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.
Also Jeff Cohen sounds a tad Jewish to me as well. These folks stick together and make fortunes. In due time all.
Best Post ever, because it makes sense.
If I read these numbers correctly they have spent $30 Million dollars on different law firms and their case? Seems like a lot of money to spend if one was not pursuing things to the end. There is also a link posted on Yahoo Board about this filing only with different data on Board of Directors and change of fiscal year. I think something has been finalized in my opinion that is why the filing's on Friday. JMHO. Hope it is good for commons and all.
Riding free shares now so it can do whatever it wants to do from here. I'm long and all in til $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Anyone hear about Unilever and what they are selling? Sounds like another imposter waiting for NEOM to sue them over their patent rights again, back to court I guess. WOW
Is there any GM Preferred Stock symbols I can look into buying? Anyone? If commons do end up being worth zero after the filing how about the preferreds? Anyone.
The Illuminati hard at work behind the scenes once again.
That sounds reasonable enough to me, but will that occur and will others gracefully accept that decision? That is the unknown.
No I am not suggesting that, but it would appear that this has become a difficulty perhaps they did not expect to have or had no forethought as to the number of groups going to do the same thing without thought of a patent. I don't understand if this company I have invested in is so smart that they did not anticipate such others doing the same thing either illegally or against their patent process and due diligence.
Like I have stated here before with so many entities, not just companies putting 2D bar codes on their documents and sites and products, how does NEOM protect their patent? Impossible in my mind, you need lawyers in every country on earth to catch those using it without paying some sort of fees. Same fees overseas versus U.S. Whom will take all this court time and costs to accomplish this? Seems insurmountable to me. Too bad.
We all invested here in one way or another based on the use of the 2D barcoding and it's use in the marketplace. There seems to still be some use to this patent even given all the blah blah blah by Srowen lately, (who in my mind is here because there is a Fear Factor involved and he is looking for info and to put out info for some unknown reason) maybe because we have the correct patent, right, wrong, or indifferent as it may be to some, NEOM owns it. If some of us make money from it and it succeeds based on the patent they own then so be it, if it does not then so be it. Srowen thank you for sharing with this board but I for one am staying put and have my own opinions as to why I am here, and they have nothing to do with any of your blah blah blah bantering. GLTA here.
Makes more sense here than most, that being of the commons sense variety. Very good info and reminder there. Top of the field people working for NEOM means they are not wasting their time there I agree wholeheartedly, do not be swayed by golden images depicting my name for I am NEOM. Good call.
Remeber one thing two folks developed gaming software in the garage and now are billionaires, money will come.
When a company creates and develops a product that actually works it matters not what these numbers show for market cap it's supply and demand at the moment. Fools rush in and all that garbagio. I say with as great a product as this is big boys will enter in here and scoop this baby up.
Exactly my point as well, thank you. They must be worried to a certain extent about this all now. Something must be up and it may turn out to be great news for us. Google sends messenger here on this little stock board tells you all something don't it? I think it does, keep it up srowen good job in providing this board news of the concern by Google.
It proves how much this will cost Google in the end, that is why this person is commenting here. No case, just misleading and twisting the reality is all. Thanks for trying pal but move on we know what we own here.
Gary thank you for the post and link that was new from Saturday May 9th, 2009, so it is great news for all, and yes keep up your due diligence please, we need a cheerleader sometimes.
Look above these posts to find GNBT BC Vaccine, don't you read anything, sorry but it's right under your nose person.
Foreign divisions not included in BK only American divisions.
Also the market is always forward looking so I would have to agree that the numbers out were already expected by the PROS and has been taken into account and now Q2 will get this to where it is going. GLTA.
Geez you sound like me, where have I heard their PR department sucks at everything, ME.
Voted no by proxy online today. eom.
OK Remind me not to post anything again on this board you all attacked me for posting a simple article about C11 companies and what happens to the commons, was not meant as an attack on this board but rather for information for all. You folks are way to sensitive for crying out loud. I am long here enough said. Go back to your banter now.
Commons usually get cancelled and new shares issued in companies coming out from C11. It's a historical message, sorry so long but the link I could not get it to work for you folks here.
Tide Has Turned on Deepening Insolvency
Courts Now Rejecting Theory as Valid Cause of Action
by Michael Klein, Ronald R. Sussman
Feb 1, 2008
(TMA HQ Chicago)
Sixteen years ago, the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision in Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland v. Pathe Communications Corp. , 1991 WL 277613 (Del. Ch. 1991), helped introduce the terms “vicinity of insolvency” and “zone of insolvency” into the lexicon of the legal and business communities.
