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.
JC keep up the good work. This site will soon be noticed by many.
Willy
LOL We will let you have #1
Willy
I am starting to finally get pumped. I think we all realize we have two months before the excitment hits but IMO it will be worth the wait. This only gives me time to build my position. I'll try to buy a small amount each week when I can raise the extra cash. :)
Willy
JC glad to see you here. You're the man LOL.
Willy
BB at least we don't have the bashers here like raging dull attracts.
Willy
NPCT CEO Live Interview
http://www.ceocast.com/index.cfm
Thank you,
Willy
NPCT Live Interview
http://www.ceocast.com/index.cfm
Thank you,
Willy
IFTP CEO Live Interview
http://www.ceocast.com
Thank you,
Willy
Monday January 8, 5:10 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
Nanopierce Technologies Inc. Makes Announcement Regarding License Status of Louis Di Francesco
DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 8, 2001--Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:NPCT - news) today announced that the only license agreement held by Louis Di Francesco, the inventor of the particle interconnect technology, is the very limited two year license granted to him pursuant to the November 29, 1999 Court Declaratory Judgment Order approving the settlement agreement.
Paul H. Metzinger, President & Chief Executive Officer, said, ``We want to remove the confusion relating to Mr. Di Francesco's license rights which have been caused by Mr. Di Francesco's clearly inaccurate and misleading statements on the Raging Bull and other public forums.''
Mr. Metzinger further noted that: ``Mr. Di Francesco has obtained no license as a result of his settlement with the bankruptcy estate of Micro Module Systems, Inc., despite what he says. The Settlement Agreement, a matter of public record, speaks for itself. Further, a `purported' license held by Mr. Di Francesco dated September 15, 1996 was cancelled by the November 29, 1999 Court Order. Finally another `fabricated' license agreement, likewise dated September 15, 1996, filed by Mr. Di Francesco with the Colorado Court of Appeals, was exposed as a forged document intended to deceive the appellate court. After disavowing its legitimacy, Mr. Di Francesco attempted to withdraw the false license agreement.''
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, USA, is traded on the Nasdaq stock market (OTCBB:NPCT - news) as well as on the Frankfurt and Hamburg (OTC:NPI - news). In addition to the 12 patents it owns, Nanopierce has numerous applications pending, others in preparation, and various other intellectual properties related to Nanopierce's proprietary NCS (Nanopierce Connection System). This advanced system is designed to provide significant improvement over conventional electrical and mechanical interconnection methods for high-density circuit boards, components, sockets, connectors, semiconductor packaging and electronic systems.
For more information on Nanopierce Technologies, Inc., please visit this web site: http://www.nanopierce.com.
This announcement contains forward-looking statements about Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. that may involve risks and uncertainties. Important factors relating to the company's operations could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward- looking statements and are further detailed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission available at the SEC website (http://www.sec.gov). All forward-looking statements are based on information available to Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. on the date hereof, and Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. assumes no obligation to update such statements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc., Denver
Paul H. Metzinger, 303/592-1010
303/592-1054 (fax)
paul@nanopierce.com (e-mail)
or
Nanopierce Card Technologies GmbH, Munich, Germany
Dr. Michael E. Wernle, +49-8102-8961-0
+49-8102-8961-11 (fax)
michael@nanopierce.com (e-mail)
or
Stock Enterprises, Las Vegas (investor relations)
James Stock, 702/614-0003
or
CEOcast Inc., New York (Internet investor info. svcs.)
Adrienne Salomon, 212/732-4300
www.ceocast.com
Related Quotes
NPCT.OB
0.781250
-0.031250
Monday January 8, 5:10 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
Nanopierce Technologies Inc. Makes Announcement Regarding License Status of Louis Di Francesco
DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 8, 2001--Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:NPCT - news) today announced that the only license agreement held by Louis Di Francesco, the inventor of the particle interconnect technology, is the very limited two year license granted to him pursuant to the November 29, 1999 Court Declaratory Judgment Order approving the settlement agreement.
Paul H. Metzinger, President & Chief Executive Officer, said, ``We want to remove the confusion relating to Mr. Di Francesco's license rights which have been caused by Mr. Di Francesco's clearly inaccurate and misleading statements on the Raging Bull and other public forums.''
Mr. Metzinger further noted that: ``Mr. Di Francesco has obtained no license as a result of his settlement with the bankruptcy estate of Micro Module Systems, Inc., despite what he says. The Settlement Agreement, a matter of public record, speaks for itself. Further, a `purported' license held by Mr. Di Francesco dated September 15, 1996 was cancelled by the November 29, 1999 Court Order. Finally another `fabricated' license agreement, likewise dated September 15, 1996, filed by Mr. Di Francesco with the Colorado Court of Appeals, was exposed as a forged document intended to deceive the appellate court. After disavowing its legitimacy, Mr. Di Francesco attempted to withdraw the false license agreement.''
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, USA, is traded on the Nasdaq stock market (OTCBB:NPCT - news) as well as on the Frankfurt and Hamburg (OTC:NPI - news). In addition to the 12 patents it owns, Nanopierce has numerous applications pending, others in preparation, and various other intellectual properties related to Nanopierce's proprietary NCS (Nanopierce Connection System). This advanced system is designed to provide significant improvement over conventional electrical and mechanical interconnection methods for high-density circuit boards, components, sockets, connectors, semiconductor packaging and electronic systems.
For more information on Nanopierce Technologies, Inc., please visit this web site: http://www.nanopierce.com.
This announcement contains forward-looking statements about Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. that may involve risks and uncertainties. Important factors relating to the company's operations could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward- looking statements and are further detailed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission available at the SEC website (http://www.sec.gov). All forward-looking statements are based on information available to Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. on the date hereof, and Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. assumes no obligation to update such statements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc., Denver
Paul H. Metzinger, 303/592-1010
303/592-1054 (fax)
paul@nanopierce.com (e-mail)
or
Nanopierce Card Technologies GmbH, Munich, Germany
Dr. Michael E. Wernle, +49-8102-8961-0
+49-8102-8961-11 (fax)
michael@nanopierce.com (e-mail)
or
Stock Enterprises, Las Vegas (investor relations)
James Stock, 702/614-0003
or
CEOcast Inc., New York (Internet investor info. svcs.)
Adrienne Salomon, 212/732-4300
www.ceocast.com
serpico,
Interesting company. Looked at it and will look a little more.
Willy
I think we all like IFTP. IFTP should have a good last quarter and first quarter. Year end is Feb. 28th.
Willy
Here are a few companies I like. No specific order to how much I like these either.
1.VGAM
2.IFTP
3.NPCT
4.INCE
5.WAST
6.SWLL
7.QBID
8.ZKEM
9.ABRG
I do follow more but don't own them.
