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.
And when you say "$650M with fees paid" is what is on the table from GOOG, you are saying that GOOG will cover the 20% contingency to DS so that VRNG nets the whole $650M (before taxes of course)? Or are these "fees" simply the ~$100k that is currently being squabbled over in the Bill of Costs?
If it is the 20% for legal fees to DS, then that would be equivalent to a gross settlement of $812.5M. I know VRNG mgmt may feel they are worth more, and a number of shareholders likely would feel the same way -- however, any settlement number that begins with the number "8" may be too tempting to resist...
...assuming of course that this really is a legit offer being made, which brings us back to this: Could you elaborate on the basis for this "hunch" you have?
I must have missed that one. Are you saying that he predicted the announcement of the MSFT suit? Do you know what post # it was?
OK, now you're starting to scare me. All kidding aside though, are you being serious with your "hunch"? If so, what is your basis for it???
Ummm, come again?
886 was nothing more than paperwork housekeeping related to the numerous motions that had been filed by both sides requesting the sealing of various documents. Now that some matters have been addressed and others have been rendered moot due to the withdrawal of a previously filed motion, JJ is simply asking each party to submit a revised list of outstanding docs that they still really want to be sealed.
THAT'S IT.
This is the type of comment that is prevalent on ST -- and if that is where you got this idea from, well then you picked the right handle for yourself.
I would suggest staying as far away as possible from both ST and YMB...
Of course it's a gamble. No one here dismisses the notion of "speculation" when investing in a speculative stock like VRNG.
However, with high risk speculation is expectation of higher than normal returns -- hence the trade-off. And most investors in VRNG are understandably not as giddy as you as most investors are either underwater or have paper profits that do not yet justify the risks that they have endured and are still exposed to.
If VRNG has already made you rich, then this means that you were a very early investor in the "pre-JA article" days or you got lucky and scooped up a slew of shares during that flash crash to $1.75. If this is the case, then congrats to you.
But I stand by my comments that as of now, VRNG has given the vast majority of investors nothing to be giddy about...
Well, speaking only for myself, I didn't buy into this name to get warm fuzzy feelings or any moral victories. They may have won in your book, but the only book I care about when I invest/trade is my pocketbook, and VRNG has been leaving it pretty light of late.
It's all about the benjamins.
And although VRNG did secure a unanimous jury verdict, what good is it if they cannot monetize that verdict into anything meaningful?
Do I believe they will? Yes. But I'm also not that naive that I'm not cognizant of the fact that in the real world the notions of "justice", "fair play", and "what is right" oftentimes do not sync-up with "the law".
And based on the sp, the market clearly agrees that there is an element of uncertainty here still... ...at least until JJ rules and announces in a clear and convincing way that VRNG is in no uncertain terms a financial winner in this case.
Not trying to bash anyone or burst anyone's balloon, but just maintaining a balanced and measured approach and keepin' it real...
From the Freeforums board (credit to "unrivald"), here are the two dockets filed today...
Full docket text:
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller: [828] MOTION to Seal (1) Portions Of Defendants Memorandum In Support Of Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law On Non-Infringement Or New Trial; (2) Portions Of Defendants' Memorandum In Support Of Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law. (mwin, )
Full docket text:
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller: [859] MOTION to Expedite and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Expedite Briefing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Dr. Becker. (mwin, )
New PACER??? Anyone have access to PACER? Lots of rumblings on ST re: several filings today, most apparently having to do with JJ passing the reins (some? all?) back to Judge Tommy Miller...
JJ, appreciate the response. I guess, ultimately, what we as shareholders should be aware of is that there was something about the nature of 835 that enabled JJ (not you, but your bizarro-world counterpart who wields the gavel) to rule as soon as opposition briefs were filed.
The question is: Are you aware as to whether any of the other remaining outstanding motions may also possess similar characteristics (i.e. may potentially be ruled on prior to the 2/15 reply brief date that most of us have been mentally targeting in our heads)?
As always, thanks for sharing your knowledge...
JJ, posted this several days ago but it got buried over the weekend, so I thought I'd toss it your way again this morning:
If 846 was jointly filed and granted by JJ to extend the briefing schedules for all the motions filed on 12/18 (GOOG's 820/831/833 and VRNG's 822/825/835) -- and keep in mind 846 specifically etched in stone opposition and reply brief dates of 1/25 and 2/15, respectively -- then how in the world is JJ able to rule on 835 already today when VRNG still supposedly has until 2/15 to present its reply brief???
On a different board, a poster suggested that any motion that involves Rules 50, 52, or 59 do NOT require reply briefs and that once both sides have been heard at least once (i.e. one party files original motion and the opposition files their brief), then JJ could rule w/o needing to wait to see any reply brief.
