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.
Closed at the high of the day...have a great weekend to all....
I covered at .90 like an idiot
Some yelling fear FEAR AGAIN, but the facts are the facts...they will not raise money any time soon.
Now that is a post I love
News out....."Vringo regains compliance with the Nasdaq minimum bid price listing rule."
Other officers will start buying now...every other day I expect pr with insiders buying now...
JG great article--Just the facts.
"Considering the company will have nearly $38 million in cash by the end of the year when the lump sum is paid, and if Vringo were to sell its 8.25% ownership stake in Infomedia, cash and cash equivalents would be in the $45 million range. Shares of Vringo should at the very least trade at cash value which would be around $4.00 per share."
Holding and buying more like today...any thing under 2.15 is a gift. I believe their is more to come out on this story. Keep an eye on ZTE web site and news release about filicharger for ZTE users.
Added 12K shares today all below 2.10....good luck
That has been my thoughts since yesterday.....that is what I would do if I were in their shoes....I do simular deal in my business all the time...strategic partnerships....
Don't know more to come.....no, and yes we get to keep all 21 million and court deposit....and filiharger revenues about 7 million last. Year......and the kicker is we are trading below cash value...can u believe the gift and opportunity you now have....
Guest what cell phone company is going to start using filicharge technolgy....ZTE ?.....and then you will know the rest of the story.....
How much do you want for them?
Rainmaker excellent post...much RS many still don't understand market cap of a stock....it matter not if we are .32 or 3.20 when VRNG get a 300m settlement the stock will rise up to the market cap and higher. So if that be .32 to 3.20 or 3.20 to 32.00....it s amazing people that actually invest their hard earned money but don't understand market cap.
Rainmaker80you are correct...my tablet keeps doing this to me...not sure why...thank you.
Still at .32....I mean 3.20 after rs one week....lesson on market cap learned yet?
actually many calling for downturn today were wrong and the pre split was .31...that is why the ticket says UP 7+%...but I am feel certain you knew that....
No....I hub posted as a reply to your message sorry
I tried to tell you longterm and others...games coming to an end.....
Hummm, lesson learned yet...MARKET CAP IS WHAT MATTERS
Here is the information
Open Close
Nov 23, 2015 4.58 8.52
Nov 20, 2015 3.73 4.23
Nov 20, 2015 1: 100 Stock Split
Nov 19, 2015 0.04 4.00
So it went down for 2 hours and ended the day up on November 20th. ...so it actually ended the day up
Days before that it was driven down...just like we (VRNG) have been driven down...it will be interesting to see everyone response 5 days after our RS when we are up...
AEZS is one of many examples. Some here keep talking about RS will FOR SURE make the price go down...VRNG just approved the RS and yet we go up. Why?
Don't let people fool you. Same old game...talk it down to try to buy cheaper...sad.
Correct...I suspect they raise if need in 6 months tho around April if needed. You will not see insider buys until after reverse split...once they do the reverse split news will star moving this stock again.....get rid of the unknows...and the knows will be left and manipulation will slow dramatically. I do expect insiders to buy after reverse split....that is the proper time now.....the company knows inst. can really start buying when we are over $5 and even more inst can buy over 10 per share...simple fact of business....once over 10...manipulation drop big time....IMHO
Most can't see the forest for the trees
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1151117/jsp/business/story_53495.jsp#.Vkqu2kKFNPY
G20 statement "we affirm that no country should conduct or support ICT-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors."
Votes For RS 65,697,530
Votes Against RS 13,694,162
The large holders get it. Reverse Split this thing as soon as possible.
Actually statistics show stock price higher on 80% of stocks 12 months after reverse split...sorry I just not buying it...we are trading close to cash value.....if it was not trading so close to cash value I might agree...the key when research is the words "close to cash value"
Incorrect....VRNG now makes revenue under wireless phone charger devision...court cases in early 2016 will help too....if they try to drive this lower than 2.80 or .28....you will find many buyers...less share count and audit of shares during this transition will help expose the bad people messing with stock...this should be a good lesson to many investors
Bring on the reverse split please...people need to learn .33 and 3.30 has the same market cap and by doing this the ,ajority of the games being played with this stock will stop....
Paris...I know everyone here is thinking and praying for Paris.
Google up to their necks involved in this ZTE situation....must be bad I'd ZTE and Google fighting it's hard....I still smell settlement force by Google on ZTE
I got all 15K I had bids on....thanks see you folks Monday
Sitting back letting the bots feed me. Got 7k shares today thus far.
Now Judge K can rule at any time.....
Lol...I love it. Guess who did not write ZTE press release today? Yep, that is right...Mr Mark Lee. Where is Mr. Lee? Deposition that VRNG arranged for him today.
Added 42k at .32...DNA trumps France 10 out of 10 times...today is a gift
I called my friend and he estimated France court cost of 60,000 to 80,000.