Thank you,
Willy
serpico,
I have heard of the company but don't know enough facts to give an honest assesment of the company. I'll look at it closer.
Thank you,
Willy
dpb,
I will visit. Also that company is new to me.
Willy
serpico,
As time moves on this site will continue to pick up. My club site is more active http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/willywizard you are also welcome to join the club.
Willy
My Willy Wizard Profile http://www.willywizard.com/Profile_IFTP.htm
This is the CEO posting at RB, FACT!!
By: IFTPONE $$$$
Reply To: 173870 by search4stock $$ Sunday, 31 Dec 2000 at 10:22 PM EST
Post # of 173906
Happy New Year to all. This post is right on, throw in a acquisition or two and who knows where the price may go.
This is the post he replied to at RB.
By: search4stock $$
Reply To: 173501 by lymph_node $$$ Sunday, 31 Dec 2000 at 8:51 PM EST
Post # of 173906
Hi Lymph, I've seen fair otc stocks go from 50 cents to $1.00, stay there just a few days, jump to $2, where everybody starts thinking, hey, is this it? Is this the move where we are getting off the otc and onto the small cap or the amex? Next thing it's over $3 and holding that level for most of the next 30 days. Then at $3 there's entry onto the AMEX and boom up it goes to $5 and $10.
This really looks like one that can do more than hold $3 for 30 days. It can outdo those ones I'm talking about. Do your research of otcbb stocks that made the jump to an exchange and you'll see what I'm talking about. IFTP is one made to order to going to $4 and the Small Cap. Once on the Naz Small Cap, anything is likely to breakout. Where the otc-amex stocks went to $5 & $10, with IFTP being stronger than most of them, well, you get the picture.
It happens faster than you think, the first time it happens to you. Anybody who's been there can tell you the same thing. It IS one heck of an exciting ride. All of a sudden you have friends who at $4 or $5 a share have margined IFTP shares. You'll be saying But it's not $5 yet. It happens. At times like that, there's all kinds of excitement.
Personally, I think something is up. Something really good. I've been getting that good old timed feeling again, the feeling I got when I rode off the otc and onto the exchange. My first quarter million in stocks.
My Willy Wizard Profile http://www.willywizard.com/Profile_IFTP.htm
This is the CEO posting at RB, FACT!!
By: IFTPONE $$$$
Reply To: 173870 by search4stock $$ Sunday, 31 Dec 2000 at 10:22 PM EST
Post # of 173906
Happy New Year to all. This post is right on, throw in a acquisition or two and who knows where the price may go.
This is the post he replied to at RB.
By: search4stock $$
Reply To: 173501 by lymph_node $$$ Sunday, 31 Dec 2000 at 8:51 PM EST
Post # of 173906
Hi Lymph, I've seen fair otc stocks go from 50 cents to $1.00, stay there just a few days, jump to $2, where everybody starts thinking, hey, is this it? Is this the move where we are getting off the otc and onto the small cap or the amex? Next thing it's over $3 and holding that level for most of the next 30 days. Then at $3 there's entry onto the AMEX and boom up it goes to $5 and $10.
This really looks like one that can do more than hold $3 for 30 days. It can outdo those ones I'm talking about. Do your research of otcbb stocks that made the jump to an exchange and you'll see what I'm talking about. IFTP is one made to order to going to $4 and the Small Cap. Once on the Naz Small Cap, anything is likely to breakout. Where the otc-amex stocks went to $5 & $10, with IFTP being stronger than most of them, well, you get the picture.
It happens faster than you think, the first time it happens to you. Anybody who's been there can tell you the same thing. It IS one heck of an exciting ride. All of a sudden you have friends who at $4 or $5 a share have margined IFTP shares. You'll be saying But it's not $5 yet. It happens. At times like that, there's all kinds of excitement.
Personally, I think something is up. Something really good. I've been getting that good old timed feeling again, the feeling I got when I rode off the otc and onto the exchange. My first quarter million in stocks.
I really think we will see no movement until late Jan. or early Feb. Until then lower or sideways it will trade IMO.
Willy
BB if RB shuts down this site will be very valuable to us all.
Willy
snow, there is a ifotopia link at the site. http://willywizard.com
Willy
Important NPCT update about Louis
kathy Nov-25-00, 10:09 PM (EST)
462. "I have just transcribed a new Court document which proves that Louis. . ."
DiFrancesco tried to perpetrate a fraud on the Colorado Appeals Court. This document was filed by Nanopierce in August of 2000.
COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO
Case No. 2000-CA-601
__________________________________________________
Appeal from
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF DENVER
STATE OF COLORADO
Hon. Warren O. Martin
Civil Action No. 98-CV-7827
_________________________________________________
APPELLEES’ REPLY TO APPELLANT’S RESPONSE
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
_________________________________________________
LOUIS DiFRANCESCO,
Defendant/Third Part Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PARTICLE INTERCONNECT CORPORATION and PAUL H. METZINGER
Plaintiff-Appellees
And
INTERCELL CORPORATION and PAUL H. METZINGER,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________
Caplan and Earnest LLC
Peter M. Hamilton, Esq., #28158
2595 Canyon Blvd., Suite 400
Boulder, CO 80302-6737
(303) 443-8010
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellees and
Third-Party Defendant-Appellee Intercell Corporation
Appellees, PARTICLE INTERCONNECT CORPORATION, NANOPIERCE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and INTERCELL CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to
collectively as “Corporate Appellees”), through their counsel, Caplan and Earnest LLC, hereby
request this court to consider the following Repoly to Appellant’s Response in Opposition to
Appellee Paul Metzinger’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated July 26, 2000. Corporate Appellees
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. and Intercell Corporation are public companies filing reports with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The accuracy of their reports depends upon their
corporate records and the actions of their executive officers. Corporate Appellees take the
unusual step of seeking the Court’s indulgence to consider this reply in order to address the
merits of the Motion to Dismiss and, more importantly, to address issues of serious misconduct
on the part of Appellant Louis DiFrancesco. Mr. DiFrancesco has always been extremely
contentious. Through his response to opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Paul
Metzinger, he and/or his attorney have gone too far. This appeal should be dismissed on the
grounds that it is frivolous and filed for an improper purpose, that Mr. DiFrancesco has taken
action inconsistent with the bases for his appeal, and/or as a sanction under Rule 38(c) of the
Colorado Appellate Rules for attempting to defraud this Honorable Court.
