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.
me too
do you have a big diamond shaped "S" on your computer screen?
commons or preferreds, might i ask?
i agree --- it could inspire new investors.
but it could also have a different meaning to old investors.
i dont want to jump to any conclusion.
i know. its being recirculated.
Jun 19, 2012 (Close-Up Media via COMTEX) -- GreenShift Corp. announced it plans
to have its method II oil recovery system operational by years end.
This technology, which GreenShift refers to as COES II (corn oil extraction
system, method II), is capable of recovering more than 1.33 pounds of corn oil
per bushel of corn.
GreenShift invented and patented the backend corn oil extraction process
currently used in the industry. The successful commercialization of COES II is
expected to widen the gap between GreenShift and its competitors. While many of
GreenShift's installations are currently recovering more than 0.8 pounds per
bushel, the desire for additional recovery grows each day.
David Winsness, GreenShift's Chief Technology Officer, said, "We recently
attended the Fuel Ethanol Workshop in Minneapolis, MN and are pleased to report
that Backend Corn Oil Extraction remains the fastest path to increased revenue
per bushel of corn. The COES I technology has demonstrated its ability to
increase the revenue at an ethanol production facility by more than 20 cents per
bushel of corn and COES II is expected to further increase this value to more
than 40 cents per bushel. These values are significant and provide a substantial
competitive advantage to GreenShift licensees.
GreenShift Corp. develops and commercializes clean technologies designed to
address the financial and environmental needs of GreenShift's clients by
decreasing raw material needs, facilitating co-product reuse, and reducing the
generation of wastes and emissions.
More Information:
http://www.greenshift.com
EPA clears final regulatory hurdle for E15 ethanol blends in US
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/06/17/epa-clears-final-regulatory-hurdle-for-e15-ethanol-blends-in-us/
"Several plants were licensed to use our technologies during 2011 and 2012."
good point. too early for an official end.
although i find the circumstances interesting, i never said i believed anything in the post.
already took my chances, will likely take more, and dont believe i am any more vulnerable than yourself. do you?
where is the essential attorney client relationship in a brother's friend who is a patent attorney who got drunk and ran his mouth ?
on what grounds?
looks like the patent guys to me. but being on the hot seat, such as its made out to be, i wouldnt expect kk to let either go anywhere till the litigation winds down, and gers gets her come-up-ance. but thats just me. maybe the hammer in that tool box aint big enough. interesting to see how it pans out.
after it winds down i expect to be able to move to florida. maybe we'll be neighbors. or at least down the street a ways. quite a ways.
never expected an overnight win.
tripled my count last week.
will be here another year, or so.
my mistake. i flashed back to prevost for a moment.
the 15% wt syrup by chance?
the die may yet be cast:
gers hung its hat on icms egregious infringing business practices.
icm hung its hat on gers (purported) egregious patent prosecution.
if you were icm, which aspect of the case would you want the jury to hear?
slap the ask!
maybe its a conniving attempt to 'flip the [trial] script.'
validity? i dont think the judge ruled on that before. i think he refused to consider it at the markman hearing. maybe i missed something.
epilogue: maybe they're having trouble thinking outside the mechanical box.
i notice they did NOT move on the basis of invalidity.
i dont recall seeing 'percentages' in the markman order.
and i dont think they are war heros.
90 days for contempt!
see Skunk's blog
new patent, june 5th
flash dessication/hydrodynamic cavitation
KK and Winsness
Rule 12 of Regulation S-T provides that electronic filings may be submitted by direct transmission via the Internet, dial-up lines or leased lines to the Commission each business day from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Eastern time. http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/regoverview.htm
not surprisingly, the NT-Q3 was filed 11/15/2011, http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=49960375, and the Q3 was filed 6 calender days later on 11/21/2011. http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=50132886
exactly where did you get YOUR information?
haha, glad you got some backup!
))))) GERS
i agree.
solution will have to be implemented by manufacturers ...
people will not put down their pacifiers.
OPMG has the relevant intellectual property rights --- PaPOW!
imo
good article DHOLE
wondered who would sell at these prices and that may explain it.
wondered where the mafia went. i guess they got elected to office --- sort of.
so the prez appoints the governors. hmmm. on the bright side, that could be enlightening. no pun intended. (ok yes it was).
booo
"We expect to continue incurring substantial costs in connection with our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patented corn oil extraction technologies. These costs have increased during the second half of 2011 and are expected to continue to increase into 2012 in advance of trial, and as we expand our litigation to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees by prosecuting additional producers and other parties infringing our patents. These expenses may delay or otherwise adversely affect our ability to achieve our profitability and debt reduction goals. We hope to eventually eliminate our litigation expense, but we must and will take all necessary steps to bring infringement of our patents to an end. We have reserved cash for this purpose." http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1269127/000126912711000080/gersq32011.htm
However, dont see where they reserved cash for new installations arising from the [surprise] acceleration described below:
"More U.S. ethanol plants seem to be jumping on the low-oil bandwagon by upgrading equipment to extract corn oil during the ethanol production process, according to an article in the U.S. Grains Council's weekly Global Update (http://bit.ly/…).
Removing the oil presents ethanol plants with an additional revenue stream, as the value of non-food-grade corn oil has increased and new technology allows companies to extract oil more efficiently. A plant that produces 40 million gallons of ethanol is capable of producing 8 to 12 million pounds of oil.
Approximately 90 of the 200 U.S. corn dry mill ethanol plants in the U.S. have these capabilities, and that number is expected to increase to 105 by the summer of 2012.