Facts are the facts VRNG winning more cases around the world than ZTE. France trail cost fees will be small and 60% at the most...as I said the facts are the facts....ask Romania where 2 ships are the docks are full of ZTE that are frozen
The problem ZTE has is VRNG winning in more places than losing.
France facts
"ZTE (France – Infrastructure Equipment: EP ‘119 and ‘212)
Q: What is the next catalyst in France
A: In France, trial on ZTE`s alleged infringement of two of Vringo`s European patents (EP ‘119 and ‘212) happened on April 13, 2015. One of the patents in suit has already been found infringed by ZTE at trial in Germany, where an injunction against ZTE remains in place, and, on a preliminary basis, in the Netherlands. We are now waiting for the ruling which is expected sometime between July and September of 2015 per Vringo.
L: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zte-found-breach-contract-123101918.html
B1: On March 29, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in France in the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, alleging infringement of the French part of two European patents. Vringo Infrastructure filed the lawsuit based on particular information uncovered during a seizure to obtain evidence of infringement, known as a saisie-contrefaçon, which was executed at two of ZTE’s facilities in France. The oral hearing in relation to these patents happened on April 13th, 2015 before the 3rd division of the 3rd chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (specializing in IP matters).
B2: In France, should we be deemed to be the losing party, it is more likely than not that we will be ordered to pay a contribution to ZTE’s attorney and expert fees. The court in France will make an assessment of winning party’s costs during the course of the proceeding on the merits, and at its discretion order the losing party to pay a portion of those costs, typically between 40 and 60%.
B3:After a certain number of exchanges of briefs (usually two to four exchanges) the judge decides to close the case and gives a deadline for filing further briefs as well as a date for the oral hearing. The oral hearing usually takes place about two years after the filing of the initial writ, except in case of nomination of an expert, which increases the duration of the procedure for approximately one supplemental year.
The oral hearing must be very thoroughly prepared with the barrister. The pleadings of the barristers are based on the argumentation developed in the briefs. However, it happens frequently that the barristers go slightly beyond the short argumentation of the briefs. It is therefore necessary to be prepared to possible slight deviations from the argumentation explained in the briefs of the other party.
The pleadings of each barrister last about one to three hours, the plaintiff speaking first and the defendant in second with a further possibility of answer of the plaintiff’s barrister at the end. Usually, the oral hearing lasts one full afternoon and sometimes in difficult cases two afternoons.
After the pleadings both barristers give to the court (three judges) their dockets which contain by writing the main arguments they have developed during oral pleading. The court gives its decision within one or two to three months from the oral hearing.
LB1: Link: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 7 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)
LB2: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 13 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)
LB3: http://www.casalonga.com/Patent-infringement-actions-in?lang=en
Q4: What is the background in France
A4: On March 29, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in France in the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, alleging infringement of the French part of two European patents. Vringo Infrastructure filed the lawsuit based on particular information uncovered during a seizure to obtain evidence of infringement, known as a saisie-contrefaçon, which was executed at two of ZTE’s facilities in France. The oral hearing in relation to liability and injunctive relief for these patents was held on April 13, 2015 before the 3rd division of the 3rd chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (specializing in IP matters). We anticipate that the Court will render a decision in the third quarter of 2015."
This is why ZTE keeps losing lawyers
"Federal Circuit: Attorney Reputational Harm Does Not Raise Case-or-Controversy Following Settlement.
November 2, 2015Dennis Crouch
Tesco Corp (Plaintiff) v. National Oilwell Varco (Defendant-Appellee) v. Glen Ballard & John Luman (Interested Party – Appellant) (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Interesting case here – Jury verdict for the patentee, but in post-verdict motions S.D. Texas Judge Ellison dismissed the case with prejudice as a sanction against the patentee plaintiff for litigation misconduct. The Judge found that Ballard and Luman had directly lied to the court about the origin of a critical element of prior art. The Judge wrote:
Not every lawyer who lies to a court will be caught, so when such deliberate and advantage-seeking untruthful conduct is uncovered, the penalty must be severe enough to act as a deterrent.
While an appeal of the dismissal was pending, the parties settled “all outstanding issues.” That settlement agreement was signed both by representatives of the parties and the attorneys. However, Ballard and Luman decided to pursue the appeal further – arguing that the reputational harm from the district court opinion justified continued jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit disagreed – finding “no remaining case or controversy.”
Although Ballard and Luman have not been able to defend themselves in court, they will likely get their chance to do so before the Texas Bar. Apparently, they cannot do so publicly because the records are privileged and their former client Tesco will not allow their disclosure.
The majority opinion here was written by Judge O’Malley and joined by Judge Chen.
Writing in dissent, Judge Newman argued that the lawyers should be able to defend their reputation since it is their “most valuable asset.” The basic argument from Ballard and Luman is that the “sole evidentiary basis” for their bad faith is post-trial testimony from the creator of the asserted prior art and, according to the Attorney’s, that post-trial testimony was different from what he had said years earlier. The district court had disagreed with that characterization."