Improper Purpose
Mr. DiFrancesco’s public statements in conjunction with actions taken in this appeal
make it abundantly clear that he has taken this appeal for the improper and frivolous purpose of
harassing the Corporate Appellees and Mr. Metzinger. Mr. DiFrancesco and the Appellees
settled the underlying District Court case following lengthy negotiations in September, 1999. As
2
part of the settlement reflected in District Judge Warren O. Martin’s November 30, 1999 Order,
Declaratory Judgement and Injunction, Mr. DiFrancesco conceded that Appellee Nanopierce
Technologies, Inc. owned the entire and incontestable right, title and interest in patents relating to
the so-called Particle Interconnect technology. See Exhibit C to Appellant’s Response at Section
A(1). It is apparent, however, and has long been apparent, that Mr. DiFrancesco cannot accept
that he has sold and transferred his inventions and cannot get them back. Two sections of
Mr. DiFrancesco’s testimony from the Preliminary Injunction Hearing of November 4, 1998 are
instructive as to his motivations. At one point, Mr. DiFrancesco was asked how he felt about his
inventions:
Q: (By Mr. Young): Mr. DiFrancesco, you’re proud of you Particle Interconnect inventions, are you not?
A: I feel as proud as a father is of a son.
Q: As a matter of fact, Mr. DiFrancesco, you feel that the invention is an extension of your personality?
A: Absolutely. (Tr. Nov. 4, 1998, p. 64, ll 18-25)
Later, Mr. DiFrancesco was asked whether, in his heart, despite having assigned the
technology to Ken Bahl, that the patent was still his.
Q: Isn’t it true, Mr. DiFrancesco, that in your heart you really felt even though you didn’t have the assignment back from Ken Bahl that the patent was still yours?
A: I have a legal opinion from Michael Glenn, verified by Jack Rusco, that Ken Bahl patent’s assignment has no bearing or control of the patent.
Q: I repeat my question. Mr. DiFrancesco, isn’t it true that what you believe-
A: What is in my heart is none of your (expletive deleted) business. (Tr. Nov. 4, 1998, p. 87, l. 18 - p.88, l. 3.)
3
Copies of all relevant sections of transcript are attached hereto for the Court’s convenience as
Exhibit 1.
Against that backdrop, Mr. DiFrancesco has made numerous public statements on the
Raging Bull Internet Bulletin Board to the effect that he is “out to cause trouble for Intercell and
Nanopierce.” As recently as August 11, 2000, Mr. DiFrancesco entered a posting on the Raging
Bull Bulletin Board making specific reference to this appeal and that his filing was going to
“cause trouble for Intercell and Nanopierce.” A copy of the August 11, 2000 Raging Bull posting
is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
Corporate Appellees concede that it is not improper in and of itself to have the desire to
cause trouble for an opponent in litigation. However, it is improper if that goal is the true goal of
the litigation or appeal. Therefore, since the continuing vitality of Mr. DiFrancesco’s appeal is
based, in large part, upon outright fraud and deception, it is an inescapable conclusion that the
appeal is based on improper motivations.
Actions Inconsistent With Appeal
There is no dispute that Mr. DiFrancesco has publically stated on the Raging Bull Internet
Site that he has a license to produce product. There is similarly no doubt, since he posted that
statement on the Nanopierce Technologies Bulletin Board, that he was referring to Particle
Interconnect product. A copy of the relevant July 3, 2000 posting is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
By doing so, Mr. DiFrancesco has accepted the award of a license to him pursuant to Section
D(2) of Judge Martin’s November 30, 1999 Order, Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, the ver
Order Mr. DiFrancesco now appeals. Colorado law has long adopted the general rule that a party
who accepts the benefit of an award under an order of judgment waives his right to appeal
4
that judgment. The Supreme Court of Colorado expressed the rule in the case of Wilson v.
Automobile Owners Association Insurance Company 382 P. 2d 815 (Colo. 1963) as follows:
The party who accepts an award or legal advantage under an order or judgment waives his right to any such review of the adjudication as may again put in issue his right to the benefit which he has accepted. In other words, it is the possibility that his appeal may lead to a result showing that he is not entitled to what he has received under the judgment appealed from, that defeats his right to prosecute a writ of error.
382 P.2d 815, at 816.
That principle of law has stood the test of time and was most recently expressed and
expanded upon by the Colorado Court of Appeals in the case of In Re: Marriage of Burford, 950
P. 2d 682 (Colo. App. 1997) in which the Court stated the following:
Indeed, the acceptance of benefits of a judgment will be held to constitute a waiver of appeal rights only if such action is inconsistent with the basis for the appeal. It is only if the appeal, if successful, will again put into issue the right of the party to receive the benefits already accepted that a waiver of the right to appeal will be found.
950 P.2d 682 at 684.
Despite Mr. DiFrancesco’s tortured arguments to the contrary, this is exactly the case
herein. Through the Raging Bull postings, Mr. DiFrancesco has told the world that he has a
license. In addition, he has sought financing to produce Particle Interconnect product pursuant to
a license that he could only have obtained under the auspices of Judge Martin’s Order. Doubtless
realizing that he had taken a position inconsistent with his appeal, and that he was about to lose
his ability to further harass the Appellees, Mr. DiFrancesco took the extraordinarily improper
step of manufacturing evidence to suit his facile and ridiculous argument that he already had a
5
license “unrelated to the Order subject to this appeal.” This purported License Agreement is
attached to his Response as Exhibit B.
Careful examination of the record and of the purported license shows that it is completely
fabricated by Mr. DiFrancesco as a last ditch effort to enrich himself and/or to keep his appeal
alive for improper purposes. The License Agreement attached as Exhibit B purports to have an
effective date of September 15, 1996. It purports to have been signed by Louis DiFrancesco as
Licensee and by Lawrence DiFrancesco, his twin brother, as an officer of Particle Interconnect
Corporation, as Licensor. The signature page is undated. The signatures are unwitnessed and
unnotarized so there is no way of telling when the signatures were actually affixed to it.
Moreover, until he was removed from office on February 18, 1997, Mr. Lawrence DiFrancesco
was in fact an officer of Particle Interconnect Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercell
Corporation. As such, had this License Agreement been genuine, and signed before February 18,
1997, Mr. Lawrence DiFrancesco would have a fiduciary obligation to place the License
Agreement in the official records of the corporation in order to assure the accuracy of
representation made in filings and reports made by Intercell Corporation to the SEC. As
disclosed on the Affidavit of Paul H. Metzinger attached hereto as Exhibit 4, this purported
License Agreement has never been contained within the official corporate records of Particle
Interconnect Corporation.
