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.
Just 3 hours ago, taken from another MB
By chazzy58
All,
The Manifold Vector portfolio (i.e. SVM Capital) had another outstanding performance for the second week in January.
January week one two 2 weeks
Manifold Vector portfolio -0.29% +0.10% -0.18%
S&P 500 -5.96% -2.14% -8.01%
MV differential +5.68% +2.14% +7.82%
Even yesterday, with the S&P 500 down 2.16%, MV was up 0.07%. This relative performance parallels the “paper trading” results since November 15 along with the live trading results of the last two days in December. I personally believe that such performance is not a fluke and that MV’s goal of producing positive returns over time under any market conditions is quite achievable.
A correction to last week’s note, I should have written “HDC and Atlantic Alpha (i.e. Mark Moore’s firm) jointly created SVM Capital which undertook the effort…)
__________________________
report from 9 January
All,
The Manifold Vector market neutral portfolio had an outstanding start for the first week in January 2016:
Manifold Vector portfolio -0.29%
S&P 500 -5.96%
MV differential +5.68%
This parallels MV's relative performance since the "paper launch" in mid-November and live trading launch for the last two days in December. MV’s goal is to produce positive returns under any market scenario over time. HDC and SVM Capital jointly undertook this effort over 8 years ago and partnered with Manifold Partners in 2015.
Bill
Consider this discussion or opinion.
Of course profits will be more in a down turn but as usual nothing but words. With the massive Billions of dollars involved in the Grail corporation that Mr. Putnam is partners in when will he put the REAL money in the pot to prove the technology
King, spilled milk - Intel Patents!
I’m a bit put out being the longest and dumbest long here in the first place plus thinking some decade that I may break even with this mess.
As for the Intel patent or patents it is my understanding from reading the documents and language set forth by the USPTO that the Weston art work/patent had areas that could not show a direct check and balances of his claims. Somewhere within all of this the main Intel patent was modified at least 3 times to steer around the Weston patent but besides that it also looks like HDC missed a timing factor which threw another wrench in all of this. It appears to me but I could be wrong that the Intel patent that the fight is about actually is far superior to the Weston patent so I doubt that HDC will ever pursue the issues which looks cut a dry to me. As for Intel patents 8,108,324 and 8,756,174 I don’t know what bearing these actually have on HDC other patents.
Mr. Scott Tobin was our President, General Counsel, Principal Financial Officer and Director during this time. He recall how excited he was about HDC but what went wrong besides Barnhill. Where were the patent attorneys during this time? Who was responsible for what appeared as a missed timing as mentioned above.
The timing issue along with what the USPTO had to say about the Weston Patent and of course the Intel patent can be accessed at the USPTO website and the patents can be read at the freepatentsonline website.
BQ would you care to comment!
Consider this as discussion or opinion!
HDVY Management and many of us shareholders don’t like the Intel Patent number 7,685,077 right?
I don't think I like the other two patents by Intel either!
Intel patents 8,108,324 and 8,756,174.
How many other patents are of concern and what if anything can be done about the two latest patents. Patent attorneys don't work without money but as for patent 7,685,077 that is a done deal.
Can HDC do anything about patents 8,108,324 & 8,756,174?
HDVY shareholders and management have been concerned about patent number 7,685,077 by Intel but should we be concerned about Intel's other patent 8,756,174. How many other patent filings exist and of course by other corporations? No doubt a fair question provided someone within HDVY is on top of all this.
You can check things out by using Freepatentsonline or by USPTO offices.
View this as discussion or opinion.
The NeoGenomic Corporation have exhausted their two one year contract extensions yet within SEC filings HDC seems to indicate further collaboration is ongoing and I do hope so however, that statement can actually be a smoke screen or turn out great? The contract between HDC and NeoGenomic call for $5 million to be paid by 1/6/17. The other area that may slow monies to HDC is the fact that no funds will be paid until NeoGenomic Corporation recoups certain development and commercialization cost that appear to be prior and associated with sub licensing? Anyways NEO is the only game in town and if they walk away HDC won’t be three quarters dead but all dead.
Problem areas such as management, existing management will also need to be replaced. They are basic part timers and besides that they all have other business priorities. A few might play golf twice a week and they may need to move along too. You can’t have any of the existing directors stay in this corporation. From our past we have watched directors not deal effectively in replacing or ousting people. Ethics and principles should come into play within all HDC and I say this as we have seen what appears to be company news or opinion being messaged or posted by proxy in message threads. That may soothe the ears of some but raises the hair along with huge red flags for future investors.
