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 have known the CEO for 13 years; he is legit and a hard worker; however, your erroneous prediction of sub .01 for last Friday's close - that indicates a serious lapse in your assessment; just my opinion of course.
Agree, thanks
i really enjoy your posts Emerald
Parents
Yes Muggo, we have been invested for 13 years believing the technology would become known and used.
Parents
gosox12; yes I would assume no false positives or false negatives; 95% or above is my view and belief.
Parents
correct
Parents
I do not have first hand knowledge of the process only that test devices are easier and faster - as Abbott Labs got FDA approval rather quickly for a highly flawed test. Thank you
Parents
FDA approval does not require human trials for a device; this is not a treatment; when we ALL understand more, it will be helpful; Abbott labs' flawed test got FDA approval without trials. Yes , see you at .20 and BEYOND!
medical veteran, the testing is definitive and very accurate - no false positives or negatives for the test to have a high degree of accuracy in my view. And the price has already hit 15 cents.
Be very encouraged
Parents
This is a first where, except for one trade, NNLX daytrading is re 14% above yesterday's close...but vol and trade have been heavy at day's end; so what will be the close?
NO, NNLX'S technology does not use another lab; gives sub-hour results with a high degree of accuracy according to the recent update.
Thanks Emerald I for being our moderator; WOW, this board has radically changed since I last posted. I picked up an additional 70K shares when trading between 2-3 cents. Not to brag but to emphasize my confidence in NNLX. Thank you again! This is our breakthrough year!
Parents
SPORTYNORTY: You recently wrote to me:
"I just gave you member mark #12 I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate."
I have no idea what this means. If you could explain; thanks
Parents
Bret became CEO in March, 2007 and began to radically change the company. However, former management gradually left and a confidential settlement agreement was entered into via arbitration with two former managers. So really, a lot of the first two years consisted in discovering and resolving past issues and redirecting the company. Until 2009 when the clean room was built. Some of this history is on the website, some I know because I was a shareholder while these changes took place. In all other aspects, your post is correct. And thanks for your many contributions.
Parents
The answer is YES AND YES. PROGRESS!
Parents
thank you yman. You are correct; I have not posted here for quite a while, but was responding to legal issues raised. I really should not have responded at all.
Parents
Furthermore, ExponentiallyPlaned, I never put words in your mouth as you allege. I merely asked a question which you have declined to answer:
"AND YOU ARE OF THE OPINION NOVAK IS IN A SOUND, SAFE LEGAL POSITION?"
Parents
In the post you refer to I was clear but you omitted this part:
"This is my personal view and summation. So download the Ohio and Calif. opinions and make up your own assessment."
Parents
I drew that conclusion which was my opinion because the California court rejected virtually all of his assertions of fact.
To express an opinion is not defamation.
Parents
Glad for any person to form their own opinions; but when a Calif court states it does not accept the allegations of the plaintiff and declares the plaintiff has violated local rules in submitting REDACTED emails as "evidence", TO ME THAT IS SCATHING. Did you read the footnotes?
NO CHASTISEMENT for NNLX filing a lawsuit in Ohio; those things are done all the time and form a body of opinion that is evaluated by Ohio who puts Novak in his place by denying his Motion and stating the Ohio case will go FORWARD until Calif asserts personal jurisdiction which it refused to do. AND YOU ARE OF THE OPINION NOVAK IS IN A SOUND, SAFE LEGAL POSITION?
Parents
Putting it bluntly, Cal. rejected Novak's allegations and evidence. So Novak comes into Ohio as one who has not been truthful. That is the worst possible state to be in. What will an Ohio jury do with this...and remember NNLX selected the Ohio forum. Novak has no welcome mat in Ohio. This is my personal view and summation. So download the Ohio and Calif. opinions and make up your own assessment.
Parents
RIDICULOUS; the case was filed in 2011 and probably has been settled long, long ago. I cannot find any updates on PACER. The last docket entry was 2012.
As far as NOVAK is concerned, he LOST BADLY in Calif and in Ohio and violated local rules by handing in redacted emails as "evidence". In my view, Judgment Day awaits Novak in Ohio because the opinion of California was scathing in my view.
PARENTS
The other board is wrong, dead wrong. I received the photos and the total shipment was not stated. The photos were a sample picture. So this is not inside information at all.
Parents...from the beautiful land of Switzerland.
Ababa a...I just received the photos and am thrilled with the progress. Sure like the preprinted boxes and the photo of the storage room with its 100,000 capacity. Everything is moving forward in my view.
Parents. Posting from Switzerland ...a gorgeous country. We are having a great time.
EXACTLY Machiavelli - I had decided it was rather ridiculous for me to clerk in research for these posters for free.
Thanks, Parents and have a great Thanksgiving...be back mid-December.