Had the purported License Agreement attached to the Opposition as Exhibit B been
genuine, it is logical to expect that Mr. DiFrancesco would have know of its existence as of
November 4, 1998. However, when Mr. DiFrancesco was asked under oath about license
6
agreements in effect as of that date as part of the preliminary injunction hearing, he did not
mention this purported license agreement. The following reflects Mr. DiFrancesco’s testimony
on the issue:
Q: Let me ask you this: which license agreements are in effect at the present time, Mr. DiFrancesco.
A: I know of five.
Q: Which ones?
A: Exatron, Acsist, Micromodule Systems, Multiflex and Multiflex (Tr. Nov. 4,
1998, p. 78, ll. 18-24)
It is also logical to assume that had this purported License Agreement been in place as of
September 15, 1996, Mr. DiFrancesco would have mentioned it in the context of other questions
to him at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing. For example:
Q: Isn’t it true, Mr. DiFrancesco, that you have a knowledge that you need a license from Particle Interconnect if you are to practice the patents?
A: I don’t need a license. I need the use of a license.
Q: What’s the difference?
A: Exatron, Acsist (now known as Johnson-Mathey), Micromodule Systems, Multiflex, Myers Consulting, are all allowed to use Particle Interconnect technology. I simply need to manufacture under one of those five existing licenses or any other license that has been licensed that I don’t know of at this time. (Tr. Nov. 4, 1998, p.65, l. 20 through p. 66, l. 12).
There are other indications as well that the purported license agreement attached to
DiFrancesco’s Response is not genuine. Without getting into too much detail, the purported
license agreement provides an extremely broad definition of “Licensed Products” and essentially
allows license to do anything with regard to the purported license. It purports to be transferable
7
and assignable without permission or acknowledgment. The royalties are considerably lower
than those set forth in any other legitimate license. Finally, the license is essentially non-
terminable for any reason other than licensee’s failure to pay royalties within 180 days after a
notice of default and, even then, subject to a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction
from which no further appeal can be taken, in the event of a dispute as to the notice of default. In
addition, throughout the agreement Mr. DiFrancesco has added extraordinary language to the
effect that in no event shall unintentional failure to comply with the terms of the agreement be
grounds for termination of the agreement. None of these provisions are contained in any
legitimate license agreement with regard to the Particle Interconnect technology and current
management would never make such a grant to Louis DiFrancesco or anyone else.
One must also consider why Mr. DiFrancesco negotiated so extensively for the grant of a
license in the Settlement Agreement as reflected in the Order, Declaratory Judgment and
Injunction if he knew that he already had one or more valid licenses to produce product. It is
illogical and nonsensical and highlights the fact that Mr. DiFrancesco has only recently created
the purported license in an attempt to suit his selfish desires.
Apart from all of the foregoing indicators that the purported license attached as Exhibit B
has been manufactured by Mr. DiFrancesco and cannot be genuine, there is one provision of the
purported license that removes any doubt that it is anything but a recent fabrication. We draw the
Court’s attention to Section 12.2 of the purported License Agreement. It shows an address for
Paul Metzinger for purpose of notices under the September 15, 1996 Agreement. That notice
provides the address of 370 17th Street, Suite 3580, Denver, Colorado 80202. That is most
8
assuredly the current address of the Corporate Appellees. The problem for Mr. DiFrancesco and
his attorney in endorsing this obvious fabrication is that the Corporate Appellees did not move to
Suite 3580 until August, 1998, over two years after the supposed date fo this “license.”
Mr. DiFrancesco’s attempts along with his brother and lawyer to grant himself a
ridiculously favorable license without any authority to do is sad and lamentable. To attempt to
foist an obviously fabricated license agreement on the Court as evidence in opposition to a
motion to dismiss, however, is unpardonable. The Court should not permit this deceit and
deception and should harshly sanction any party it finds associated with the fraud on the Court.
So that it is clear to the Court, Mr. DiFrancesco’s other argument that if the appeal
ultimately succeeds, he has yet another license cancelled by the trial Court’s Order at Section
A(3) must fail. First of all, neither Mr. Metzinger nor the Corporate Appellees ever conceded for
a moment that the purported License Agreement canceled by the trial Court’s Order was a
genuine document. That is why, in the Order, Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, it is referred
to as a “purported” License Agreement. Because a settlement was reached, Mr. DiFrancesco was
not examined extensively surrounding that “license” but it suffers from many of the defects of
Exhibit B, including the fact that it was never made a part of the corporate records.
Mr. DiFrancesco did not identify it in sworn testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing.
Finally, it bears a signature date by Lawrence DiFrancesco as an officer of the corporation of
September 15, 1997; months after he had been removed from office. Far from becoming an
effective license in the event of reversal of Judge Martin’s Order, it would be, at best, a hotly
contested issue upon which the Appellees have no doubt that they would prevail. Accordingly,
9
Mr. DiFrancesco can make no serious argument that he has any license other than that granted
him by the Order. Any statements to the contrary or actions seeking financing or production
pursuant to a license are therefore completely inconsistent with the bases for his appeal, also
justifying dismissal.
For all the forgoing reasons and according to all the foregoing authorities, Corporate
Appellees respectfully request that this Court strike Appellee’s Response in Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss and the clearly fraudulent Exhibit B attached thereto, dismiss the appeal of
Louis DiFrancesco, and award reasonable attorneys fees to Appellees incurred because of the
filing of the fraudulent pleading, as well as double costs for filing a frivolous appeal pursuant to
Rule 38(d) C.A. R., along with such other and further orders as this may deem just and
appropriate under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted
CAPLAN AND EARNEST LLC
By:
Peter M. Hamilton, Esq. #28158
2595 Canyon Blvd, Suite 400
Boulder, CO 80302-6737
(303) 443-8010
10
This is a very important read for all NPCT shareholders.
kathy Nov-25-00, 10:09 PM (EST)
462. "I have just transcribed a new Court document which proves that Louis. . ."
DiFrancesco tried to perpetrate a fraud on the Colorado Appeals Court. This document was filed by Nanopierce in August of 2000.
COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO
Case No. 2000-CA-601
__________________________________________________
Appeal from
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF DENVER
STATE OF COLORADO
Hon. Warren O. Martin
Civil Action No. 98-CV-7827
_________________________________________________
APPELLEES’ REPLY TO APPELLANT’S RESPONSE
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
_________________________________________________
LOUIS DiFRANCESCO,
Defendant/Third Part Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PARTICLE INTERCONNECT CORPORATION and PAUL H. METZINGER
Plaintiff-Appellees
And
INTERCELL CORPORATION and PAUL H. METZINGER,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________
Caplan and Earnest LLC
Peter M. Hamilton, Esq., #28158
2595 Canyon Blvd., Suite 400
Boulder, CO 80302-6737
(303) 443-8010
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellees and
Third-Party Defendant-Appellee Intercell Corporation
Appellees, PARTICLE INTERCONNECT CORPORATION, NANOPIERCE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and INTERCELL CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to
collectively as “Corporate Appellees”), through their counsel, Caplan and Earnest LLC, hereby
request this court to consider the following Repoly to Appellant’s Response in Opposition to
Appellee Paul Metzinger’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated July 26, 2000. Corporate Appellees
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. and Intercell Corporation are public companies filing reports with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The accuracy of their reports depends upon their
corporate records and the actions of their executive officers. Corporate Appellees take the
unusual step of seeking the Court’s indulgence to consider this reply in order to address the
merits of the Motion to Dismiss and, more importantly, to address issues of serious misconduct
on the part of Appellant Louis DiFrancesco. Mr. DiFrancesco has always been extremely
contentious. Through his response to opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Paul
Metzinger, he and/or his attorney have gone too far. This appeal should be dismissed on the
grounds that it is frivolous and filed for an improper purpose, that Mr. DiFrancesco has taken
action inconsistent with the bases for his appeal, and/or as a sanction under Rule 38(c) of the
Colorado Appellate Rules for attempting to defraud this Honorable Court.
Improper Purpose
Mr. DiFrancesco’s public statements in conjunction with actions taken in this appeal
make it abundantly clear that he has taken this appeal for the improper and frivolous purpose of
harassing the Corporate Appellees and Mr. Metzinger. Mr. DiFrancesco and the Appellees
settled the underlying District Court case following lengthy negotiations in September, 1999. As
2
part of the settlement reflected in District Judge Warren O. Martin’s November 30, 1999 Order,
Declaratory Judgement and Injunction, Mr. DiFrancesco conceded that Appellee Nanopierce
Technologies, Inc. owned the entire and incontestable right, title and interest in patents relating to
the so-called Particle Interconnect technology. See Exhibit C to Appellant’s Response at Section
A(1). It is apparent, however, and has long been apparent, that Mr. DiFrancesco cannot accept
that he has sold and transferred his inventions and cannot get them back. Two sections of
Mr. DiFrancesco’s testimony from the Preliminary Injunction Hearing of November 4, 1998 are
instructive as to his motivations. At one point, Mr. DiFrancesco was asked how he felt about his
inventions:
Q: (By Mr. Young): Mr. DiFrancesco, you’re proud of you Particle Interconnect inventions, are you not?
A: I feel as proud as a father is of a son.
Q: As a matter of fact, Mr. DiFrancesco, you feel that the invention is an extension of your personality?
A: Absolutely. (Tr. Nov. 4, 1998, p. 64, ll 18-25)
Later, Mr. DiFrancesco was asked whether, in his heart, despite having assigned the
technology to Ken Bahl, that the patent was still his.
Q: Isn’t it true, Mr. DiFrancesco, that in your heart you really felt even though you didn’t have the assignment back from Ken Bahl that the patent was still yours?
A: I have a legal opinion from Michael Glenn, verified by Jack Rusco, that Ken Bahl patent’s assignment has no bearing or control of the patent.
Q: I repeat my question. Mr. DiFrancesco, isn’t it true that what you believe-
A: What is in my heart is none of your (expletive deleted) business. (Tr. Nov. 4, 1998, p. 87, l. 18 - p.88, l. 3.)
3
Copies of all relevant sections of transcript are attached hereto for the Court’s convenience as
Exhibit 1.
Against that backdrop, Mr. DiFrancesco has made numerous public statements on the
Raging Bull Internet Bulletin Board to the effect that he is “out to cause trouble for Intercell and
Nanopierce.” As recently as August 11, 2000, Mr. DiFrancesco entered a posting on the Raging
Bull Bulletin Board making specific reference to this appeal and that his filing was going to
“cause trouble for Intercell and Nanopierce.” A copy of the August 11, 2000 Raging Bull posting
is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
Corporate Appellees concede that it is not improper in and of itself to have the desire to
cause trouble for an opponent in litigation. However, it is improper if that goal is the true goal of
the litigation or appeal. Therefore, since the continuing vitality of Mr. DiFrancesco’s appeal is
based, in large part, upon outright fraud and deception, it is an inescapable conclusion that the
appeal is based on improper motivations.
Actions Inconsistent With Appeal
There is no dispute that Mr. DiFrancesco has publically stated on the Raging Bull Internet
Site that he has a license to produce product. There is similarly no doubt, since he posted that
statement on the Nanopierce Technologies Bulletin Board, that he was referring to Particle
Interconnect product. A copy of the relevant July 3, 2000 posting is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
By doing so, Mr. DiFrancesco has accepted the award of a license to him pursuant to Section
D(2) of Judge Martin’s November 30, 1999 Order, Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, the ver
Order Mr. DiFrancesco now appeals. Colorado law has long adopted the general rule that a party
who accepts the benefit of an award under an order of judgment waives his right to appeal
4
that judgment. The Supreme Court of Colorado expressed the rule in the case of Wilson v.
Automobile Owners Association Insurance Company 382 P. 2d 815 (Colo. 1963) as follows:
The party who accepts an award or legal advantage under an order or judgment waives his right to any such review of the adjudication as may again put in issue his right to the benefit which he has accepted. In other words, it is the possibility that his appeal may lead to a result showing that he is not entitled to what he has received under the judgment appealed from, that defeats his right to prosecute a writ of error.
382 P.2d 815, at 816.
That principle of law has stood the test of time and was most recently expressed and
expanded upon by the Colorado Court of Appeals in the case of In Re: Marriage of Burford, 950
P. 2d 682 (Colo. App. 1997) in which the Court stated the following:
Indeed, the acceptance of benefits of a judgment will be held to constitute a waiver of appeal rights only if such action is inconsistent with the basis for the appeal. It is only if the appeal, if successful, will again put into issue the right of the party to receive the benefits already accepted that a waiver of the right to appeal will be found.
950 P.2d 682 at 684.
Despite Mr. DiFrancesco’s tortured arguments to the contrary, this is exactly the case
herein. Through the Raging Bull postings, Mr. DiFrancesco has told the world that he has a
license. In addition, he has sought financing to produce Particle Interconnect product pursuant to
a license that he could only have obtained under the auspices of Judge Martin’s Order. Doubtless
realizing that he had taken a position inconsistent with his appeal, and that he was about to lose
his ability to further harass the Appellees, Mr. DiFrancesco took the extraordinarily improper
step of manufacturing evidence to suit his facile and ridiculous argument that he already had a
5
license “unrelated to the Order subject to this appeal.” This purported License Agreement is
attached to his Response as Exhibit B.