Consider this discussion or opinion
There have been papers filed as early as 2001-03 that involve SVM in financial areas including worldwide patents. SVM is not something that any one company owns it is the algorithms processing that must be protected with patents. For any company to think by not protecting their artwork by filing something tells me they either don’t have what they tend to emit or it isn’t patentable. Most know full well filing that application to gain a date is of the upmost importance. I’m curious about the 45% that HDVY is to receive from SVMC. All this means nothing without profits but clearly means NOTHING to HDVY shareholders since they don’t know what percentage SVMC is to retain from Manifold Vector & the other partners.
I still have high hope involving NEO and most should feel fairly good about that too however, the comment made on another massage board involving why aren’t big players buying HDVY stock? HDVY has nothing to date nothing and REAL corporations won’t buy into corporations as such. Yes, NEO but look how many years that took and no other takers in sight. HDVY must show the money in some fashion or forever remain at the bottom of the bucket in share price.
Could HDVY ever start a small buy back of common shares and retire them. I love these penny stock companies that talk about shareholder value yet never provide as such. I the same breath must compliment the company for their rigorous money saving effort that we have seen plus Mark and Hong for their long hours and hard work. As for BQ talking about not providing publication or patenting I say I’m still shaking my head from reading that.
BTW . . . Most of the financial algorithms that I am aware of were designed for down market/shorting. SVM financials and applications in the market had been around for years.
Take everything written as discussion or opinion.
Hello King, nothing new with 1492 Capital Management. Some may or may not know they have had a high turnover rate involving our shares. I don’t recall if they did services for shares or just various investments but my present guess...they are probably now holding “C” shares. They may have extended themselves with a new round of financing for HDVY. You do know holding “C” shares is the best way to go especially if HDVY goes up in smoke! I have been watching this and believe within the next 45 days we will know if they RS the stock. I will probably never get out of prison been here 13 years, long before HDVY.
btw...with them holding above the .027 mark for 30 days expect news of some sort!
The Intel patent is just that, theirs. This was explained about 3 years ago. The information is available at the USPTO. As I recall it explained what Intel did and what HDVY didn’t do. This is about as short of answer that I can give.
Yes I read the 10Q and no doubt must give the company an A+ on company savings plus new patent work involving several areas such as SVM Capital in which HDC is the owner of patent.
I wonder about the SVM Capital deal as to the actual division in the partnership. I mean is it a 3 way split in which SVM Capital would make around 33 percent so therefore HDVY would possibly make 14.85 percent? From reading the Manifold Partner press release dated around June 6 of this year seems to lead me to think this. So it would serve well that HDVY management explain the percentage that SVM Capital is to make. We already know what HDVY will pull 45 percent of SVM Capital income. A must is to know the breakdown in percentages between the 3 entities. If the parties are splitting equally this would mean SVM Capital would get 33 percent of the pie whereas HDVY would obtain 45 percent of SVM Capital meaning 14.85 percent at max. We must find out what is the factual split between the 3 players and does SVM Capital make money from the 2 existing entities that were already established.
Neo Genomic – pray they don’t walk away since they are done with the two one year extension. This appears to give hope. As for Manifold Partners, without further clarification I don’t trust them or the so call deal.
I see not much has changed?
So we are still alive or breathing with respirator power? In that case who is paying that bill. I thought we would have heard about a RS by now, well I have roughly 2 more weeks but don't wish to see that happen but see no other choice.
The differences between NEO and us should be clear and the same as to Intel. We have always had sharp management who have shown a slow hand at watching/guarding the patents. Some have blamed our patent attorneys but did you not see that it was the inventors documents used to try and defend the company. Did the fallout possibly start with a thought that someone within the company may or may not have noticed Intel's patent however, all during this time Intel had redone/modified that patent several times to move away from HDVY patents but in the end Intel was able to proof the language teaching points clearly. I still believe from looking back that our first mistake appears to be someone was asleep but not positive who/whom within the company.
We look at NEO and do we really understand why we will most likely NEVER be in the same arena? They have many, many products and we have a few tools and ZERO products. Please don't get me going on BQ or about SVM Capital, no doubt the SVM Capital is another nothing as we have seen over 7-9 years now. No what was posted on the RB board about an insider knowing of a private buy of around 2.8 million shares not recorded? Wow, darn shame, within a week of that post we CLEARLY saw 2.8 million shares that were DUMPED and YES THAT WAS RECORDED.
Investors where try or are privy to information sent to them don't realize until it is too later that they maybe very well be used by someone. I recall some expecting me to apologize for some things that I have written and I really never intend to hurt anyone nor misled but all in all has not HDVY mislead us to the hilt!
All we can do is wait for the final axe or do we survive/exist for another year.
Terry, hope all is well, everything here is great except this HDVY-penny.
The fact remains we are waiting as usual, another fact, SVM Capital was formed in January 2007 yet not a nickel has been made since! Just think if you were Atlantic Alpha Strategies would you sit on a technology involving SVM if it were so great. It has been 7 plus years yet we are still winning contest and not making money! Something doesn’t seem right.
