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.
Thank you.. you are 100% correct.... ( understatement it is )
Over compensated = over statement of the year...
LGJ, it really doesn't matter what RP says, bottom line the company has
been a failure. Well, unless of course, if you take into consideration their scam artists. Then I would have say they are 100% successful.
T
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/Info_Center.asp
type in edig for up to date filings.
Up to 7,500 continuous page turns with a single full charge
http://www.learningcenter.sony.us/assets/itpd/reader/
FORM 8-K Sept 26, 2006
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
September 26, 2006
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
0-20734
(Commission File Number)
33-0591385
(IRS Employer Identification No.)
16770 West Bernardo Drive
San Diego, California 92127
(Address of principal executive offices)
(858) 304-3016
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
e. Digital Corporation (the "Company") has entered into certain warrant agreements as more fully described in Item 3.02.
Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities.
Warrant Exercise and Preferred Stock Conversion Reference is made to the Company's reports on Form 8-K dated August 28, 2006 and September 6, 2006. The Company has received an additional $49,920 of cash proceeds from holders who exercised the following outstanding warrants:
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
Number of Exercise
Number of Common Shares Price
Holders Description Issued on Conversion Per Share Proceeds
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
3 Series EE Warrants expiring November 224,000 $0.08 $17,920
2007
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
1 Warrants expiring June 30, 2007 400,000 $0.08 $32,000
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
The Company also has issued 1,791,313 shares of common stock upon the conversion of 1,250 shares of outstanding Series EE preferred stock by two holders.
The shares of common stock issued by the Company upon exercise of the above warrants and conversion of the preferred stock was registered for resale on registration statement #333-136096.
As an inducement for early warrant exercise of the Series EE Warrants, the Company offered holders a New Warrant equal to 12% of the shares issued upon exercise. There was no inducement for the June 30, 2007 warrants. There was no modification to the terms or conditions of outstanding warrant agreements. In connection with the above Series EE warrant exercises, the Company has issued New Warrants on an aggregate of 26,880 shares of common stock. A complete copy of the form of the New Warrant was filed as Exhibit 4.53 to the Company's Form 8-K dated August 28, 2006 and is incorporated herein by reference. The Company has terminated its warrant inducement offer described in the Company's Form 8-K dated August 28, 2006.
We paid no placement fees. We expect to use the cash proceeds from warrant exercise for working capital purposes.
We offered and sold the New Warrants without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 to a limited number of accredited investors in reliance upon the exemption provided by Rule 506 of Regulation D thereunder. The warrants and any shares issuable upon exercise may not be offered or sold in the United States in the absence of an effective registration statement or exemption from the registration requirements under the Securities Act. An appropriate legend was placed on the warrants issued, and will be placed on the shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants, unless registered under the Securities Act prior to issuance.
Subordinated Note Conversion
The Company has also issued 2,500,000 shares of common stock upon the voluntary conversion by two holders of an aggregate of $200,000 principal amount of outstanding convertible 12% Subordinated Promissory Notes due December 31, 2006, as amended.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits:
4.53* Form of New Warrant Exercisable at $0.15 per share through August 31, 2009.
* Filed as Exhibit 4.53 to the Company's Form 8-K dated August 28, 2006.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
e.DIGITAL CORPORATION
And we are not even in one of them...
I cant even dump 5k shares @ ,14.5
Not one taker
AT&T to offer 20 TV channels for PC viewing
Tuesday September 12, 1:27 AM EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - AT&T Inc. (T) said on Tuesday it will launch a new Internet browser-based television service that will allow subscribers to watch 20 channels, including Fox News and the Weather Channel, on their computers.
The live TV service, named AT&T Broadband TV, will be available to high-speed Internet users at $19.99 a month, adding to AT&T's line-up of video products to meet growing demand for mobile and over-the-Web entertainment.
Although the service does not work overseas, AT&T said one target customer group would be U.S. travelers, who will be able to watch live TV on their laptops as long as their Internet connection speed is at least 500 kilobits per second.
The new service faces competition from all corners of the media and technology world, from free Webcasts of prime-time TV shows such as "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" that are available on ABC's site, to movie download services like CinemaNow and online video services such as YouTube and Google Video.
It would also compete against Sling Media Inc., whose $200 consumer electronics device lets viewers watch all of their cable channels on Internet-connected laptops and handheld devices with no monthly fee.
AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, said it would work with media streaming services provider MobiTV Inc. to offer the service, which will also offer programs from Food Network, History Channel and Bloomberg TV.
Phone companies like AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) have launched Web and video services over the past year to compete with cable companies that have taken away their customers with combined video, voice and Internet services.
AT&T recently launched AT&T Homezone, a television service delivered to customers using high-speed Internet connections. The company said it now has 7.8 million subscribers for its DSL (digital subscriber lines) service.
E DIGITAL CORP: 8-K, Sub-Doc 1, Page 1
September 6, 2006
================================================================================
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
September 6, 2006
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
0-20734
(Commission File Number)
33-0591385
(IRS Employer Identification No.)
16770 West Bernardo Drive
San Diego, California 92127
(Address of principal executive offices)
(858) 304-3016
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
E DIGITAL CORP: 8-K, Sub-Doc 1, Page 2 09/07/06
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
e. Digital Corporation (the "Company") has entered into certain warrant
agreements as more fully described in Item 3.02.
Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities.
Reference is made to the Company's report on Form 8-K dated August 28, 2006.
Since that date, the Company has received an additional $196,187 of cash
proceeds from holders who exercised the following outstanding warrants:
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
Exercise
Number of Number of Price
Holders Description Common Shares Per Share Proceeds
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
5 "A" Warrants expiring February 28, 906,250 $0.10 $90,625
2009
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
5 "B" Warrants expiring February 4, 2007 906,250 $0.09 $81,562
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
4 Warrants expiring June 30, 2007 300,000 $0.08 $24,000
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
The 2,112,500 shares of common stock issued by the Company upon exercise of the
above warrants was registered on registration statement #333-136096.
As an inducement for early warrant exercise the Company offered to holders of
outstanding "A" and "B" Warrants a new warrant exercisable for 25% of the shares
issued exercisable at $.15 per share through August 31, 2009 ("New Warrant").
There was no modification to the terms or conditions of the outstanding warrant
agreements.
In connection with the above warrant exercises, the Company has issued New
Warrants on an aggregate of 453,126 shares of common stock. A complete copy of
the form of the New Warrant was filed as Exhibit 4.53 to the Company's Form 8-K
dated August 28, 2006 and is incorporated herein by reference.
The foregoing exercise and issuance transactions include the exercise by one
officer of the Company of 93,750 "A" and 93,750 "B" Warrants owned for aggregate
cash proceeds of $17,812.50. In connection therewith, such officer was granted
New Warrants on an aggregate of 46,875 shares of common stock on the same terms
and percentages as unaffiliated holders.
We paid no placement fees. We expect to use the cash proceeds from warrant
exercise for working capital purposes.
E DIGITAL CORP: 4/A, Sub-Doc 1, 9/07/06
FILING - Amendment to a previously filed 4 - Form 4/A
E DIGITAL CORP: 4/A, Sub-Doc 1
FORM 4/A UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP
Filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 17(a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 or Section 30(h) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
OMB APPROVAL
OMB Number: 3235-0287
Expires: January 31, 2008
Estimated average burden
hours per response 0.5
Check this box if no longer subject to Section 16. Form 4 or Form 5 obligations may continue. See Instruction 1(b).
