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.
Thanks for the good wishes Matt. Here is the link to my forum:
http://www.investortoinvestor.com/dcforum/cgi-bin/dcboard.cgi
Kathy
Matt,
I saw the previous posts by bullrider and I was offended by them. When he singled me out, I was already aware of his attitude toward the people on this board. His tongue in cheek glibness and tendency to call people names and make false assumptions and post them as facts do nothing to enhance your forum. I was willing to come over here and speak with sincere investors who wanted real and truthful information, but it appears that you do not care about what is real and useful information, only keeping some activity going here.
I hope you succeed with this enterprise of yours but I don't see it becoming the place to be when you allow people like bullrider to denigrate people. I don't allow that type of posting on my forums, only pro and con discussions. Ego bashing, foul language, sexist remarks, discrimination against a person for their religion, etc. are not allowed on my forums.
I've had my forum for about three years now and it is a civil place where people can discuss companies without all of the BS that destroys threads.
I have removed very few posts and posters and I don't charge anyone to post there.
Good luck to you
Bullrider, why don't you stick around and talk with Matt. I'm sure he will appreciate the company. Since that is your aim to speak to down to people and post authoritatively on subjects you think you know. Posting a statement about me as if it was a fact when it was a supposition, and not having the courtesy to ask what the truth was, tells me you couldn't care less about the truth.
Matt, It is not true. I posted a response to bullrider that is the truth. That is a Mary lie that she has been posting all over the internet. I would appreciate all references to me being paid for my opinion be removed or I will cease posting here.
Kathy
Wrong Bullrider, the difference between us is that I would stake my life and reputation on this company succeeding and on its management doing the right thing by us all. I have never been paid to write about this company nor to offer my opinion on it. I have spent my own money to go and cover these conferences and have done it because I believe they are on the right track for success.
The options and stock I received were awards for things I have done behind the scenes to help the company get listed in Germany and introduced the company to parties that have helped the company in other areas. I did not charge the company to write about them in my first newsletter of May 1998 and I have not charged them for that service since. I have spent far more covering the company then I have received from them over the past 4 years.
So you can stuff your comments about me. I would stake my life on the management of NanoPierce because I have had ample opportunity to get to know them and I trust them to do the best job they can for the company and the investors.
Have a nice day.
Kathy
Bullrider, you are entitled to your opinion but in this case your opinion is uninformed and therefore without merit in my eyes. I know the management of this company and I know that they will manage things in the best manner for all concerned company and shareholders alike. If you want to cast seeds of doubt you are throwing your seeds on rock and they will not germinate with me.
Kathy
Correction, "with 64-65 million" fully diluted, not "64-64 million" sorry for the mistype.
Kathy
Unless the 200 million authorized were actually issued, no one could buy more than 51% of the full authorized, only the issued stock is available for purchase and then it is only the shares in the float (above the amount issued to the industry funder) as the rest are restricted or not yet issued. 23 million shares bought in a block could effectively tie up 23 percent of the outstanding (if it was still 100 million) and the party looking to buy up enough stock to take over the company would have to turn to the street to get the rest or make an offering that is high enough to tempt the shareholders who hold up to 37 million shares in the float. If they could convince the shareholders to tender their shares, they would be able to get enough shares to take over the company. If the company held unissued shares in a large enough quantity they could thwart that type of takeover and even issue more than 23 million without emptying their coffers or giving up too much of the company to do it.
With 64-64 million shares outstanding fully diluted and 12 million shares held pending the outcome of the Harvest Court Litigation, there is really only about 23 million shares available for funding and issuing all of them would not be feasible without authorizing more shares.
I posted the actual breakdown of the numbers of shares available on both i2i and Agora so I will post them here as well:
As of February 1, 2002 there were 55,737,398 shares of common stock outstanding, then you have to take into consideration certain events including the fact that NanoPierce had to issue 3,125,000 shares issued to pay for litigation support in the Harvest Court law suit which is what took the shares from the 52 million range to the 55 million range. The difference in the fully diluted and the outstanding is 9,642,661 shares that are stock options, warrants and convertible preferred stock that is not yet part of the outstanding but could be at a future date. That would bring the total outstanding fully diluted to 64-65 million shares. I made a rough estimate when I put out the newsletter. Here are the actual numbers from SEC filings:
From the latest 10Q:
As of February 1, 2002 there were 55,737,398 shares of common stock outstanding.