CosmoWorld7, my friend....I have never forgotten you and I'm truly sorry I refused to post here back during a time when I had no problem paying for premium services on this website. It all came crashing down when the two females (The Kissing Cousins) as I called them continued to chase premium accounts from this website. I see you have not presented any messages here in sometime. With that I have some fear that your health may have degraded but I sure hope not. My health since 2007 is now almost over whelming great even with the massive medical problems that has existed. Of course many stories are involved with this and by the grace of the GOD of my understanding or not understanding I am still here today and smiling :) I am a bit concerned for you since it has been a while since you had last posted here. I know I still have your email written down in one of my booklets but where I had placed that surely isn't at hand. Even in a wild guess should you read this please don't even try to recall my name in any thread, thank you and just maybe your health in just fine but no longer post here any more.
Terry, hope all is well...just a note to let you know I'm fine.
WELL! It seems that the 10-K filings for 2008 – 2013 state the following about those who seem to enjoy Mr. Quirk. It seems his holdings as of 12-31-13 show basically 14 million shares? Here is the basic flow
10-K 2008 (68 Million shares)
2009 (55)M
2010 (32)M
2011 (24)M
2012 (21)M
2013 (13 Million shares)
No doubt this director knows full well where HDC is headed! It is clear that actions speak much clearer than any of his past so-called-letters some have placed in threads. We will see a R/S filling within 6 months, PERIOD! Those with multiple accounts had better consolidate for the coming jolt, as if we are not trained already from the past pain from this however, in the same breath I must add they have done well in trying to keep the corporation afloat but with who in mind. No doubt as I also mentioned to watch for the bailing of holders/investments of B shares well it has happen.
_______________ [end]
Those that still wait for any positive change involving the Intel patent just know it will never happen and know it has nothing to do with lacking finances. It started long ago but if you are still wondering why you will need to dig up all my past messaging involving the subject.
Terry:
I doubt any class action proceedings will ever happen against the party you speak of since nothing has occurred involving “The Doctor”. I would not even look towards him but rather HDC since they pulled him back in their covey. The end result would fall on HDC!
What is really interesting look to the right and study the viewer profiles. It will give you a better understanding (to state the least) of who is who, and who is or was playing in whose sandbox!
Karl, check this out..............
http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenbarnhill
Karl, I believe with the alliance of Covance will play in a positive direction but even if a buyout were to happen we would be lucky to walk away with .10-.20 per share at the most.
If HDC files bankruptcy and re-opens as another being a public or private entity we would be screwed simply because of the common stock value being “NO PAR VALUE”.
Terry, no need to answer]eom
Hey there Terry
I do wonder about the HDC stock buys just days prior and after October 21. They seem to average out to about .036 which I believe was option price. It would be wise to gather what they could specially if the company was about ready to make a move toward a sale of assets/technology, or prior closing their doors. I guess options could very well be seen as payment or future payment. The idea that BQ was offered and may or may not have started buying makes me wonder about an early sell of most of our assets, meaning patents for .05 -.15. No doubt Bill had made money either on the negative/positive of this stock. Hey! Do you recall within the agreement between HD and him that he agreed not to short this stock. Is that to say that as long as one is an active member/director of the company that he/she is allowed to short company stock? Why else tell him he couldn’t within the separation agreement? I always have thought it was legal to short stock but to do so with pennies one would need a huge account that was held within a corporate structure away from the company that you were shorting.
Terry, do you have a clue about shorting penny stocks or perhaps someone that reads this or even someone within HD might help me understand the shorting rules? Regardless, I have always believed shorting was and is legal but maybe a few laws might come into play about penny stock and corporate directors and retail traders?
I hope you are doing well, as always un-edited to drive readers crazy : )
Terry, check out HDCY give away shares....
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141788/000118811213003026/t77667_8k.htm
ITEM 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
In connection with his appointment to the Board of Directors in July 2013, on October 21, 2013, the Board of Directors of Health Discovery Corporation (the “Company”) granted to Mr. William Quirk an option to purchase 1,500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. This option grant is consistent with what has been granted to other board members. The options vest 250,000 shares every six months, have an exercise price of $0.036, and expire on October 21, 2023.
Also, on October 21, 2013, the Company granted options to purchase 6,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to a group of employees and consultants in recognition of their efforts to lower the Company’s monthly expenditures and compensation and their continuing contributions to the Company. The options vest over a three-year period, have an exercise price of $.036, and expire on October 21, 2023. Within the group of 6,000,000 options, the Company’s Vice President, Mark A. Moore, Ph.D., received an option to purchase 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and the Company’s Senior Vice President, Hong Zhang, Ph.D., received an option to purchase 750,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. The non-cash charge for the fair value of each option will be recognized as an expense over the three-year vesting period.