I have never heard of this rule before. If true, it flies in the face of 846, so we have on record a situation akin to the story of the "irresistable ball and the immovable post" -- one of these seemingly has to give, right???
@flyersdh,
So that we are not talking apples and oranges here, would you mind elaborating on what criteria/assumptions you are using in defining what you view as the "consensus bull" outcome? For example:
* Are you assuming a 3.5% RR based on a 20.9% base? Or are you using 5.0% or 7.0% as your "bull" scenario? Same w/the base: Please confirm that you are not applying some uber-bullish base of higher than 20.9%. Reason is that I believe that most investors are expecting 3.5% of 20.9%.
* Are you assuming that the GOOG award is already fully-priced in and that the current sp simply reflects a discount due to the time factor? Reason is that I believe that most investors believe that the sp also reflects a heavy discount due to uncertainty and doubt.
* Are you assuming that, upon JJ ruling on the RR & royalty base, the market will not reward VRNG w/any multiples on their award from GOOG? Reason is that w/a proven ability to monetize their patents, specifically 420/664, I believe that most investors believe that their pipeline of enforcement actions against ZTE (3 suits) and now MSFT (specifically related to the now-proven 420/664 patents) will warrant at least a modest multiple -- and even a multiple as measly as 2, I struggle to see how the sp does not break the $5-$6 level that you project.
To be clear, I am not disputing your thesis. I only wish to better understand the premises you are using and reconcile it with my own. To the extent my facts are incorrect then I will revise them. But to the extent the premises are simply based upon differences of opinion, then that will be important to know as well.
tia.
@flyersdh,
So that we are not talking apples and oranges here, would you mind elaborating on what criteria/assumptions you are using in defining what you view as the "consensus bull" outcome? For example:
* Are you assuming a 3.5% RR based on a 20.9% base? Or are you using 5.0% or 7.0% as your "bull" scenario? Same w/the base: Please confirm that you are not applying some uber-bullish base of higher than 20.9%. Reason is that I believe that most investors are expecting 3.5% of 20.9%.
* Are you assuming that the GOOG award is already fully-priced in and that the current sp simply reflects a discount due to the time factor? Reason is that I believe that most investors believe that the sp also reflects a heavy discount due to uncertainty and doubt.
* Are you assuming that, upon JJ ruling on the RR & royalty base, the market will not reward VRNG w/any multiples on their award from GOOG? Reason is that w/a proven ability to monetize their patents, specifically 420/664, I believe that most investors believe that their pipeline of enforcement actions against ZTE (3 suits) and now MSFT (specifically related to the now-proven 420/664 patents) will warrant at least a modest multiple -- and even a multiple as measly as 2, I struggle to see how the sp does not break the $5-$6 level that you project.
To be clear, I am not disputing your thesis. I only wish to better understand the premises you are using and reconcile it with my own. To the extent my facts are incorrect then I will revise them. But to the extent the premises are simply based upon differences of opinion, then that will be important to know as well.
tia.
Question for JJ:
As an attorney, you got yourself a big bulls-eye on your back when investors in patent cases like this have questions! So, I've got one for you:
If 846 was jointly filed and granted by JJ to extend the briefing schedules for all the motions filed on 12/18 (GOOG's 820/831/833 and VRNG's 822/825/835) -- and keep in mind 846 specifically etched in stone opposition and reply brief dates of 1/25 and 2/15, respectively -- then how in the world is JJ able to rule on 835 already today when VRNG still supposedly has until 2/15 to present its reply brief???
On a different board, a poster suggested that any motion that involves Rules 50, 52, or 59 do NOT require reply briefs and that once both sides have been heard at least once (i.e. one party files original motion and the opposition files their brief), then JJ could rule w/o needing to wait to see any reply brief.
I have never heard of this rule before. If true, it flies in the face of 846, so we have on record a situation akin to the story of the "irresistable ball and the immovable post" -- one of these seemingly has to give, right???
@flyersdh,
I know that you feel that the 10b5-1 plan could put a damper on any run-up, so in this regard, I agree that this is a potential "anti-catalys" (for lack of a better word!).
But I am interested in hearing your thoughts as to any other reasons besides the 10b5-1 plan that could temper the realization of a short squeeze for VRNG.
@flyersdh,
I agree that clearly short squeezes do not occur every time a catalyst hits (obviously), even if it is a major catalyst. No one knows except the market, and even the market itself won't know until the catalyst hits and decides not only "how" it wants to react to it but just as importantly "when" it wants to react to it.
I don't think that xlt is trying to say that a squeeze on the scale of Porsche/VW is what he is expecting, but it sure does seem like the basic conditions that are typically necessary for a squeeze (or at least consistent with being present when squeezes occur) are here with VRNG.
