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.
Not all dormant patents are exploited by trolls, ceo.
REVO raised money to market a product, ceo.
Eyetalk365 didn't dare take REVO patents to trial.
'Honest' Ron Carter promised you a product, skeet.
When you invested in his company 'Honest' Ron promised that he planned to market a product. He asked you to invest in developing it.
That promise was made 10 years ago.
Why is the product still in 'planning' after 10 years?
Eyetalk365 is a patent troll without a product, skeet.
Eyetalk365 is a patent troll, acting on behalf of REVO. It will remain a patent troll until, and IF, it brings a product to market.
REVO isn't comparable to Samsung and Apple, alerted.
There's no real surprise that companies settled, alerted.
It was quite surprising that three companies spent the time and effort to raise defenses. The standard practice in patent troll cases is to agree a small license fee with the troll, and have done with it.
The big surprise was when Eyetalk365 abandoned the suit against Protect America.
Let's see if Eyetalk365 chases down any others. That will give some indication of how much the patents are actually worth.
REVO shareholders been fooled and can't sell, goodboy2.
Not all contingency fee cases are winners.
Surprising absence of news about UBRG gas sales.
I wonder why there's been no news of gas sales since NDR executives were transferred to UBRG?
When were the patents valued, Johnnie?
Speculation wouldn't be needed if REVO filed accounts, skeet.
Their failure to file accounts, or respond to the SEC actions, says that 'Honest' Ron Carter, and Solomon Ali are hiding things from REVO shareholders.
There is absolutely nothing to stop Honest Ron telling REVO shareholders how much, if anything, has been received from Eyetalk365.
So why doesn't he?
Claims and counterclaims will soon be settled, johnnie.
Eyetalk365 will amend and settle its claims and the defendants will amend and settle their counterclaims.
The parties will settle for an agreement that produces minimal royalty payments. That makes it unnecessary, for any of them, to incur the legal costs of a hearing.
There may be settlement discussions taking place, johnnie.
But some REVO supporters think that the Federal District court had a special sitting, on Sunday last, to hear the Eyetalk365 case.
There are no current court hearings involving Eyetalk365, Rob124
The "latest court hearing" you refer to is a fiction, created by misleading posts.
The case has been listed for months. Any 'hearing' is a long way off, IF the case proceeds to a hearing.
By the way, if REVO only informed shareholders after concluding matters they would not have issued 99% of their PRs. And the SEC would not have suspended trading in the stock.
You have misread the court listing, Lantern.
The court did not post a hearing for the Eyetalk365 case on Sunday. So I'm not saying the court got the wrong date.
What I am saying is that the date at the top of your cut and paste is the search date. It is not the hearing date.
.
There was no hearing scheduled for Sunday, sawtrader.
There was no hearing of any Eyetalk365 claims or CPI Counterclaims on Sunday, because the federal court doesn't sit on Saturdays or Sundays.
Get your facts straight, sawtrader.
There has been 1 settlement.
The "latest 2 settlements" you refer to do not exist. They may come to pass, but as of today's date there are no settlements with CPI or Livewatch.
The most recent court action was an application to stay deadlines. It did not announce a settlement.
My statement is self-explanatory.
The patents may hold value, but..
The directors can sell the patents at any time.
A sale, or transfer, of the patents would leave REVO shareholders holding illiquid shares in a company that has been asset stripped.
REVO doesn't do annual general shareholder meetings.
All companies are supposed to have annual meetings of shareholders, but I guarantee that you cannot provide the date, or venue of any annual general meeting of shareholders in 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014.
And I guarantee that no-on reading this post has voted to elect, or re-elect any of the REVO directors.
The simple truth is that Carter and Ali control enough shares to make annual general meetings unnecessary. They use that control to elect themselves as Directors. Then, as the Bye-Laws state, they elect themselves as officers.
The bottom line is that Carter and Ali can do as they please, and you can do nothing to stop them. Your shareholding is an irrelevance to them.
REVO officers are not elected by shareholders, notimpressed.
Another fail.
Carter and Ali are REVO Directors and Officers, notimpressed.