Based in part on this decision, the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001 rendered its decision in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co. Inc., 267 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2001), one of the first decisions to uphold the validity of deepening insolvency as an independent cause of action. In the years since Lafferty was decided, deepening insolvency as a cause of action has been oft-criticized and controversial.
At its essence, the theory of deepening insolvency refers to the prolongation of a corporation’s life or expansion of its debt while it is in the zone or vicinity of insolvency in a manner that results in further dissipation of assets and, in some circumstances, a costly bankruptcy filing. Since the Lafferty decision was published, courts have dealt with the evolving theory of deepening insolvency in several ways.
Several federal courts, interpreting state law, have recognized deepening insolvency as a valid cause of action. See, e.g., OHC Liquidation Trust v. Credit Suisse First Boston (In re: Oakwood Homes Corp.), 340 B.R. 510, 531 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (holding that Delaware, New York, and North Carolina courts would recognize deepening insolvency as a cause of action); In re LTV Steel Co., Inc. et al., 333 B.R. 397, 422 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005) (determining that deepening insolvency would be a valid cause of action under Delaware and New Jersey law). Significantly, however, a growing number of courts have regarded with disapproval causes of action based on deepening insolvency and creditor lawsuits against directors of companies operating in the zone of insolvency generally.
Indeed, two important recent decisions of the Delaware Supreme Court have curtailed the ability of creditors to bring suit successfully against an insolvent company’s directors, officers, and lenders based on the theory of deepening insolvency. These decisions have been seized upon by courts that have rejected deepening insolvency as an independent cause of action. This emerging body of decisional authority may well foretell the end for deepening insolvency as a valid cause of action.[1]
Delaware Decisions
In September 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision in North American Cath. Educ. Programming, Inc. v. Gheewalla, et al. , 2006 WL 2588971 (Del. Ch. Sept. 1, 2006), holding that creditors could not bring a direct action for breach of fiduciary duty against directors of a corporation in the zone of insolvency. In May 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court’s decision and made three key rulings:
When a corporation is in the zone of insolvency, creditors may not bring a direct action against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty
When the corporation is in fact insolvent, creditors have standing to maintain derivative claims against directors on behalf of the corporation for breaches of fiduciary duties
Even when a corporation is insolvent, creditors have no right to assert direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors. See Cath. Educ. Programming, Inc. v. Gheewalla, et al., 930 A.D.2d, 92, 94 (Del. 2007).
In so doing, the court noted that Delaware courts traditionally had been reluctant to expand existing fiduciary duties owed by directors to creditors.
[C]reditors are afforded protection through contractual agreements, fraud and fraudulent conveyance law, implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, bankruptcy law, general commercial law and other sources of creditors rights… Accordingly, the general rule is that directors do not owe creditors duties beyond the relevant contractual terms.
Id. at 99 (internal quotations omitted).
In addition, the court noted that when a solvent corporation is navigating in the zone of insolvency, the focus of Delaware directors should not change. The court stated that “directors must continue to discharge their fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders by exercising their business judgment in the best interests of the corporation for the benefit of its shareholder owners.” Id. at 101.
Although it did not address deepening insolvency directly, the court’s decision in Gheewalla signaled, for the first time, the Delaware Supreme Court’s willingness to definitively address the issue and to provide guidance to corporate directors with respect to their potential liability within the zone of insolvency.
In August 2007 the Delaware Supreme Court released a two-page order affirming the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision in Trenwick America Litigation Trust v. Billet, 906 A.D.2d 168 (Del. Ch. 2006), which held that there is no valid cause of action for deepening insolvency in Delaware. Rather than write its own opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court ratified the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision “on the basis and for the reasons assigned by” the Chancery Court.
The Delaware Chancery Court’s decision held that Delaware law does not recognize deepening insolvency as an independent cause of action “because catchy though the term may be, it does not express a coherent concept.” Id. at 174. The court noted that the concept of deepening insolvency has been discussed at length in federal jurisprudence, “perhaps because the term has the kind of stentorious academic ring that tends to dull the mind to the concept’s ultimate emptiness.” Id. at 204.