Careful examination of the record and of the purported license shows that it is completely
fabricated by Mr. DiFrancesco as a last ditch effort to enrich himself and/or to keep his appeal
alive for improper purposes. The License Agreement attached as Exhibit B purports to have an
effective date of September 15, 1996. It purports to have been signed by Louis DiFrancesco as
Licensee and by Lawrence DiFrancesco, his twin brother, as an officer of Particle Interconnect
Corporation, as Licensor. The signature page is undated. The signatures are unwitnessed and
unnotarized so there is no way of telling when the signatures were actually affixed to it.
Moreover, until he was removed from office on February 18, 1997, Mr. Lawrence DiFrancesco
was in fact an officer of Particle Interconnect Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercell
Corporation. As such, had this License Agreement been genuine, and signed before February 18,
1997, Mr. Lawrence DiFrancesco would have a fiduciary obligation to place the License
Agreement in the official records of the corporation in order to assure the accuracy of
representation made in filings and reports made by Intercell Corporation to the SEC. As
disclosed on the Affidavit of Paul H. Metzinger attached hereto as Exhibit 4, this purported
License Agreement has never been contained within the official corporate records of Particle
Interconnect Corporation.
Had the purported License Agreement attached to the Opposition as Exhibit B been
genuine, it is logical to expect that Mr. DiFrancesco would have know of its existence as of
November 4, 1998. However, when Mr. DiFrancesco was asked under oath about license
6
agreements in effect as of that date as part of the preliminary injunction hearing, he did not
mention this purported license agreement. The following reflects Mr. DiFrancesco’s testimony
on the issue:
Q: Let me ask you this: which license agreements are in effect at the present time, Mr. DiFrancesco.
A: I know of five.
Q: Which ones?
A: Exatron, Acsist, Micromodule Systems, Multiflex and Multiflex (Tr. Nov. 4,
1998, p. 78, ll. 18-24)
It is also logical to assume that had this purported License Agreement been in place as of
September 15, 1996, Mr. DiFrancesco would have mentioned it in the context of other questions
to him at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing. For example:
Q: Isn’t it true, Mr. DiFrancesco, that you have a knowledge that you need a license from Particle Interconnect if you are to practice the patents?
A: I don’t need a license. I need the use of a license.
Q: What’s the difference?
A: Exatron, Acsist (now known as Johnson-Mathey), Micromodule Systems, Multiflex, Myers Consulting, are all allowed to use Particle Interconnect technology. I simply need to manufacture under one of those five existing licenses or any other license that has been licensed that I don’t know of at this time. (Tr. Nov. 4, 1998, p.65, l. 20 through p. 66, l. 12).
There are other indications as well that the purported license agreement attached to
DiFrancesco’s Response is not genuine. Without getting into too much detail, the purported
license agreement provides an extremely broad definition of “Licensed Products” and essentially
allows license to do anything with regard to the purported license. It purports to be transferable
7
and assignable without permission or acknowledgment. The royalties are considerably lower
than those set forth in any other legitimate license. Finally, the license is essentially non-
terminable for any reason other than licensee’s failure to pay royalties within 180 days after a
notice of default and, even then, subject to a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction
from which no further appeal can be taken, in the event of a dispute as to the notice of default. In
addition, throughout the agreement Mr. DiFrancesco has added extraordinary language to the
effect that in no event shall unintentional failure to comply with the terms of the agreement be
grounds for termination of the agreement. None of these provisions are contained in any
legitimate license agreement with regard to the Particle Interconnect technology and current
management would never make such a grant to Louis DiFrancesco or anyone else.
One must also consider why Mr. DiFrancesco negotiated so extensively for the grant of a
license in the Settlement Agreement as reflected in the Order, Declaratory Judgment and
Injunction if he knew that he already had one or more valid licenses to produce product. It is
illogical and nonsensical and highlights the fact that Mr. DiFrancesco has only recently created
the purported license in an attempt to suit his selfish desires.
Apart from all of the foregoing indicators that the purported license attached as Exhibit B
has been manufactured by Mr. DiFrancesco and cannot be genuine, there is one provision of the
purported license that removes any doubt that it is anything but a recent fabrication. We draw the
Court’s attention to Section 12.2 of the purported License Agreement. It shows an address for
Paul Metzinger for purpose of notices under the September 15, 1996 Agreement. That notice
provides the address of 370 17th Street, Suite 3580, Denver, Colorado 80202. That is most
8
assuredly the current address of the Corporate Appellees. The problem for Mr. DiFrancesco and
his attorney in endorsing this obvious fabrication is that the Corporate Appellees did not move to
Suite 3580 until August, 1998, over two years after the supposed date fo this “license.”
Mr. DiFrancesco’s attempts along with his brother and lawyer to grant himself a
ridiculously favorable license without any authority to do is sad and lamentable. To attempt to
foist an obviously fabricated license agreement on the Court as evidence in opposition to a
motion to dismiss, however, is unpardonable. The Court should not permit this deceit and
deception and should harshly sanction any party it finds associated with the fraud on the Court.
So that it is clear to the Court, Mr. DiFrancesco’s other argument that if the appeal
ultimately succeeds, he has yet another license cancelled by the trial Court’s Order at Section
A(3) must fail. First of all, neither Mr. Metzinger nor the Corporate Appellees ever conceded for
a moment that the purported License Agreement canceled by the trial Court’s Order was a
genuine document. That is why, in the Order, Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, it is referred
to as a “purported” License Agreement. Because a settlement was reached, Mr. DiFrancesco was
not examined extensively surrounding that “license” but it suffers from many of the defects of
Exhibit B, including the fact that it was never made a part of the corporate records.
Mr. DiFrancesco did not identify it in sworn testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing.
Finally, it bears a signature date by Lawrence DiFrancesco as an officer of the corporation of
September 15, 1997; months after he had been removed from office. Far from becoming an
effective license in the event of reversal of Judge Martin’s Order, it would be, at best, a hotly
contested issue upon which the Appellees have no doubt that they would prevail. Accordingly,
9
Mr. DiFrancesco can make no serious argument that he has any license other than that granted
him by the Order. Any statements to the contrary or actions seeking financing or production
pursuant to a license are therefore completely inconsistent with the bases for his appeal, also
justifying dismissal.