Your claim that Carter and Ali are not, and have never been REVO directors shows a total failure of knowledge about REVO.
Asked "when were Carter and Ali re-elected as REVO directors?"
You replied:
When does REVO hold it's members' AGM, notimpressed?
When were Carter and Ali re-elected as directors, notimpressed?
You've no influence on REVO management,notimpressed.
REVO is controlled by Ron Carter and Solomon Ali. They do this with the help of their associates, including Rainco, Eyetalk365, and IQMagine.
There weren't meetings, so there aren't minutes, notimpressed.
Eyetalk365 brought 4 cases,and faced 3 counterclaims.
1 case was withdrawn, by Eyetalk365, before the defendant could respond.
The other 3 defendants responded, with counterclaims against Eyetalk365, and all parties decided to settle their claims without going to trial.
Not exactly resounding victories for Eyetalk365.
When did REVO shareholders demand a members' meeting, notimpressed?
Tis is your bold claim:
We're agreed. No REVO shareholder meetings since 2011.
When did REVO last have a shareholders' meeting? is a simple enough question.
Your post is a long-winded way of saying that: REVO has not had any general meeting of, or voting by, shareholders, since 2011.
Glad we've cleared that up.
Can you identify REVO shareholders, notimpressed?
When did REVO last have a shareholders' meeting, notimpressed?
When did REVO shareholders (other than Insiders) last have a vote on any matter affecting the company?
An admirable post, but based on theoretical shareholdings.
The entire logic of your post is based on assumptions about average share holdings. But your assumptions are wrong.
The fact is that REVO management have filed a report to the SEC that they control a majority of shares and that is why none of the 450 individual shareholders you refer to have ever voted on a matter of any importance.
How many of the 450 voted to accept the deal with Eyetalk365 and not proceed with the LOI to sell the patents, in September 2013? None. Of course.
How many of the 450 voted to accept the terms of the Greenwood 'acquisition'? None. Of course.
When has there ever been a properly constituted meeting to which the 450 shareholders were invited? Never.
REVO management can ignore the views of the 450 shareholders you've identified, because REVO management control a majority of the voting shares. Simple.
There's an SEC conspiracy to defraud REVO shareholders.
Now that is the best theory I've heard in a while. What other explanation could the be for the REVO trading suspension?
Surely the suspension couldn't be a direct result of the SEC identifying, and investigating, the lies and misrepresentations issued by the company and exposed on this message board?
An NDA means nothings is disclosed to shareholders.
Which, in the absence of SEC filings, keeps shareholders completely in the dark.
So how will shareholders know what, if any, royalties are being generated?
NDR isn't replacing Metwood in the GEG fiasco, Wilma
Putting NDR people into UBRG could be a first step in dissolving NDR. The second step would be to have UBRG step into the contractual shoes of NDR.
By 'merging' both companies in this way UBRG does not have to go through the process of pre-qualifying, to be on any list of approved suppliers. They simply take-over the positions, and contracts, held by NDR. And for clients, who continue dealing with the same people, there's no real change.
Turning to Metwood.
It seems to me that the GEG fiasco was doomed to failure for so long as Metwood had a real business, and GEG had no cash.
The deal between Metwood and GEG created a massive inventory of shares. That inventory could have been used as collateral for convertible loan notes, sold by Rainco (ostensibly to finance Metwood).
My guess is that Metwood feared losing commercial credibility by operating with GEG/Rainco in this way. The position may change, of course, if the Metwood business becomes insolvent.
Just my thoughts.
Good post, goodboy.
Secrecy doesn't make meetings formal, skeet.
And voting on irrelevant matters is...irrelevant.
Thinking for yourself, but speaking for Solomon Ali. Notimpressive.
The SEC should look at the Medwood 'transaction'
UBRG won't be suspended for delinquent filing, yet.
But the SEC may re-open their inquiries about the Medwood transaction. The lies and half-truths issued when that 'transaction' was promoted should raise questions over the validity, substance and structure of that 'deal'.
If the SEC want to dig further they should look at the coal mine acquisition, and 'agreements' for the sale of coal. It shouldn't take too much digging to show that the entire foray into coal mining was a sham.