In support of this conclusion, the court noted that (i) Delaware law imposes no obligation on the board of a company that is unable to pay its debts to liquidate its assets; and (ii) Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code recognizes that an insolvent corporation’s creditors may benefit if the corporation continues to operate in hopes of turning things around. Id.
The court ruled that “even when a firm is insolvent, its directors may, in the appropriate exercise of their business judgment, take action that might, if it does not pan out, result in the firm being painted in a deeper hue of red.” Id. at 174. “The fact that the residual claimants of the firm at that time are creditors,” the court reasoned, “does not mean that the directors cannot choose to continue the firm’s operations in the hope that they can expand the inadequate pie such that the firm’s creditors get a greater recovery.” Id. The court then concluded that, under Delaware law, deepening insolvency “is no more of a cause of action when a firm is insolvent than a cause of action for ‘shallowing profitability’ would be when a firm is solvent.” Id.
In so ruling, the court made clear that when operating in the zone of insolvency, directors should not be held liable for damages incurred by creditors as a result of the company’s failure to remain profitable, even though the directors’ fiduciary duty extends to the company’s creditors:
The incantation of the word insolvency, or even more amorphously, the words zone of insolvency, should not declare open season on corporate fiduciaries. Directors are expected to seek profit for stockholders, even at a risk of failure. With the prospect of profit often comes the potential for defeat.
So long as directors are respectful of the corporation’s obligation to honor the legal rights of its creditors, they should be free to pursue in good faith profit for the corporation’s equityholders. Even when the firm is insolvent, directors are free to pursue value maximizing strategies, while recognizing that the firm’s creditors have become its residual claimants and the advancement of their best interests has become the firm’s principal objective. Id. at 174-75.
The Chancery Court justified its ruling in part by observing that “[c]reditors are better placed than equityholders and other corporate constituencies (think employees) to protect themselves against the risk of firm failure.” Id . Indeed, the court noted that existing equitable causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and existing legal causes of action for fraud, fraudulent conveyance, and breach of contract “are the appropriate means by which to challenge the actions of boards of insolvent corporations.” Id.
Trenwick’s Impact
The impact of the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision in Trenwick already has been felt, as federal courts throughout the country have rejected the theory of deepening insolvency as an independent cause of action. In concluding that Ohio law would not recognize deepening insolvency as a cause of action, a Bankruptcy Court remarked:
Deepening insolvency as a cause of action remains vague and convoluted. Certainly, the central ideology of the theory is true: actions taken which worsen the financial condition of an already insolvent corporation may harm the business and its constituents. However, recognizing that a condition is harmful and calling it a tort are two different things.
In re Amcast Indus. Corp. et al., 365 B.R, 91, 118 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007) (characterizing the tort of deepening insolvency as a “complete redundancy”).
Likewise, the court in In re James River Coal Co. et al, 360 B.R. 139 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007) ruled that Virginia law does not recognize the tort of deepening insolvency, noting that “[t]he Board of Directors must remain free to exercise its good faith business judgment that will allow it to pursue strategies the board views as sound to turn it around.” Id. at 179.
The Trenwick decision and its progeny signal that the tide has turned and courts are increasingly reluctant to recognize deepening insolvency as a legitimate stand-alone cause of action. Accordingly, creditors seeking to bring claims against the directors and officers of a corporation in the zone of insolvency likely must base their claims on traditional causes of action, such as breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent conveyance, and breach of contract.
The decisions cited in this article also provide clarity and a degree of comfort for directors and officers operating a corporation in the zone of insolvency. Indeed, the Delaware Supreme Court and other courts following its lead have endorsed the trend to limit the post Credit Lyonnais expansion of liability for directors of nearly insolvent corporations.
Although questions regarding the validity of deepening insolvency as a viable measure of damages remain unanswered, these recent decisions provide meaningful guidance on how directors of financially troubled corporations should discharge their fiduciary duties.
_____________________________________________________________
[1] This is not to express a view regarding the continued viability of deepening insolvency as a measure of damages. See e.g. In re Amcast Indus. Corp. et al., 365 B.R, 91, 119 n.19 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007)(“While declining to recognize deepening insolvency as a valid cause of action, the court believes that the concept may be useful as a measure of damages for breach of fiduciary duty or commission of an actionable tort.”); Alberts v. Tuft (In re Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Corp.), 353 B.R. 324, 338 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2006) (“Unless and until this court is told differently by a higher court in its own circuit, deepening insolvency will remain a viable theory of damages in this jurisdiction[.]”); In re Southwest Florida Heart Group P.A., 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1556 at *5 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. July 6, 2006) (stating that issues of deepening insolvency are relevant only to the measure of damages).