That being said, I am curious as to your closing statement though. Do you say that more in a way to simply say "There's no guarantee a short squeeze will happen; it may or it may not, so it may not be wise to count on it" or are you saying that you really do NOT believe that there will be a short squeeze when VRNG's catalyst hits?
If it is the latter, would you mind elaborating as to why you believe this is the case?
tia
Glad to see you're not wearing a hairnet... ...maybe the few lucky customers who find your hair in their links can turn them in just like the golden tickets in Willy Wonka! (just kidding! Relatively new poster here but have been observing for quite some time. Always enjoyed your comments JJ; the other JJ, not so much...)
xlt,
WSJ is a large publication that covers the entire universe of stocks. I would find it difficult to believe that its journalists have biases against VRNG. I may be wrong and I may be naive, but my insticts tell me that it is much more likely that given the volume of articles that these journalists have to deliver that it is simply a matter of a lack of eduction on the real issues coupled with a lack of desire/time to go dig up deeper facts -- especially in the face of competing demands for articles on other stocks/stories that involve companies much larger and well known than VRNG... ...again, JMHO...
Agree w/your observations, xlt.
It's one thing when someone w/an agenda like DR writes a slanted piece (i.e. KNOWINGLY cherry-picks facts and intentionally omits other facts), but when I keep seeing pieces from major media outlets like WSJ, Bloomberg, MF, etc (yes, reputation level of each varies, but the point is that they have major circulation and tons of eyeballs on them) refer to the VRNG-GOOG case as "VRNG winning only $30M", it just makes me believe more and more that the market really has no idea what is really going on here.
And I don't blame them either -- in the bigger picture of the market, who really cares enough about one itty bitty smallcap like VRNG to dedicate the time necessary to truly understand the issues at stake?
Point being that, yes, the sp reflects market sentiment. But I am encouraged by my belief that market sentiment is based on a current condition of being woefully uninformed, and that once finality comes the market will react accordingly.
JMHO...
Remember guys, these sales were pre-planned long ago to coincide w/the vesting schedule for their RSU's in order to cover the tax withholdings. There is nothing nefarious going on.
VRNG did the RIGHT thing by sending out what many view as a meaningless PR yesterday -- they are fully aware that the masses of retail investors don't know or don't remember the terms of their 10b5-1 plan and would completely freak out if these Form 4's hit the public airwaves today w/o explanation.
VRNG took proper pre-emptive steps to minimize the market volatility in reaction to the Form 4's by letting the public know in advance that this was coming and why it was coming. Without yesterday's PR, 99% of retail would be screaming bloody murder and "WTF is going on?" and "I thought they couldn't sell unless the sp was at least $4.25?"
The big players and the TUT's are fully aware of the terms of the 10b5-1 plans and did not need yesterday's PR to understand the nature of the Form 4's being filed today. IMHO, yesterday's PR was issued for the benefit of retail like us.
So I believe that it is a rush to judgment and much too premature to be concluding that VRNG mgmt doesn't give a squat about retail... ...at least until after the pop when the TUT's own closer to 40%, then maybe...
Folks, if you are in it til the catalyst, then don't stress out about inter/intra day movements in the sp during the days leading up to the event. It is nothing but white noise. Certainly, if you are trading this name, then by all means pay attention to the volatility.
We all know that TDox is the only product in CLSN's pipeline and that this catalyst is a "feast or famine" event.
As such, if you plan on holding thru the announcement of the results, then any volatility in the sp up until the announcement is truly meaningless. The sp is nothing more than an arbitrary number at an arbitrary point in time. Even the closing sp for any given day is irrelevant as it represents an arbitrary cutoff by the exchange for accounting purposes, as trading continues virtually seamlessly in AH where the sp continues to change.
Assuming good results, the pop will take the sp wherever market sentiment will take it, regardless of whether it begins that day at $9 or at $7.50.
So relax folks, and be thankful you don't have the stress of a stock like VRNG!
I agree that any news on ZTE will unlikely be a catalyst of any kind as it is only supposed to be ZTE's response to the Court re: VRNG's suit. The only catalyst short of a trial victory (which is a long ways off) would be a randomly timed announcement of a settlement.
I don't see ZTE basing any decision on what is going on across the pond w/GOOG, especially since they are completely different patents at issue.
Logic would seem to lead one to infer that ZTE would follow the path of countless defendants before them and wait until the eleventh hour to settle -- in this case perhaps when the imposition of an injunction becomes increasingly imminent...
(ps: in the interests of full disclosure, I post under the handle "newbie" on the freeforums board, but that handle was not available here, so not trying to pretend to be someone else or anything like that!)