I meant, complete closure of the company, as for any assets I doubt anything will be left as most know HDC is great about destroying anything of any value!
Terry, most can see that a couple of men were NEVER hired as directors and the rest in HDC and others are simply pointing figures. I sincerely believe it is nothing more than a point figure act prior to filing NOT bankruptcy but rather compete sale of the company. This all seems that no one is able to take responsibility, nor responsibility for their inactions or actions. One big bad play that we all can see is just a format for closing HDC by way of the SEC, because if the SEC becomes involved we will be shut down and surely the rest of HDC funds will be exhausted prior to anything else, the fork is truly into us and it stated with Barnhill who I would have never dreamed in a million years as to what we all have learned over time in this investment, just unreal!
Hang in here my friend, I have been here prior BH and should have sold when John talked about it way back but felt even though this was another penny stock I felt with the professionalism that BH had was everlasting, BS so I learned again down $480k with soon to be adding another $35k from HDC. Needless to say all my play-doh money has been exhausted. I’ll be 180 years old before my deductions run out so why not just let it ride as you probably will expect that at least 1 more run in HDC is yet to come. I won’t ever forget the 45 min rule or 3 day typical pump however if I could possibly recover an even out after a decade plus with HDC I’ll be tickled to death, HEY! I need someone to talk and chat with from time to time so Terry hold your hand as it has been many years. At least you might have so play monies leaf mine is all gone. Well? Of course if you sell or not you can always do as you have before with writing articles and posting all over the net as I recall? I myself just watch HDC as that is it for me and never should anyone play in pennies except with play monies set asset. The table will beat you 99.9% of the time. Of course there is the Kinetic 90 cycles which look tempting but I am afraid to contact options on the negative side of a stock but that is wise to those that truly understand the securities world. Maybe if I were not as old and sharp as some of the younger people I would get involved in the 90 day cycling and options to cover my bet.
Unless BQ is able to somehow convert his stock to preferred shares he may very well be in the same rowboat as most of us on hard pump however, if a deal were to be made?, with an MM then we may as well kiss the dirt.
I still see maybe 1 more pump to possibly break even or at least close to that. I think my average is around .11 w/ranges .02-.59 cent if I recall. I think this must be done +- 2 mo 1/14, yet who really knows anything but be read with the triggering or if some dare then buy more.
If you haven’t sold all HDC shares yet then wait for the pump. It is clear to me that BQ still has massive millions of shares to either make good on one way or the other, Millions upon millions of shares he has.
Yes my old friend I still have my shares too! I guess I won't ever learn?
King Oil, with respect there is far more reason to watch them other than 1 or 2 holds.
I'll touch base in another 30 days if able
I have explained prior and will again what mistakes were made by what appears to be on behave of HDC verses the USPTO and of course the Weston patent. As for the Guyon papers she gave a good fight but it was just that. My hat is off to her and Weston for being years ahead of anyone on the planet and perhaps If someone other than the patent attorney’s within the HDC office had been on top of things in a much better way they may have caught the lapsed time and have spotted the Intel in the proper time frame that is delegated to anyone who has art work and patent to act upon within a certain time period by the USPTO. There are other areas within HDC patents that more here already know was the fact that some patents as you may recall were written so broad the USPTO would not allow HDC patents as written and were forced to near down focus. Weston’s patents were so far advanced there were no others to compete with but Intel was also working in the same areas. Do understand that these patents such as the Weston verses that Intel patent were both required in their own realm to not first be accepted by the paten offices but when HDC were challenging the Intel patent Intel was in a super race with further modifications and calling for a re-examination by themselves as I had indicated 1 year ago. Sure Intel was shot down 3 times involving several lines of concern to state the least. Intel proved several areas in the Weston patent that the teachings within that patent were not correct and so forth.
There is much more and I ‘m so sorry that Intel was awarded especially as heavily of an investment that I have in HDC along with the years I have had he prior Dr. Barnhill. It appears that the Intel patent as I understand it is indeed superior to ours but what we must understand we still have a boat load of patents. We still have our SVM-RFE patent that I rate far greater when coupled with our entire portfolio. The more I think about what went wrong and for me to really pin point in another message is truly not worth going back there.
Let Neogenomic’s do their work and don’t worry about them sucking up our patents nor Intel unless the price is right.
Regardless who may like BQ on a given day or not ask yourself this? Would you like to have our famous CEO that came into the picture in August of 2003 who had integrity in mega years and brought all that to HDC as he has or at least now have a man such as BQ if need that has the experience to wind down HDC if it come to it. We can’t have it both ways we must now come together and hope they are truly trying to save HDC.