Sorry if link does not work in here I tried but good article cannot get it to work in my previous message either, have to type it in I guess do a little work.
Tide Has Turned on Deepening Insolvency Courts Now Rejecting ...
Feb 1, 2008 ... Newsroom · Publications. Turnaround Management Association Headquarters. 150 South Wacker Drive Suite 900. Chicago, Illinois 60606 ...
www.turnaround.org/Publications/Articles.aspx?ob...
Companies that emerge from C11 and what happens to their common shares.
http://www.turnaround.org/Publications/A...
http://www.turnaround.org/Publications/A...
Companies whom emerge from Chapter 11 and what happens to their common shares.
www.turnaround.org/Publications/Articles.aspx?ob...
Yeah hey I might try that too next time, perhaps that's how NEOM finds itself on the net too. OR maybe they barcode in their own design and scan it and get to their offices or something like that, GPS sells at Garvin.com.
Microsoft Tag 2D Mobile Tagging Barcodes - Technology
www.istartedsomething.com/20090108/microsoft-tag-microsofts-own-2d-barcode/ -
The others have been posted on this board before using their own technology for 2D bar coding, heck do you want me to start my own company tomorrow doing this or what. Microsoft, Honeywell, HP more than likely has their own Samsung for sure has been doing this for awhile as they are always ahead of the west on tech stuff, more than likely PAN or TOSH. Not sure. But to each their own.
So strong they are all developing their own and not using ours. That is how strong the world is out there NEOM, get a life and get some gosh darn agreements signed before your the only one with a patent that no one uses because they got their own. Too funny, get moving boys.
Please understand alot of folks here are flippers not in for long haul, so let them go do their thing, and phantom shares being traded sold off by MM's that actually do not own any fakes out the PPS. Don't be fooled, hang tight we will be rewarded here, stay the course. Patience with all the BS will be rewarded in the end.
Yes I do own shares here and believe this is a great opportunity as most of you all do. I just don't jump on band wagons with no horses pulling it out of the station yet. I am very cautious with my money as you all should be too. Lost enough to know when things look on the fence or are being over blown by pumpers. I think they will have a long great future if not bought out prior. We are in at a good time here. Sorry if I get a bit on the negative side of things but an old friend once told me a one sided argument is no debate whatsover, so he would take opposite sides of any argument even if he agreed with the status quo just to hear opinions from the other side. You find out a lot of things that way that you did not see before. Take care all.
Too much dilution of their type of product in the world that cannot be captured by NEOM in every respect. Sure they will get their share of 2D opportunities for those that follow the law. But others in the world around us will not go to NEOM and pay any fees whatsover. I lived overseas for 5 years and in China and South Korea, Thailand and about anywhere in Asia you can buy Eddie Bauer anything or any other designer wear products and they pay nothing in royalties to anyone. Just the way of the world. If NEOM is stateside based and Europe only that will probably fit the bill. But forget about Asian nations will never happen. So to me it's great they will get this license fee for their revenue stream but expect they will be more in our court system than anywhere else to resolve such issues to help raise their PPS. I hope they have deep pockets to pay all these upcoming attorney's fees out, totaly overhead costs and unpredictable at that.
I think if this company were going out of business they would not just reduce their costs and cut 75% out of their current business. You would just go out of business. This reeks of a buy out coming IMHO only of course.
Changed once will change again, nothing good comes quickly
Good for NFC they'll make lots of money somehow with this while NEOM gets nothing again. Companies all over the world doing the same thing as NEOM, they did not need patents, but we got em and we got no cash on top of it. Nice buy boys.
Anyone here know their licensing fee schedule? How much do they actually make for a license fee? Are they monthly, daily, hourly, annually? Revenue stream is what I am wondering about. How do they collect? Based on what time frame, amount of use, one time fee?? Anyone.
This same issue has been bothering me for sometime. How do we know whom to request a fee from if they are all doing this in the future? We'll be chasing lawyers and owners down every day when this gets moving. Trial lawyers wet dream, but a companies nightmare. Court fees, costs, you become an owner of a great patent but your in court all the time.
Let me know when we get to a dollar OK. Not happening.