamble and always said it was a gamble, but wit a very nice chance to make a lot of money.
The voices where there, just not many did listen.
That's my opinion, but you and others might have experienced it differently.
but those who believed they were pundits, seemed to always tout GERS, and did not recognize the facts coming from the other side!
The text published by Attis was: "The Company agreed to pay an earn-out based purchase price with a floor of $18 million."
When I google 'Earn-out based', the result is "Earnout or earn-out refers to a pricing structure in mergers and acquisitions where the sellers must "earn" part of the purchase price based on the performance of the business following the acquisition."
I guess that means they might get nothing more then the initial payment, if there is no money earned with the patents.
What does 'purchase price with a floor of' indicate? Does that mean, that's the least they will pay?
You say (or quote) “initial” payment. That seems to suggest it isn’t all they agreed on.
So there might be more to come, or it might be the deal still can be canceled if the full conditions aren’t met in time.
There is no mention of the value It represents I suppose?
Sorry I’m unable to dig into it at this time and sort it out myself.
But you seem to think it represents 15 mil dollar in value?
Did 2 million common shares represent the value of 15 million dollars, or are you talking about something else?
If you go back to this post, you'll see that:
Once the IP is transferred to the JVCO, GERS owns 20% of it.
Until then GERS owns it all.
GERS owns 20% of the JVCO and Attis 80%
We (the common shareholders) own 20% of GERS and KK owns 80% of GERS.
So GERS owns 20% of the original 100% of the IP, ATTIS owns 80%. And we, the common shareholders own 20% of that 20%.
That's off course if all conditions to transfer the IP are met.
This post I wrote in the past might sum up most we need to know about the Greensift Patents.
It also contains a couple of questions. I didn't browse forward through the posts to see if they have been answered, but maybe.
I will chare this post again without the links underneath. I you want to see the links, go back to the original post
This was the post:
What are the facts? (please correct me if I'm wrong)
These are published by AttisThese are published by Attis. Let's assume they are correct, unless GERS denies them, which they didn't so far
Attis Industries Inc. (NASDAQ: ATIS) (the “Company” or “Attis”), a diversified innovation and technology holding company, today announced its execution and closing on a series of transactions with GreenShift Corporation (“GreenShift”) effective May 25, 2018, resulting in the Company’s acquisition of an 80% stake in FLUX Carbon LLC (“JVCo”)
JVCo’s rights cover a series of patents granted to GreenShift’s wholly-owned subsidiary, GS CleanTech Corporation (“CleanTech”), involving the extraction of oil from corn ethanol coproducts.
This SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), dated as of MAY 25, 2018 (“Effective Date”), is entered into by and among ATTIS INDUSTRIES INC., a New York corporation (“Buyer”), and GREENSHIFT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“Seller” or “GreenShift”).
WHEREAS, Seller, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION (“CleanTech”), develops and commercializes technologies that facilitate the more efficient use of natural resources, and owns an intellectual property portfolio comprised, inter alia, of patented, patent-pending and proprietary processes designed to increase the efficiency and profitability of corn ethanol production facilities by intercepting and processing corn ethanol co-products into value-added renewable offsets for fossil fuel-derived fuels, plastics, adhesives, and other products (“CleanTech IP”);
WHEREAS, Buyer, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, ATTIS INNOVATIONS LLC (“Attis”), has acquired and developed intellectual properties which cover, inter alia, the conversion of products and co-products produced by processes covered by the CleanTech IP
WHEREAS, JVCo is the direct and indirect owner, inter alia, of additional intellectual property rights that are complimentary to the CleanTech IP and the Attis IP
Conveyance of CleanTech IP. For so long as Buyer, Attis, and JVCo are in compliance with all applicable terms of the Transaction Documents, upon the later to occur of the (i) Seller Performance Date, (ii) the Buyer Performance Date, or (iii) the date on which all CleanTech Matters pending as of the Closing Date have been resolved (which later to occur date shall be referred to herein as the “Compliant Transfer Date”), CleanTech shall assign the CleanTech IP to JVCo, with full warranty of title free and clear of all third party claims or liens
Title to CleanTech Assets. Buyer and Attis acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary herein or the Transaction Documents, (i) TITLE TO THE CLEANTECH ASSETS COLLATERAL SHALL BE AND REMAIN WITH CLEANTECH, and (ii), for avoidance of doubt, inasmuch as the CleanTech IP and CleanTech Matters are included in the CleanTech Assets, all now and hereinafter-arising CleanTech IP and CleanTech Matters shall be and remain in the name of CleanTech until and unless an appropriate assignment is made on or after the Compliant Transfer Date.