____
T.H. the comment I made about I told you so was just that and nothing more. I had once told you (if you recall) that you could always feel free to say anything to me or about me in any thread! Hey that’s you so what the heck. I had to change alias for a few reasons. LTDcoverage is my friend but have not emailed him in a long time and due to a recent surgery it will be much later.
I took a week to get this out as written, when in the world will I ever become smart enough to just dictate this stuff , what a hard head I have in the wrong place.
I would like many here to revaluate my past posts regarding HDVY verses the Intel patent. When it was brought to this MB that someone on RB stated I did not know what I was saying when I said INTEL had remodified the patent several times and was approved. The modification were truly beyond HDC patent in many ways. Will this hurt us down the road? Don't know but as you still look for an exit point before "B" shares become common so keep a close eye on those shares.
T.H. I told you so!
So Director Mineta didn't vote? Generally speaking most new Directors of a corporation would normally always vote. I could not express this enough or we could look at this as if Mr. Mineta has seen his fill already and is on his way out the back door? WOW, I pray not! Terry, as for McKenzie being on the Auditing committee, I have no clue but first thought says he/she should not hold any position within HDC.
Terry, Joe McKenzie had to be removed simply because he was so close to Barnhill. I have no idea why it has taken so long for Norris to removed him. I gather he need to convince the board or was it the other way around. We sure seen some heavy selling recently and wonder if it was the result of McKenzie convert his B shares and selling or Barnhill dumping or perhaps both double teaming HDC shareholders. My thanks to Joe and Stephen for all those cheap shares!
Another sad day for HDC, discussing business developments in private or was that really public? We have known for years of the selective hearing problems of HDC towards us shareholders and now we see selective business discussions going on? What really takes the cake here, it seems either party could care less for the contract agreement, so it seems!
It will take 25% of the outstanding stock in HDC to force a meeting of the shareholders.
The only thing new today June 18th is the 8-K filing with indicate the following.............
ITEM 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
On June 12, 2013, Health Discovery Corporation (the “Company”) amended the Employment Agreement with John Norris, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, dated as of December 18, 2013 (the "Employment Agreement"). The amendment extends the initial term of the Employment Agreement until December 9, 2013 (the "Initial Term").
The amendment, requested by Mr. Norris, allows additional time for the Company’s Board of Directors to review the Employment Agreement. In addition, the amendment provides for an evaluation of the terms of the Employment Agreement by an expert compensation consultant, selected by the Company and who is acceptable to Mr. Norris, for fairness to the Company and to Mr. Norris prior to the end of the Initial Term. The Company shall have the right to terminate the Employment Agreement as of the end of the Initial Term. If not so terminated or modified by mutual agreement, the Employment Agreement will be automatically extended for an additional three-year term.
I have read other message boards and must say if we are done it is due to our past.
Neo is our ticket of life as long as they continue to see value in our patents. As I said long ago forget anything referencing the Intel patent worry about our near term survival.
The latest news/discussions about Gene patents actually presents more value with our technologies and patents.
As for Tobin V. Barnhill I would believe this is old news but if not just know that Tobin seems to be blocking all exists from Barnhill.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/georgia/gasdce/4:2012cv00207/58261/16/0.pdf
If for any reason this link doesn't work just do a search as follows Tobin V. Barnhill
Enough for now......
According to the Company Bylaws it will require 25% of the outstanding shares to call for the special meeting and yes the company may recognize certain people such as Bill and others but don’t look for any change or added venue unless the representation in both investors and shares are substantial enough to get more than their attention meaning fear. It is a shame after ten long years the newest terms of management without Barnhill are no different today. Barnhill deferred his paychecks to help the company but besides by doing so look at the interest he tacked on at a later date when he did get those checks. The company may need to look at the interest & dividends being paid quarterly to those holding (B) preferred stock.
Come on Terry? It can easily be seen that Quirk was involved in many investment areas involving HDC. He has been the lead investor in twice as I recall and personally investing his money too. Most know that he was the lead investor in the 2007 private placement. Earlier on March 31, 2006 he purchased 1,000,000 common shares with accompanying warrants and even earlier he purchased a significant equity stake in the company in its successful private placement on July 26, 2005. I will not track down every filing involving his shares either way but you can see that on September 1, 2006, in connection with the issuance of the Promissory Note to William F. Quirk, Jr., the Company issued 10,000,000 warrants to purchase shares of common stock of the Company to Mr. Quirk at an exercise price of $0.16 per share. The warrants have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and until so registered the warrants /shares of common stock into which the warrants may be converted may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or the availability of an applicable exemption from registration. The warrants described above were offered and sold in reliance upon exemptions from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Regulation D promulgated there under. Based on the information provided by Mr. Quirk, he qualifies as an accredited investor (as defined by Rule 501 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended).