Have great board discussions and this is an encore post to my last post....LOL
You are gravely in error; I never delete posts but, as moderator, I do report TOS violations and leave it up to the administrators for final decision; machiavelli's posts answers the question regarding the patents and I will not further respond to the issue; I am boarding for Switzerland and this is my final post for a while.
Parents....and this is my final response to your posts.
You are way out of line BigBad with your "shameful" comment. The general rule is the opposite....a corporate officer owns his patents without a contractual obligation to assign to the corporation and the cases I have found are MYRIAD. Just on my way to Switzerland in a few days and do not have time for the multiple citations. In each case where the officer was compelled to assign [that I have reviewed], a special circumstance not present in this case compelled the court.
Reciting headnotes is not determinative for there are operational facts behind the rulings that are critical.
However, if you are convinced, I would encourage you to sue and be the brave soul that files against Mr. Barnhizer, but I bet you will not.
Parents
Let me clarify my last post. The Court ruled that because the inventor had used substantial corporate assets for years and had put the corporation's capital at risk, then he had to assign his patents to the corporation. None of this would have happened if ONLY he had not gotten into a limited partnership. It was the limited partners who sued, - there were no other shareholders but the inventor. As I understand the case.
Parents
You are totally correct Petro...also interesting that 18181818 only cited ONE case; usually if a point of law is followed there are a myriad of cases on point. At least when I clerked, the Court required several cases for each point. In a limited partnerships which this case concerns [an entity and a corporation] the duties are different than a corporate structure. The Court also noted the defendant ran the corporation as if he were sole owner...I believe, if my memory is correct, he was the only employee. And he could have retained his patents but for his fiduciary duty to the limited partners. But I have not had time to read the entire opinion. This is just my view.
Parents
The case cited by 18181818, McGovern v. General Holding Inc. CA is totally inapplicable to NNLX and Mr. Barnhizer's ownership of his patents: 1. This is a limited partnership case whereby the inventor had used FOR YEARS the capital of a partner to develop his inventions. 2. Then after using the capital and putting that capital "at risk",he denied the entity the right to own the inventor's technologies. 3. This case does not involve the vastly different rules of corporate officers fiduciary duty who are under a specific contract. Also there are many other points that make the case inapplicable in my opinion. And I did not have time to study the entire holding. Just key operational facts.
This case is not on point and does not apply. However, when returning, I will post further research in this area and probably will find cases relating to corporate law that establish Mr. Barnhizer's right to retain his patents. I will list the ON POINT cases here. Have great board discussions while I am away.
Parents
Footnote: 18181818 I never evaluate a case as to applicability to a specific circumstance without fully reading that case and shepardizing its history.
Parents
Thank you 1818 for your research; when I return from Switzerland, and after Christmas, I will read the case for its factual background. I appreciate your efforts to at least comply with my ON POINT request. This is better than a fiduciary dissertation.
Parents
AGREE ANDRE, AGREE
Parents
My challenge is simple: please cite me one case, one statute from Ohio or Delaware law that states:" an officer of a corporation without a contractual agreement must assign his patent under fiduciary law." NO ONE HAS ANSWERED the challenge with a specific case or statute. Not 1818181818 who did a dissertation on fiduciary law he thought would apply but no case, no statute given ON POINT.
Thus far my simple challenge has not been met. Andre, his effort was futile.
Parents
Remember Mr. Barnhizer has a LOT more facts at his command. He would do nothing that jeopardized the stability and growth of NNLX. However, my view is that a dividend, though small at first, would drive the shorts crazy; and that is a pleasant thought. Haha
Parents.
This is what I glean from my conversations with Mr. Barnhizer: Dilution is minimal and the company is making money thus needing PIPE funds less. Again I am not privy to inside information but management confirms its releases and is enthusiastic regarding sales and growth. For several years Mr Barnhizer and I have discussed NNLX,s goal to give dividends. Recently Mr Barnhizer reconfirmed the goal of NNLX giving dividends. He gave me no specific timetable, but my sense is that it will occur. In the future, obviously, but a firm goal set.
Parents (pardon my poor grammar..this from my IPad)
My sense is that we will have surprises before year's end which will shoot up the price. This is my expectation.
Parents
Correct, I am not privy to ANY inside information. But I always have the sense that NNLX is in forward motion, though this is not the sole basis of my projection.
Parents
weege and all my fellow investors; thank you for your kindness; Juliet, Abig Swiss banks do not have the privacy they used to be famous for. I am not sure exactly how that all changed, but apparently it has. We expect the price to continue in its uptrend until our goal is hit with the release of wonderful news. And we only have a small number of shares for sale at 2 dollars, more at 10 dollars which I expect, God willing, to hit in 2014, after dividends are announced. The hay is in the barn, the train has taken off and nothing can impede the momentum that is building. This is our expectation, not investment advice. I will not be posting an "I told you so" message. Just too grateful for the blessing to do that.
Thank you again and blessings to all.
Parents