the (i) Seller Performance Date, (ii) the Buyer Performance Date, or (iii) the date on which all CleanTech Matters pending as of the Closing Date have been resolved, (which later to occur date shall be referred to herein as the “Compliant Transfer Date”)
I think we are all waiting for an official response to the outcome of the appeal.
Has anyone seen an official response by the defendants?
It seems like they aren’t cheering yet to?
Does that mean anything?
Thanks for your reply
I understand. I'm not shocked by the loss of the appeal. I hoped for a different outcome, but didn't expect it. No sorrow's here.
I tried to understand as much as I can from yesterday’s posts, but I fail to understand if the NOA and patents still have any value now?
Also, I believe Attis now holds our patents. Since there is no windfall, is the only ‘income’ by the patents for us, the income they generate? Did our stake change in that?
Do you know how to make a screenshot? Or is that the issue?
If you know how to make one, go to settings/image upload on the right top on ihub on a desktop and upload your file. Then copy the link saying ‘chart’ on the left side.
Just paste it into your message and that’s it.
If it doesn’t work, just let me know or send me the link if you want me to do it.
If you have any trouble making a screenshot I can try to explain how to do that, but that differs from phone to phone and computer to computer.
$GERS
“When I think of adventure, it is either climbing a mountain” I suppose it differs from person to person. You wouldn’t see mee climbing a mountain, way too dangerous for me
IMO the importance isn’t the affirmation on it’s own, bit the fact that the uspto found reason for this affirmation. Why suddenly now? What has changed? Is this timing coincidental?
Yes, learning new stuff on a regular basis here, where I normally wouldn’t know anything about.
It is an expensive adventure so far ( however I’m still in the green) but the adventure alone feels worth it LOL
Thank you!
No problem, thanks for the information so far anyway
Is there a link to the article? I’m not seeing it
Thanks for your thoughts.
What is your take on this at this time Nobody12378? Any changes since the hearing? What are your thoughts about the information Slash shared us?
It all sounds exciting to me, but at the same time I wonder if this really is related to the courts 'actions'.
Also there seems to be little response by the market. At the same time I know that there always is little response by the market to thing that could help or harm GERS's PPS. It always seems like we ghosts and just don't realize it yet. I know that it would probably be different if GERS did get their numbers updated. But still I'm not sure how that would work out for us.
I'm in doubt I guess.
Ahh, such a shame
If GERS has won it effects the defendants. But so far, I don't think there is hard evidence that GERS has won. Maybe Slash knows more then we do so far. It can also be his guess that the patent mention is meaning that the patent is awarded to GERS. However it would surprise me if the court will let the patent office know before there is a ruling published. So I'm not sure the 'news' means anything.
But I know most news that 'could' be bad for the defendants and good for GERS is shared by Slash on the defendants boards. So nothing strange there.
Does that mean they did allow GERS patents from today?
“Their lawyer was really looking down at me, and I left feeling that I would get what. I deserved.”
Should say “Their lawyer was really looking down at me, and I left feeling that I wouldn’t get what I deserved.
I don't know if it says anything that the judges seem to take their time. I really do hope so and must admit that thought didn't cross my mind, until you brought it up.