For all the forgoing reasons and according to all the foregoing authorities, Corporate
Appellees respectfully request that this Court strike Appellee’s Response in Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss and the clearly fraudulent Exhibit B attached thereto, dismiss the appeal of
Louis DiFrancesco, and award reasonable attorneys fees to Appellees incurred because of the
filing of the fraudulent pleading, as well as double costs for filing a frivolous appeal pursuant to
Rule 38(d) C.A. R., along with such other and further orders as this may deem just and
appropriate under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted
CAPLAN AND EARNEST LLC
By:
Peter M. Hamilton, Esq. #28158
2595 Canyon Blvd, Suite 400
Boulder, CO 80302-6737
(303) 443-8010
10
WillyWizard.com Profiles IFTP
http://willywizard.com
Willy
Hunting season is about over so I'll get back to posting. LOL Buy us that island net year. I think we should buy Government Island as a home base.
Willy
NPCT News
Nanopierce Technologies Inc. Announces Appointment of Dr. Robert F. Shaw to the Board of Directors
Updated: Monday, November 13, 2000 03:02 AM ET Email this article to a friend!
Printer-friendly version
DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 13, 2000--Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:NPCT) today announced that Dr. Robert F. Shaw had been appointed to its Board of Directors.
Dr. Shaw is currently an Assistant Professor of Physics in the Math, Physics and Computer Science Department at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, New Jersey. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University and Columbia University. Dr. Shaw received his Ph.D. Degree from Cambridge University, Cambridge England in Solid State Physics. His research and thesis advisors were Director of the Cavendish Laboratory and Nobel Laureate, Prof. Sir N.F. Mott, D.Sc., FRS; and Prof. A.D. Yoffe, D.Sc., FRS. He was among the first to conduct academic research on electronic conduction mechanisms in amorphous semiconductors. He has received extensive additional educational background from other universities: MBA Program Management/Finance, Rutgers University; Graduate Courses in Chemistry and Electrical Engineering, University of Connecticut, and his B.S. Degree in Chemistry, North Carolina State University.
Stock Insight
Symbol Last Change
NPCT 1.781 -0.031
Index
Dow Jones 10382.26 -220.69
NASDAQ 2860.11 -168.88
More Analysis
• See Analyst Ratings
• Compare Growth Trends
• Get One-Click Scorecard
During his professional career Dr. Shaw has served in many professional capacities with among other entities, Exxon Corporation as its Manager of New Business Development and Senior Research Physicist. At Exxon he received the prestigious Exxon Chairman's Management Award in 1979, 1980 and 1981 in recognition of contributions to Exxon and excellence in management performance. While at Exxon, Dr. Shaw was President of Silag, Inc., an advanced composite materials division of Exxon. He was also Division Manager and Chief Scientist of EMDEX, an Exxon semiconductor wafer and device fabrication company.
Dr. Shaw is a recognized telecommunications industry expert. He has provided consulting services to among others, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, BellSouth, Bell Northern, Exxon, Allied Signal, Harris-Ferinon, Digital Microwave, Kerr-McGee Corporation, NASA, CIA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Northern Telecom, Probe Research, TeleStrategies, Johnson & Higgins, IBM, City of New York, New York City Police, Fire and EMT Departments, Mitsubishi, SONY Corp., Sharp, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Rockwell International, Hughes, KPMG, and investment banking firms.
Dr. Shaw has authored approximately 30 peer-reviewed publications and developed over 35 U.S. and foreign patents. Including his Ph.D. thesis, he has had seven books published. He has delivered approximately 50 presentations of research at scientific meetings and invited seminars. He has been interviewed by CBS-TV regarding transfer of NASA technology to U.S. corporations and also a two part presentation on the BBC on the physics and technology of amorphous materials and their current and future applications in electronic semiconductor devices and products.
Dr. Shaw is a member of the following professional societies: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). He is a past member of SPIE, AIIM, Society of Telecommunications Consultants, American institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
Paul H. Metzinger, President and CEO of Nanopierce Technologies, Inc., said "We are honored that Dr. Shaw agreed to appointment as a Director of the Company. His professional and personal credentials are so impressive that it is difficult to overstate the value his presence will bring to the Company. His numerous achievements are not easily compressed into a brief press release. I invite all persons to consult our web site for extensive information on Dr. Shaw."
Dr. Shaw said, "I am very pleased to be invited to assist Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. in the development and commercialization of its unique NCS technology. The potential electronic packaging applications of NCS, particularly in the exploding field of wireless devices, when coupled with the exciting dynamics of a young company having an extremely capable staff, presents an irresistible challenge."
Paul Metzinger noted that the appointment of Dr. Shaw and Albert Capote now means that the Company has fulfilled another requirement for Small Cap Market listing on the Nasdaq system. Two independent directors must be on the Board of Directors and the Company has now satisfied that requirement.
Additional information on Dr. Shaw will be available on the Company's web site at a later date.
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, USA, is traded on the Nasdaq stock market (OTCBB:NPCT) as well as on the Frankfurt and Hamburg (OTC:NPI, news, msgs). In addition to the 12 patents it owns, Nanopierce has numerous applications pending, others in preparation, and various other intellectual properties related to Nanopierce's proprietary NCS (Nanopierce Connection System). This advanced system is designed to provide significant improvement over conventional electrical and mechanical interconnection methods for high-density circuit boards, components, sockets, connectors, semiconductor packaging and electronic systems.
For more information on Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. please visit this web site: http://www.nanopierce.com.
This announcement contains forward-looking statements about Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. that may involve risks and uncertainties. Important factors relating to the company's operations could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward- looking statements and are further detailed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission available at the SEC website (http://www.sec.gov). All forward-looking statements are based on information available to NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. on the date hereof, and NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. assumes no obligation to update such statements.
CONTACT: Nanopierce Technologies Inc., Denver
Paul. H. Metzinger, 303/592-1010
303/592-1054 (fax)
paul@nanopierce.com
or
Nanopierce Card Technologies GmbH, Munich
Dr. Michael E. Wernle, +49-8102-8961-0
+49-8102-8961-11 (fax)
michael@nanopierce.com
or
NPCT News
Nanopierce Technologies Inc. Announces Appointment of Dr. Robert F. Shaw to the Board of Directors
Updated: Monday, November 13, 2000 03:02 AM ET Email this article to a friend!
Printer-friendly version
DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 13, 2000--Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:NPCT) today announced that Dr. Robert F. Shaw had been appointed to its Board of Directors.
Dr. Shaw is currently an Assistant Professor of Physics in the Math, Physics and Computer Science Department at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, New Jersey. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University and Columbia University. Dr. Shaw received his Ph.D. Degree from Cambridge University, Cambridge England in Solid State Physics. His research and thesis advisors were Director of the Cavendish Laboratory and Nobel Laureate, Prof. Sir N.F. Mott, D.Sc., FRS; and Prof. A.D. Yoffe, D.Sc., FRS. He was among the first to conduct academic research on electronic conduction mechanisms in amorphous semiconductors. He has received extensive additional educational background from other universities: MBA Program Management/Finance, Rutgers University; Graduate Courses in Chemistry and Electrical Engineering, University of Connecticut, and his B.S. Degree in Chemistry, North Carolina State University.