1. Name and Address of Reporting Person*
PUTNAM ROBERT
(Last) (First) (Middle)
EDIGITAL CORP, 16770 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
(Street)
SAN DIEGO CA 92127
(City) (State) (Zip)
2. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol
E DIGITAL CORP [EDIG] 5. Relationship of Reporting Person(s) to Issuer
(Check all applicable)
X Director 10% Owner
X Officer (give title below) Other (specify below)
Sr. Vice President & Secretary
3. Date of Earliest Transaction (Month/Day/Year)
08/25/2006
4. If Amendment, Date of Original Filed (Month/Day/Year)
08/28/2006 6. Individual or Joint/Group Filing (Check Applicable Line)
X Form filed by One Reporting Person
Form filed by More than One Reporting Person
Table I - Non-Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
1.Title of Security
(Instr. 3) 2. Transaction Date (Month/Day/Year) 2A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (Month/Day/Year) 3. Transaction Code
(Instr. 8) 4. Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s)
(Instr. 3 and 4) 6. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I)
(Instr. 4) 7. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership
(Instr. 4)
Code V Amount (A) or (D) Price
Table II - Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
(e.g., puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities)
1. Title of Derivative Security
(Instr. 3) 2. Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security 3. Transaction Date (Month/Day/Year) 3A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (Month/Day/Year) 4. Transaction Code
(Instr. 8) 5. Number of Derivative Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4, and 5) 6. Date Exercisable and Expiration Date
(Month/Day/Year) 7. Title and Amount of Underlying Securities
(Instr. 3 and 4) 8. Price of Derivative Security
(Instr. 5) 9. Number of Derivative Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s)
(Instr. 4) 10. Ownership Form of Derivative Security: Direct (D) or Indirect (I)
(Instr. 4) 11. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership
(Instr. 4)
Code V (A) (D) Date Exercisable Expiration Date Title Amount or Number of Shares
Warrant (3) (4) $ 0.15 08/25/2006 A 78,125 08/25/2006 08/31/2009 Common Stock 78,125 $ 0 78,125 D
Explanation of Responses:
3. Warrant issued by the Company as an inducement for early exercise of "A" and "B" warrants.
4. Amendment to record the new warrant as "acquired" rather than "disposed" as incorrectly reported on August 28, 2006.
/s/ ROBERT PUTNAM 09/06/2006
** Signature of Reporting Person Date
6-Sep-2006 Form 8-K for E DIGITAL CORP
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Unregistered Sale of Equity Securities
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
e. Digital Corporation (the "Company") has entered into certain warrant agreements as more fully described in Item 3.02.
Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities.
Reference is made to the Company's report on Form 8-K dated August 28, 2006. Since that date, the Company has received an additional $196,187 of cash proceeds from holders who exercised the following outstanding warrants:
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
Exercise
Number of Number of Price
Holders Description Common Shares Per Share Proceeds
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
5 "A" Warrants expiring February 28, 906,250 $0.10 $90,625
2009
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
5 "B" Warrants expiring February 4, 2007 906,250 $0.09 $81,562
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
4 Warrants expiring June 30, 2007 300,000 $0.08 $24,000
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------
The 2,112,500 shares of common stock issued by the Company upon exercise of the above warrants was registered on registration statement #333-136096.
As an inducement for early warrant exercise the Company offered to holders of outstanding "A" and "B" Warrants a new warrant exercisable for 25% of the shares issued exercisable at $.15 per share through August 31, 2009 ("New Warrant"). There was no modification to the terms or conditions of the outstanding warrant agreements.
In connection with the above warrant exercises, the Company has issued New Warrants on an aggregate of 453,126 shares of common stock. A complete copy of the form of the New Warrant was filed as Exhibit 4.53 to the Company's Form 8-K dated August 28, 2006 and is incorporated herein by reference.
The foregoing exercise and issuance transactions include the exercise by one officer of the Company of 93,750 "A" and 93,750 "B" Warrants owned for aggregate cash proceeds of $17,812.50. In connection therewith, such officer was granted New Warrants on an aggregate of 46,875 shares of common stock on the same terms and percentages as unaffiliated holders.
We paid no placement fees. We expect to use the cash proceeds from warrant exercise for working capital purposes.
We offered and sold the New Warrants without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 to a limited number of accredited investors in reliance upon the exemption provided by Rule 506 of Regulation D thereunder. The warrants and any shares issuable upon exercise may not be offered or sold in the United States in the absence of an effective registration statement or exemption from the registration requirements under the Securities Act. An appropriate legend was placed on the warrants issued, and will be placed on the shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants, unless registered under the Securities Act prior to issuance.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits:
4.53* Form of New Warrant Exercisable at $0.15 per share through August 31, 2009.
* Filed as Exhibit 4.53 to the Company's Form 8-K dated August 28, 2006.
How can anyone take edig seriously at WAEA given its history. No matter what ~ the rumors are enough to keep most people away.. and then when they look at the companies performance ~ YIKES
Wencor has proven to the industry to be just that A PROVEN company with a long history of success.
WAEA will back fire on edig..
A FAIL IS A FAIL IS A FAIL!!!
by Mark Faulk
I’m at a loss for words here. Reading today’s “DTCC Media Statement on Global Links ” is like standing in front of an all-you-can-eat buffet. There are so many things to choose from that it’s hard to know where to dig in first.