Stock options, warrants, and convertible preferred stock are not considered in the calculation, as the impact of the potential common shares (9,642,661 shares at December 31, 2001 and 15,578,426 shares at December 31, 2000) would be to decrease loss per share. Therefore, diluted loss per share is equivalent to basic loss per share.
3. Common Stock, Convertible Debentures, Stock Options and Warrants:
During the six months ended December 31, 2001, the Company issued 36,000 shares of common stock to third parties in exchange for services valued at $27,360 based on the quoted market price of the Company's common stock on the date the services were performed. During the six months ended December 31, 2000, the Company issued 1,194,616 shares of common stock in exchange for $1,431,633 of convertible debentures and $48,296 of accrued interest on the convertible debentures. The remaining $1,850,000 of convertible debentures (having a carrying value of $1,829,239, net of unamortized discount) and accrued interest of $59,878 were redeemed, at a 25% premium, for cash of $2,372,378, and in exchange for an additional warrant to purchase up to 50,000 shares of the Company's common stock at an exercise price of $2.17 per share (the market value of the Company's common stock at the date of grant). The warrant was valued at $68,550 using the Black-Scholes pricing model. The value of the warrant and premium on redemption of the convertible debentures resulted in a loss on extinguishment of debt of $551,811 (accounted for as an extraordinary loss in accordance with SFAS No. 4). The Company also issued 36,000 shares of common stock to third parties during the six months ended December 31, 2000 in exchange for services valued at $82,116 based on the quoted market price of the Company's common stock on the date the services were performed.
During the six months ended December 31, 2001, the Company granted stock options to purchase 540,000 shares of common stock at exercise prices of $0.66 to $0.70 per share to employees and a director of the Company. During the six months ended December 31, 2000, the Company granted stock options to purchase 1,905,000 shares of common stock at exercise prices of $1.625 to $2.375 per share to employees and directors of the Company. The exercise prices of the options granted in 2001 and 2000 were based upon the quoted market prices of the Company's common stock on the dates of grant. The stock options expire in the years 2010 and 2011.
In September 2000, the Company issued a stock option to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock at $3.00 per share for services received from a third party. The stock option expires on December 31, 2002. The option was valued at $56,650 using the Black-Scholes pricing model, and that expense was charged to general and administrative expense.
During the six months ended December 31, 2001, warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock expired.
From an 8K filing in May 2001:
ITEM 5 OTHER EVENTS
On April 27, 2001 NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") filed an action in the United States District Court in and for the District of Colorado, against Harvest Court, LLC, Southridge Capital Investments, LLC, Daniel Pickett, Patricia Singer and Thompson Kernaghan, of Toronto (Canada) (collectively, the "Defendants").
The suit alleges among other things, that the Defendants have violated Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), violations of anti-fraud and controlling persons sections of the Colorado Securities Act, aiding and abetting violations of the Colorado Securities Act, common law fraud, civil conspiracy and Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants.
The Registrant is seeking various forms of relief from the Defendants, including an accounting, a declaratory judgment, actual damages of at least One Hundred Ninety Million Dollars ($190,000,000) due to the decline in the market value of the Registrant's common stock ("Common Stock") caused by the actions of the Defendants and exemplary and treble damages.
The Registrant has engaged the firms of O'Quinn & Laminack and Christian & Smith each of Houston, Texas and Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP of Denver, Colorado to represent it in the suit.
On April 9, 2001, the Registrant executed a Litigation Support Services Agreement (the "Agreement") with It/Is, Inc., a Texas corporation. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Registrant paid a Fifteen Thousand Dollar ($15,000.00) retainer and will issue free trading shares of its Common Stock equal in value to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) against the expenses incurred and to be incurred on the Registrant's behalf. The Registrant, using the closing bid price of its Common Stock on April 9, 2001 will issue Three Million, One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand (3,125,000) free trading shares of its Common Stock. The Registrant intends to register such shares in the future.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
Date: April 30, 2001 NANOPIERCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
/s/ Paul H. Metzinger
--------------------------------
Paul H. Metzinger, President &
Chief Executive Officer
As far as what good I believe we would be able to derive from the authorization of more stock to 200 million shares, we have the explaination from the 8K filing today, which says:
Registrant increased its authorized capital for among other reasons:
(i) to have sufficient authorized capital available for anticipated strategic investment opportunities; and
(ii) as part of a strategic plan incorporating defensive measures to reduce the likelihood of a hostile takeover.