Stock Insight
Symbol Last Change
NPCT 1.781 -0.031
Index
Dow Jones 10382.26 -220.69
NASDAQ 2860.11 -168.88
More Analysis
• See Analyst Ratings
• Compare Growth Trends
• Get One-Click Scorecard
During his professional career Dr. Shaw has served in many professional capacities with among other entities, Exxon Corporation as its Manager of New Business Development and Senior Research Physicist. At Exxon he received the prestigious Exxon Chairman's Management Award in 1979, 1980 and 1981 in recognition of contributions to Exxon and excellence in management performance. While at Exxon, Dr. Shaw was President of Silag, Inc., an advanced composite materials division of Exxon. He was also Division Manager and Chief Scientist of EMDEX, an Exxon semiconductor wafer and device fabrication company.
Dr. Shaw is a recognized telecommunications industry expert. He has provided consulting services to among others, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, BellSouth, Bell Northern, Exxon, Allied Signal, Harris-Ferinon, Digital Microwave, Kerr-McGee Corporation, NASA, CIA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Northern Telecom, Probe Research, TeleStrategies, Johnson & Higgins, IBM, City of New York, New York City Police, Fire and EMT Departments, Mitsubishi, SONY Corp., Sharp, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Rockwell International, Hughes, KPMG, and investment banking firms.
Dr. Shaw has authored approximately 30 peer-reviewed publications and developed over 35 U.S. and foreign patents. Including his Ph.D. thesis, he has had seven books published. He has delivered approximately 50 presentations of research at scientific meetings and invited seminars. He has been interviewed by CBS-TV regarding transfer of NASA technology to U.S. corporations and also a two part presentation on the BBC on the physics and technology of amorphous materials and their current and future applications in electronic semiconductor devices and products.
Dr. Shaw is a member of the following professional societies: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). He is a past member of SPIE, AIIM, Society of Telecommunications Consultants, American institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
Paul H. Metzinger, President and CEO of Nanopierce Technologies, Inc., said "We are honored that Dr. Shaw agreed to appointment as a Director of the Company. His professional and personal credentials are so impressive that it is difficult to overstate the value his presence will bring to the Company. His numerous achievements are not easily compressed into a brief press release. I invite all persons to consult our web site for extensive information on Dr. Shaw."
Dr. Shaw said, "I am very pleased to be invited to assist Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. in the development and commercialization of its unique NCS technology. The potential electronic packaging applications of NCS, particularly in the exploding field of wireless devices, when coupled with the exciting dynamics of a young company having an extremely capable staff, presents an irresistible challenge."
Paul Metzinger noted that the appointment of Dr. Shaw and Albert Capote now means that the Company has fulfilled another requirement for Small Cap Market listing on the Nasdaq system. Two independent directors must be on the Board of Directors and the Company has now satisfied that requirement.
Additional information on Dr. Shaw will be available on the Company's web site at a later date.
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, USA, is traded on the Nasdaq stock market (OTCBB:NPCT) as well as on the Frankfurt and Hamburg (OTC:NPI, news, msgs). In addition to the 12 patents it owns, Nanopierce has numerous applications pending, others in preparation, and various other intellectual properties related to Nanopierce's proprietary NCS (Nanopierce Connection System). This advanced system is designed to provide significant improvement over conventional electrical and mechanical interconnection methods for high-density circuit boards, components, sockets, connectors, semiconductor packaging and electronic systems.
For more information on Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. please visit this web site: http://www.nanopierce.com.
This announcement contains forward-looking statements about Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. that may involve risks and uncertainties. Important factors relating to the company's operations could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward- looking statements and are further detailed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission available at the SEC website (http://www.sec.gov). All forward-looking statements are based on information available to NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. on the date hereof, and NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. assumes no obligation to update such statements.
CONTACT: Nanopierce Technologies Inc., Denver
Paul. H. Metzinger, 303/592-1010
303/592-1054 (fax)
paul@nanopierce.com
or
Nanopierce Card Technologies GmbH, Munich
Dr. Michael E. Wernle, +49-8102-8961-0
+49-8102-8961-11 (fax)
michael@nanopierce.com
or
Yucky market out there. I think the OTCBB is basicly done for the year. For many years it rallys back in mid Jan so maybe we will get some action then.
We do have the evil twins running for preszzydent so everyone is very concerned. Good thing they aren't identical twins.
Bush will cut taxes and cause a spiral down in the markets and Gore??? Maybe he might start dating Monica and buy a cigar factory so Clinton has something to run while in retirement. I think Clinton might get jealous LOL.
Willy
BB,
The way the market is restless at this time I hope they6 hold off until the 1st of Jan. 2001. This is what we need to allow the impact of a major player signing with NPCT to have maximum impact on the share price. I know nobody likes this but sometimes time is needed.
You know we have the evil twins running for Presydent. :)
Thank you,
Willy
BB,
I am hearing rumors of a huge contract. Matter of fact the rumors are about a few huge contracts. This could get very exciting over the next few months and years to come.
Willy
NPCT,
Ok all you readers keep and eye on this one.
Willy
Johnny,
You are very welcome at the Wizard's post boards. Try surfing all my sites and links. I think you might find a wealth of info.
Willy
Here is a link worth reading. Shows some association with a big boy. First time association in any type of news release with a giant.
http://www.cnbc.com/stocks/recentevent.asp?Category=RecEvent&Symbol=SLB&nocache=971199427150
Thank you,
WillyWizard
Here is the best place to read about the open house.
A nice long detailed summary here on the day's events:
http://www.investortoinvestor.com/dcforum/cgi-bin/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=277&om=28&forum=NewsletterDiscussion
Thank you,
WillyWizard
LOL @ matt
Well I actually wait patiently for the markets to correct. Doubled up my 401K transfer from my money market today. Puts me at about 32% vested and hoping for one more down-turn in the NASDAQ before it moves up. I would like to be 50% to 60% vested in funds when it turns. I believe after elections the NASDAQ will rally.
Willy
Crookk,
I agree the gap is huge but I will say that no real sellers were present all day. The NASDAQ was creamed today and DVDT held its own. I am satisfied with its preformance today. They have a good product and if it catches on this is a stock hitting bottom that can't go much lower IMO.
Thank you,
WillyWizard
Matt,
What a great day for a 36,000,000 contract to be announced for DVDT. NASDAQ is getting creamed and people are running for the exits.
I think I'll roll another portion of my 401K back into the funds at the close today. Things will stabilize once earnings start to come out.
Thank you,
Willy