I guess I’ll just go through the DTCC smorgasbord a paragraph at a time, and add my own “seasoning” to the mix.
Ready?
“NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 2006--DTCC is looking into the facts surrounding transactions that were reported on in a recent media report regarding Global Links Corp. We have been unable to find information that corroborates many of the facts and statistics cited in this story.”
Man, this one is good. First of all, these guys really need to hire a writer, and by writer I mean someone who actually knows the meaning of the words that he or she releases in their media statements. As I’ve been nice enough to do so many times over the past few years, I’ll start by defining a couple of keys words in this paragraph. These definitions are pulled from dictionary.com:
FACT: something that actually exists; reality; truth
STATISTICS: the numerical facts or data themselves
CORROBORATE: to support with evidence or authority
Anyone else getting this? The DTCC admits that the information about Global Links is the truth, that it’s fact, and that, by definition, the statistics are fact as well. Then, they say that have been unable to find information to corroborate what is already defined as fact. EARTH TO DTCC: IF IT’S FACT, IT’S ALREAY BEEN CORROBORATED. And even if facts weren’t confirmed facts, and in some alternate universe needed to be corroborated every time they were passed off to the next entity, then how can the very organization in charge of keeping track of the facts and statistics not be able to “find information that corroborates” those facts and statistics?
“The public record has established that during a three-year period beginning in April 2003, the company engaged in three reverse splits, a name change and one forward split. The 27 million share delivery failure referenced in the recent report occurred in conjunction with one of these 350-to-1 reverse splits. This type of activity is quite rare and unusual for mainstream securities. However, among sub-penny stocks, these activities may occur more often to try and artificially raise the stock’s price.”
Okay, now that we’ve bashed the company again, let’s look a little closer at this paragraph. First of all, this part is lifted almost verbatim from the same argument that every two-bit lowlife basher on stock message boards (plus a few so-called “reputable journalists”) has perpetuated for years: “we think the company sucks, therefore allowing the brokers and whoever else can game the system to screw the shareholders is just fine and dandy.”
Secondly, a reverse split (while not my favorite thing for a company to do) is perfectly legal according to the SEC’s own regulations, and does not “artificially raise” the stock’s price. It raises it mathematically in direct proportion to the number of existing shares. However, in the case of Global Links, the price wasn’t raised proportionately, so that shares that should have opened at around $7 a share (two cents x 350) instead opened at pre-reverse split prices, even though there were only 1,158,064 shares total in the entire stock market. Then, over the next month 208 million shares were traded, and the SEC showed 27 million as undelivered on the first day. The market was flooded with shares that didn’t exist, and the company, and its shareholders, were screwed twice, first by the brokers, and then by the DTCC and SEC.
“The article suggested that during February 2005, when one of the reverse splits was initiated, the stock was trading at 10 cents pre-reverse split and Global Link’s aim was get the price up to $35. According to Bloomberg, the price for Global Links during the two weeks prior to the reverse split ranged from $0.0364 (3.6 cents) to $0.01458 (1.5 cents).”
This one is grasping at straws, a blatant effort to trash the only mainstream newspaper reporter with enough courage to speak out about rampant stock market corruption, for a mathematical error that had nothing to do with the real issue, and that the writer of the article corrected within one hour of releasing her piece (unlike the numerous errors in the DTCC article, which are still glaringly present).
“Whatever the actual cause of the delivery failure, the total value of the 27 million in failed trades described in the media report was less than $38,000, which hardly constitutes the threat to the capital markets that the article implied.”
Okay everyone, this is the good one. Remember, this is the DTCC, who in the prior paragraph was so quick to point out minor errors from the Bloomberg article, and whose job it is to keep track of the $266.5 billion worth of trading that occurs in the stock market every day. The obvious flaw in their data is that the share price was never changed in the system after the reverse split, and that the shares should have been adjusted to the after-split price of around $7. By the way, the stock did open at $.10 on February 1, 2005, the first day of trading after the reverse split, but then it dropped like a rock from there.