I can imagine how it could mean they are digging deeper then just the on-sale bar. But then again, it might just be that GERS isn't their (only/top) priority.
I also find comfort in that I personally had an issue with a company once, I took it to the arbitration committee. They brought their lawyer and I was alone. It seemed like I was on the losing hand, because the conversation totally focused on the fact I bought it on my companies name at this site, where I more often bought stuff that way, because they also sold stuff you would use at home to consumers and I used my private bank account to pay, it didn't seem like an issue to me. It felt like I was losing because they only handle conflicts for consumers. At the end they asked me to show more proof I bought it with my private bank account. Their lawyer was really looking down at me, and I left feeling that I would get what. I deserved. But the committee surprised me and send me a letter that I did win the case and the company had to pay me a nice sum of money.
So I like to think that it isn't always as it seems.
IMO If GERS would win the lawsuit (dispite the opinion of some) the gain will be in favor of GERS. Remember Attis is excluded from a possible lawsuit reward.
Attis however would then benefit from future income. But I think that the gain in pps might be enough for me.
If GERS loses the lawsuit, I don’t think there will be much for Attis to benefit from.
At this time I’m glad I’m not holding Attis. Their pps is doing a lot worst then GERS’s even though it might be harder to trade GERS, I still like the stability here.
Keep up those posts.
This board is meant to discuss GERS related issues. Attis is connected in a way to Greenshift, so like others say, I agree that it should be allowed to share information that might be relevant to GERS.
It might be that it isn’t always clear if the information is relevant to GERS so I would encourage to question those posts by discussing the information shared, not attacking the sharing of it on its own.
If you find that a post really doesn’t belong here, I recommend reporting a TOS violation by clicking the button next to the post.
Just to let you know: Asking for posts to be deleted in public or limited the rights for other board members by telling them what they shouldn’t post is considered violation of the TOS by ihub and those post might be deleted because of that.
Thanks Joby!
Did Attis have a ticker change? It keeps on showing 77 cents
Hope it will continue to do so, until they hit the $1 mark.
My reaction wasn’t about the reason to go for a contingency fee, but about Harry’s post that GERS would be paying more now that the case was at the US court of appeals federal circuit.
But now you pointed this out, I had missed that post. Did you also said something about if there is another reason for the legal team to go for a contingency fee?
“As a rule of thumb, any legal services that are performed in an appeals court will be more expensive, per hour of the time of a law firm, than the legal work that is done in a U.S. District Court. The work must be done with higher legal standards because the decisions of appeals courts are usually the final result. Appeals panels are usually composed of smarter, more experienced judges. “
Yes, but if your legal services are provided for a fixed contingency fee of 15% of the money you get out of the lawsuit, it doesn’t matter at what court you are, how long it takes, or if it is a settlement or not. 15% of the awarded money is 15%.
Merry Christmas to you too.
“That's two mistakes. It's not what I said, and I haven't talked about PEIX in a long time. “
My bad, was about GERS. I just used the wrong ticker on the right qoute and comments.
Off course I could have deleted my comments claiming I didn’t wite that. But it’s okay to admit a mistake if you make them.
What makes you think the appeal is more expensive for GERS
If they agreed on a continggency fee before the appeal started?
They're already spending a lot on legal services for their lawsuit, which is costing them much more per hour because it's now being heard in an Appeals Court instead of a U.S. District Court.
I was talking about our conversation about the fee they had to pay to for the legal services. It seemed to me you where saying PEIX was "already spending a lot on legal services for their lawsuit, which is costing them much more per hour because it's now being heard in an Appeals Court instead of a U.S. District Court" and "The dollar amount of this purchase was as much as the Greenshift Corporation could afford to spend" You where using that as a reason to say "There's no plan."
So why do you think that the contingency fee relates to having no plan?
No problem, we serve eachother!
Sounds reasonable. Maybe I’m a bit confused because up until the attis deal, GERS was owned by FLUX CARBON CORPORATION FCC