Re: RB message 18851 by Aem7911
……If Quirk gets control over the company, the best share price we'll see is @$.15 as he would sell for that number; I realize $.15 sounds great when you're treading water at $.04 but a lot of shareholders are still upside down at that number. Bottom line, don't be naïve and think Quirk has anyone's interests, but his own, in mind.
--
I believe you hit the nail on the head and if he were to be involved then we might see HDC liquidating at around .15 cent per share. We really need to figure what the real worth is with our patents and the real possibilities of the company successfully moving forward. At any rate if Bill holds 21 million shares and Sells at .15 that would total $3 million dollars. Let’s backup and view the history of the 2007 private placement. Sure most understand/recall that he saved HDC by the $1 million plus dollar purchase of shares/warrants. We are all sincerely grateful for such grace and it doesn’t stop there. He was the lead investor in the 2007 private placement in which amendments and additional amendments were made by Barnhill that increased the range of investment monies to $4,500,000.00 and then to and possibly more than $6,500,000.00 by other investors in the placement. The other large investment among others which I’m sure Bill brought to the table was Prime Mover Capital and partners. So to say his involvement with just $1,000,000 dollars was wrong. You could safely say he brought at least $3 million dollars to the table but may have brought in many more. The filings indicate the range from $4.5 million to possibly more than $6.5 million depending on the many amendment changes Barnhill made. This was not the only issue at hand and Bill had the legal right to challenge Barnhill and did. In the end both came to agree in the 2010 settlement agreement that we talk about this month but I can’t help but think our CEO had caused great pain with many of our staff and to key investors such as Bill along with the truck load of others that have come and gone with the wind. It may have been different had all of this not have been during the time of Quest, who was really holding the cards back then? After 10 long years there is hardly anything left but Barnhill is finally gone! It is probably too late for Norris to salvage the company but my hope is with him. It would not surprise me to see a reverse split next week or even a 8-K involving restructuring or even bankruptcy. I say this because most corporations don’t wait until the money runs out to file. You need funds to do all that is necessary involving various attorneys to set forth proceedings and to take part along with any liquidation and of course final wind down.
--
Why would the company or the vast majority of investors want Bill to be involved? I say no way as I don’t trust him. The settlement agreement makes all this clear but will add in part my thoughts along with SEC filing notes. Now we come to the close of this message and again it is clear that Bill was the lead investor in the 2007 private placement. It is crystal clear that according to SEC documents that the share amount that would need to be paid if everyone in the placement wanted the same remedy as Bill would come to a total of 1,099,494,972 shares. This of course would be added on top of the existing share base during the 2010 settlement agreement. Why does it appear that Bill may have been the only investor that I have found that opt this remedy? Can anyone find other investors that opted the same remedy because I really want to be fair? If so who? I am being sincere, I haven’t found anyone else yet but if I am wrong I will make reference to being incorrect in the message threads.
It seem around 99% of the investors did not opt the same remedy? Why is that? Did they care for us shareholders? Or did they care about the company or both? I am leaning to believe that they were concerned about how this could affect deals with Quest and Abbott and of course the strong threat that the additional shares of over 1 billion shares might collapse the company. Now I ask regardless of us shareholders who cared for the success of the company and who may have only cared for their wallet.
---
HDC shareholders should now have 1,099,494,972 potential reasons why Barnhill and Bill should never be re-considered to allow control or hold any position paid or not within HDC.
I sincerely believe that if Bill had never opt the remedy that he would have been re-elected as a paid Director to say the least. The potential devastation of 1,099,494,972 shares/warrants can never be forgotten.
Below concludes parts of the 10-Q filing dated 5-17-2010 of pages 8 and 7 of this message.
HEALTH DISCOVERY CORPORATION
Notes to Financial Statements, continued
Note H – COMMITMENTS
The Company is subject to various claims primarily arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be determined, the Company does not believe it is probable that any such claims will result in material costs and expenses.
The Company has received letters from an investor in the Company’s 2007 private placement (“2007 Private Placement”), claiming (a) that certain rights to receive additional common stock of the Company for no additional consideration have been triggered by certain actions of the Company, (b) breaches of its contractual rights to approve certain issuances of derivative securities, (c) breaches of other covenants made by the Company in the 2007 Private Placement, (d) the Company had violated its SEC disclosure obligations, and (e) various breaches by the members of the Board of Directors of their fiduciary duties. The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend these claims. However, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter if the investor brings suit against the Company. Such a lawsuit would be time consuming, distract our management from the business of the Company and result in substantial expenditures to defend the claim, each of which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, if we are unsuccessful in defending against the claims, the Company may be required, among other things, to issue approximately 146,664,375 shares to such investor, and if all of the other investors in the 2007 Private Placement sought the same remedy, the Company may be required to issue approximately 1,099,494,872 shares in the aggregate. Issuing any significant portion of such shares of Common Stock would cause substantial dilution to existing shareholders.