According to Randy Ives, director of ethanol services for Gavilon, LLC in Des Moines, Iowa, and value-added advisory team leader for the council, about 40% of the dried distillers grains with solubles produced currently is low-oil. Ives expected that number to increase to 58% by summer. [ ]."http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do;jsessionid=FEDC90688FB712914310933C9D3D6A17.agfreejvm1?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=ethanol&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc33b7544601353aa324500f54
even if GERS needs a little cash at the moment,
thats not a problem for me.
How 'bout you?
so if your stock moves more than 10 miles per hour the system shuts it down.
all requests for information are ignored by auto reply.
kind of ironic.
thanks.
still trying to find if this applies:
Sec. 13 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 124
13d(6) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to—
(A) any acquisition or offer to acquire securities made or
proposed to be made by means of a registration statement
under the Securities Act of 1933;
(B) any acquisition of the beneficial ownership of a security
which, together with all other acquisitions by the same person
of securities of the same class during the preceding twelve
months, does not exceed 2 per centum of that class;
(C) any acquisition of an equity security by the issuer of
such security;
(D) any acquisition or proposed acquisition of a security
which the Commission, by rules or regulations or by order,
shall exempt from the provisions of this subsection as not en
tered into for the purpose of, and not having the effect of,
changing or influencing the control of the issuer or otherwise
as not comprehended within the purposes of this subsection.
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf
never saw where the kid had or would acquire the voting power referred to below; a reference that, although possibly outdated, nonetheless indicates a potential [historic] exemption:
I. For the purpose of this regulation, the term "equity security" means any equity security of a class which is registered pursuant to section 12 of that Act, or any equity security of any insurance company which would have been required to be so registered except for the exemption contained in section 12(g) (2) (G) of the Act, or any equity security issued by a closed-end investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940: Provided, such term shall not include securities of a class of non-voting securities.
http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule13d-1.html
...
can you tell me, off the top of your head, which rule obligates that filing?
thanks.
ya but if that was a test launch, as stated in the CC, those things should still be coming, no?
i'll keep faith in their integrity, for now, but wont delude myself into thinking i bought into something other than what i expressly did either.
i think management bought and expected the so called "hype" just like a bunch of us did:
"Purpose:
Provide Justin Bieber and Remster 2, LLC (“Endorsement Party” and “Consulting Party, respectively”) and TBC to contract as Endorsement Party and Consulting Party to provide Spokesperson services for launch of national advertising and promotions campaign of the Product via all available digital and traditional media, including but not limited to mentions and placement at live events, on Twitter®, MySpace®, Facebook® and Endorsement Parties’ web pages. OPMG/PhoneGuard shall also consult and provide input, guidance and approval of all print and broadcast promotional media for the advertising and promotions campaign. This Agreement is dependent upon Justin Bieber executing a binding Agreement or Term Sheet with OPMG/PhoneGuard in the form presented to TBC, or with such changes as are reasonable to OPMG/PhoneGuard, as indicated by OPMG/PhoneGuard’s execution of said Agreement or Term Sheet." (my emphasis added) http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1413993/000135448811004906/opmg_1022.htm
imo
i dont know. all i've sen is OPMG shares bought up lately.
maybe somebody exercizing their warrants???
if company X was buying up OPMG shares,
X would file the 13D upon gaining 5%
but would the SEC show that under OPMG or X or both?
edit: cant find new 13d at SEC site
Truckinginfo
2/15/2012
New Survey Gauges Industry Reaction to Cellphone Restrictions
The number of commercial fleet operators adopting written policies for employee cellphone use has increased 31% in the past nine months, according to a new survey of 570 fleet managers conducted by ZoomSafer.
In May 2011, 62% of commercial fleets surveyed had written policies compared to 81% in February 2012. The survey also shows that the number of companies enforcing their cellphone use policies increased 70% in the same period, from 53% in May 2011 to 90% in February 2012. This increase suggests commercial fleet operators are reacting to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's new rule prohibiting the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving.
The most common enforcement methods include random safety audits (71.9%), post-crash discipline (51.8%), and peer reporting (49.6%). However, less than one third of respondents were "very confident" that their companies' current enforcement methods are sufficient to ensure compliance with FMCSA cellphone regulations.
The survey also finds that while most fleet managers lack confidence in current enforcement methods, 27% plan to investigate cellphone use analytics and 21% plan to explore smartphone software solutions within the next 12 months.
"This survey shows that while the majority of commercial fleets are taking steps in the right direction to adopt policies prohibiting employee use of cellphones while driving, huge concerns still exist over how to effectively enforce compliance," says ZoomSafer CEO Matt Howard.
Results were collected online from 570 corporate managers via emails, newsletters, and websites. Download the full survey analysis here. http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-print.asp?news_id=76088
stopped? i agree.
for a good reason? i would hope so. paid 120 million shares. 16% of the company. sales royalties. and for what, something that was stopped, as in not completed.
the company should be recompensed regardless of where things go from here or what good there is to come. cant go back in time and unring that bell. didnt get what was paid for plain and simple.
not worthy of a 6 figure income. if they need money it should come out of their pocket, not ours.
imo.
have to mail in a copy order and wait. probably get an 8k around the same time that order would process, unless expedited at $125, or some such nonsense.
waiting on a return e-mail to find out
i acq corp is/was a delaware corp
formed jan 12, if i remember right
costs money for more detail there.