Since NanoPierce is looking to do more expansion and has been receiving offers of Industry funding for that purpose they need to have enough authorized stock to be able to take a block of stock and use it for a funding. If they did not have enough stock authorized and had to give up a significant portion of the remaining shares it would leave the company either unable to accept a funding that required more than the available authorized shares and if they have more authorized they would be able to take a funding without giving the company away. Just because they have increased the authorized it does not mean they will issue all of those shares. Remember that if we get an industry funding it will increase the value of the stock by taking a significant portion of stock out of the outstanding shares and putting it into a partner's hands. This would have the effect of stabilizing the stock and the investment would validate NanoPierce's technology and show its value to the market. This is my opinion and understanding based upon what I have heard in the meetings in Las Vegas and through conversations with various parties related to the company.
Kathy
RW that was a very thought provoking link, thank you for sharing it. I feel much richer after seeing it.
Kathy
Raging Bull Boycott. . .
Please voice your thoughts and ideas as to whether or not organizing a full blown boycott of Raging Bull is a worth while effort. I personally have been boycotting Raging Bull since October 28, 2001 and this is the second time I have done so. I have my reasons and I am definitely considering sending out a press release and making this a wide spread effort, but I would like to get some ideas from other people on it before I commit to doing so.
I have already warned Raging Bull that I would organize a boycott if they did not stick with their terms of service in regard to Mary Cummins (mistress_mmmary, ms_mmmary, marycummins, mmmary, mmmaryinla, etc.) and her constant posting of twisted information and outright lies, and the fact that they have deleted her aliases several times and still allow her to come back on with a new alias almost as fast as they delete her. Why is it that she (and others) can break the toss rules and continue posting in the face of hundreds of people complaining about her (their) and her (their) personal attacks on the boards?
Please voice your concerns about Mary and anyone else who posts like she does by ego bashing, twisting information, lies, etc. that have been refuted with proper information (and yet still are being posted as though nothing has been said to refute them) on the Raging Bull.
If these posters have driven you off the Raging Bull or made you disgusted with trying to hold a decent conversation there, please voice your thoughts about it on the thread I have set up for that purpose at: http://www.investortoinvestor.com/dcforum/NewsletterDiscussion/78.html
Please let me know if you have voiced a complaint(s) through the RB TOS system as well.
I have spoken to an attorney about the feasibility of taking this to the news wires and I will use your comments in proper legal context to formulate a proper public announcement in regard to an organized boycott of Raging Bull. I would like to see just how many people are actually interested in an official boycott. I am not speaking about just one board, I am talking about all boards on Raging Bull where people have been experiencing the same type of problems and feel frustrated by the lack of real response to complaints that have been lodged. Please try to keep your comments civil. This is a sincere request and I would be happy to represent all who are interested in going forward with a boycott. Please let me know so I can be assured there are enough proponents to make it worth the money, time and effort it will require.
I think it is high time that we band together and express our concerns to Raging Bull in a way that will make them listen and make an effort to understand our frustration. In doing this it is my hope that we can get some proper action taken. Raging Bull seems to be more interested in hits then in the quality of the conversation that takes place on the boards. They don’t seem to understand that by allowing the bashers to drive away the serious posters they are driving away the very people who would make their business successful. If they don’t care about the quality of the Raging Bull experience, then they don’t deserve to have the traffic of sincere people who are sick and tired of having their investments trashed and their egos bashed by these people.
Sincerely,
Kathy Knight-McConnell
Investor to Investor
re: boycotting Raging Bull for allowing Mary Cummins to come back with one ID after another when she is discontinued for breaking TOS regulations is a good idea and I am all for it if nothing is done in the wake of my post to Raging Bull:
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=SUGG&read=10090
Kathy
Paul made that statement in Las Vegas at both of the conferences I attended in front of 50 brokers and 30 investors. He also made the statement in the recent CEOcast Interview.
As to toxic funding, the company has a board of directors which is determined not to get caught in any more of those types of funding. It has been indicated that there are several offers on the table that do not include toxic funding. I trust the management to do what is best for the company and the investors. Their own investment is on the line as well as ours.
Kathy
Bird of Prey
Paul Metzinger has stated publically and to me in person that the company has enough cash and resources to last until the end of this year. And I have been assured by the investment bankers associated with the company that there is no danger of them running out of money as they are willing to front any money needed to keep things going until the company lands an industry financing. I think that they are in in a better position to judge the amount of money he can lay his hands on then those "independent" sources.
Kathy
Hello Bruce
Just stopped by to say hello and wish you the best with your new venture here on I-HUB.
Kathy