8
Note G – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
In April 2010, the Company received a cash payment of $500,000 from Quest in connection with a license granted to Quest in March 2010. The Company also received a $41,666 payment from Quest in April 2010 in connection with a development agreement entered into in March 2010.
On May 6, 2010, William F. Quirk, Jr., a shareholder of the Company, filed a declaratory judgment action in Georgia state court In the filing, Mr. Quirk contends that, because Mr. Quirk is a 10% shareholder of the Company, the expiration date for certain warrants issued to him is September 7, 2012 rather than September 7, 2010.
The warrants in question were issued to Mr. Quirk in September 2007 in HDC’s 2007 private placement transaction and consist of (i) a warrant to purchase up to 16,263,888 shares of HDC common stock at a price of $0.14 per share, and (ii) a warrant to purchase up to 16,263,888 shares of HDC common stock at a price of $0.19 per share. Although the stated expiration date for these warrants is September 7, 2010, Mr. Quirk contends that the expiration date for shareholders holding more than 10% of HDC’s common stock is extended automatically by two years. Accordingly, Mr. Quirk is seeking a judicial declaration that he may exercise his warrants at any time prior to September 7, 2012. Mr. Quirk also is seeking award of his attorney’s fees in connection with the action.
HDC has engaged outside counsel to evaluate the claim and to defend HDC in the action.
EHWest
I explained all this last year and will 1 more time. The end result was that the Intel patent was reexamined as I said and also the request was by Intel (as I said last year) No other reexamination is need nor will transpire. If you follows the documents then it is easily seen but if not those who feel they are in the dark will stay there because people are not listening. Everything has been completed as per USPTO and the Intel patent as discussed was recertified C1.
Of course with some of the rambling I will do below I sure hope that at least a few might understand what may have been the downfall along with some of the reasons why some may have pointed fingers at other executives.
This is to conclude a few posts from 8/2012 and now the results confirmed by the USPTO involving Intel patent 7,685,077, 10/587094, 90/011,938 by Intel plus Weston’s patent 7,475,048 and anything that Guyon thought she could through into the pot.
At that time the same claims as described below could be found on the same Claims/Remarks filed and as further mentioned below. There is the initial fault by HDC that reference a time period missed. This to me was mentioned in post 10723 but apparently all none had mentioned that they had figured this out which could be why we had the blowout between Barnhill & Tobin. I mentioned this crucial missed deadline and can be seen within USPTO documentation. I’m not touching this area again and will be up to the reader to conclude what they believe is truth upon reading.
As for the Intel patent, the application 90/011,938 came into play in a big way and was modified several times and may have done so ahead of time while working with the input through the USPTO. It appeared that HDC may not have seen the modifications being done to further fine tune their application to extend patent 7,685,077 through re-modifying 90/011,938. When the Weston patent was mentioned the USPTO forced Intel to further modify and correct the language to steer clear of the Weston patent and Intel was proved that the Weston patent was not teaching the same exact avenues. This can be seen clearly in the CLM/REM documents providing discussions involving the teachings of the Intel applications verses the Weston patents/application, and the Guyon papers. And as I stated back in August it was Intel that requested the Reexamination. There is no reason at this point for a further Reexamination, PERIOD!
Now with the consideration the USPTO made sure that the Intel patent to be known as 7,685,077 was EX PARTE REEXAMINED and certified as in C1 after the patent number as follows US 7,685,077C1. I am not going to argue with anyone and as many here. I still hold a boat load of shares, it is clear there will be no products for us through NeoGenomic Corporation and within 365 days we will reverse split. It is just terrible to think about ten and one half years that nothing but hope for a buyout may hopefully allow some of us to possibly break even if at all. I am being practical be far. The Intel patent is their and they did not steal anything from us. The facts are that the Weston patents and so forth were a million years beyond everyone else but what transpired was that Barnhill tried to one the range of the patents so far it left far too many loop holes plus I believe someone wasn’t watching other corporations soon enough when competitors made their filings. You must understand the Intel applications were here in the USA in 2005/2006 we had plenty of time to fix our applications to be modified but someone had to of been sleeping to have this happen to us. Now understand our patents or ours and Intel has theirs. NeoGenomic may or may not ever apply for a license from Intel and would only do so if that patent come to pass to be seen as superior to HDC artwork. Other than that HDC and Intel will move their own way but if one so to choose to sell patent rights or perhaps the entire portfolio then why not do so as HDC as seen will never be able to do more than develop a patent or so and it takes years and we as investors have more time left than the likes of the HDC mess. You know with any common sense we will reverse and than what. Maybe we can hope that are portfolio could be valuable enough to be sold so some might be able to break even and leave upon winding down HDC.
As for the patent in closure and the affects to come, I will make comment and state Intel’s patent is theirs and was not stole from HDC/Weston. I’m rambling as I do best but know again that our down fall was writing patents in such broad matters it hurt us dearly. Our patents were light years ahead of anything on the planet but, OH WELL!
OK, here comes the big one that I talked about around August through December last year!
REEXAMINATION 90/011,938
In response to the previous office action, claims 1, 6, and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-15 have been examined.
The patent owner is reminded of continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.5659(a) to apprise the Office of and litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving Patent No. 7,685,077 throughout the course of this reexamination proceedings. The third party requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination proceedings.
Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings because the provisions of 37CFR 1.136 apply only to “an applicant” and not to parties in a reexamination proceedings. Additionally, 35 U.S.C.305 requires that ex part reexamination proceedings “will be conducted with special dispatch” (37CFR 1.550(c).
Information Submitted by Requester
The following references have been cited as establishing a substantial new question of patentability. U.S. Patent No. 7,475,048 to Weston et al.
NOTE: The Weston patent is the national stage entry of the application corresponding to WIPO Publication No. WO03/040949, published 15 May 2003, and is essentially the same document. WIPO Publication No. WO03/040949 has also been made of record, as discussed below.
Guyon et al., “Gene Selection for Cancer Classification using Support Vector Machines,” Machine Learning, Vol. 46, pp. 389-422, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2002 (hereinafter Guyon).
NOTE: The version of Guyon submitted by the Third Party Requester is a different publication of the same document used by the original examiner during prosecution, having different page numbers. For the purposes of clarity, all citations to that publication made herein shall be to the version submitted by the Third Party Requester.
N. Cristianini and J. Shawne-Taylor, “An introduction to Support Vector Machines and other kernel based learning methods,” Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000
A. Rakotomamonjy, “Variable Selection Using SVM-based Criteria,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 3, pp. 1357-1370, MIT Press, 2003
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-1 are patentable as amended.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PATENTABILITY AND/OR CONFIRMATION
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation of the claims found patentable in this reexamination proceeding: The Patent Owner has amended each of claims 1, 6 and 11 by adding a limitation that for storing the updated kernel data in the buffer to replace the kernel data. Although the Weston references compute modifications to the kernel data in intermediate computations, the cited portions do not disclose the storing of that kernel data to replace the previous kernel data. The cited portions of Guyon and Cristianini similarly lack this teaching.
Now please no more requests about this as it is a done deal. Don't worry about any possible future products by HDC nor worry about the licensing between HDC and NeoGenomic verses Intel, NO BIG DEAL. What to worry about is to hope HDC can sell the patents in time for enough money to help many break even. As for anything else just forget about the high hopes we all once had.
Sincerely, and with 10.5 years of regrets!
Boxsterfan...All paterns belong to HDC but I must say not many people are able to understand the art work which is why a person with such knowledge should have never been risked as a CEO involved within the NeoGenomic master contract. One can now easily see why I stated that many months ago. Now I'm glad he has been separated from the company but will he give all the knowledge to the next CEO. If that happens they should position that knowledge within management as a COO Chief Operating Officer. My hope is that Dr. Albitar has grown enough to be able to fill in any short commings if Dr. Barnhill should try and pull crap with HDC in the future. Our problem will be how do we determine if Dr. Barnhill is putting the screws to HDC with helding vital technical knowledge from HDC managment or the new professional that comes aboard. The new man with trained knowledge may never really understand for many reasons. This now leans toward a possible buyout with NeoGenomic 3-5 years from now but will our technology still be viable at that time and is there any issues that NeoGenomic might be running into at present that may have also called for Dr. Barnhill to resign aside from our own feelings and basic knowledge on why he resigned?
King, there is no reason and besides the problem has been removed!!!!....anyways he has always filed proper SEC filings. The problems with Barnhill were clear and made public long ago but for starters the CEO of HDC was what appeared to be a COO. Chief Operating Officer. You never opt your CEO in a deal such as and with Neogenomic and now, my bet is that everyone can now see why.
As to Barnhill contracting, it is now clear he would be in a position that he could be sued depending how smart HD management might be. It is clear when the latest employee/separation papers were made that both Barnhill and HD management were setting up for his removal, which might be seen by the quickdraw macgraw shareholders meeting but all in all he has basically been removed. When the new CEO comes aboard it will be important to remove 2-3 existing directors to shake off the Barnhill dust. This must come about but won't unless shareholders become more informed to know who is who.
That is about enough for tonight.