But here’s the most stunning part of the DTCC article: If we accept their voodoo economics and pretend like the only loss for shareholders was the actual money spent on the stock (and not what it should have traded at), then the DTCC’s assertion that the loss incurred by the failing to deliver 27 million shares of Global Links stock was “less than $38,000” sounds pretty good. Except for one thing. Even if the stock was beaten down so low when the brokers flooded the market with counterfeit shares that it only sold at the average pre-split price of two and a half cents, than the total loss would have been $675,000, not the paltry $38,000 that the DTCC claimed was lost. I have no idea where they got their figures from, but it appears that they missed in their own basic math calculations by a factor of 18.
Now, imagine for a moment that their math on the overall market problem is as bad as their simple multiplication in this case. Last week I wrote an article about the SEC’s involvement in this fiasco and the subsequent cover-up called “Once a Liar, Always a LiarI could just as easily have included the DTCC in that statement. If in fact they claim that the direct loss in the Global Links case was only $38,000, but their basic third grade math skills were so bad that the number should have been 18 times higher, then what about their claims that overall fails were “only” $6 billion as of December 31, 2005? Does that mean that the real number could be higher as well, say…18 times higher? That would put the total dollar amount of stock that was paid for but not delivered at $108 billion dollars, or almost a third of the total amount of shares bought and sold each day.
Ludicrous? Possibly, but as in the case of the SEC, we’ve already established that the DTCC lied about the Global Links numbers, so why wouldn’t they lie about everything else as well? I called three different phone numbers listed as media links for the DTCC in an effort to get some type of response from them, but apparently, unlike most Americans who have to work all week to make up for the money that’s been stolen from them in the stock market, they all left for vacation on Wednesday.
And now, the DTCC’s last paragraph, the swan song, the final elbow:
DTCC is currently working to determine more of the day-by-day details associated with this corporate action. The available information at this point seems to confirm what Global Links itself stated, this was ''a simple error'' - likely the result of information about the reverse split not having reached the marketplace- and did not involve naked short selling.
“A simple error?”
In a quote today by Global Links CEO Frank Dobrucki, he said that “Global Links Corp. has never stated that this was a ‘simple error.’ Global Links Corp. states without hesitation, that the market is corrupt and that naked short selling is a practiced poison that is crippling the stock market. Global Links Corp. is without doubt a victim of extremely aggressive naked short selling.”
Global Links COO Pat Donahoo put it more succinctly, “We never made that statement. It is a total fabrication.”
Dobrucki also refuted the figures that the DTCC released about the total value of the 27 million in failed trades being less than $38,000, saying that, according to the DTCC’s own numbers, post reverse split prices would have given the 27 million shares a value of at least almost $140 million. He went on to say that “Your number of $38,000.00 would use a stock price of $0.00014 as a post reverse number. This is completely impossible. Better luck trying to explain this away as just a ‘simple error.’”
Donahoo disputed the DTCC’s claim that it was a simple error. “If it was an error to begin with, then it has become a huge error, a massive error over time. The DTCC has never contacted us in an effort to resolve any problems regarding the trading of the company’s stock. It appears that in eighteen months, they would have had ample time to resolve any issues or errors; instead, we first went on the Reg SHO List 569 days ago, and are still on it to this day.”
“…did not involve naked short selling?”
This is the most egregious sleight of hand of all, the misdirection that Wall Street, the SEC, and the DTCC hopes will make this whole ugly mess disappear. By collectively agreeing on a ridiculously narrow definition of “naked short selling,” the industry and various regulatory agencies have begun to deny that naked short selling is a pervasive problem, while turning a blind eye to the larger problem of stock market fraud in general, and failed deliveries of stock in particular. In the case of Global Links, 27 millions counterfeit shares were sold, but (and here’s the catch) not by short sellers, by the brokers themselves. In this case, as in many cases, the brokers are the naked short sellers, but the SEC doesn’t recognize them as such. That’s why the OTC short selling list shows only 6,800 shares short for Global Links, but the SEC records show almost 6 million fails. It’s a trick! The long fails are still counterfeit shares sold to an unsuspecting public, and never delivered by the brokers.
For the last time: A FAIL IS A FAIL IS A FAIL!!! It doesn’t matter what kind of hocus pocus the SEC or the DTCC uses to try to shift it into another category, selling stock that doesn’t exist is still counterfeiting. It’s still fraud, plain and simple, and ignoring it, covering it up, and then lying about it isn’t going to make it go away. Congress needs to step up and step up now, or the combined effect of all of these “simple errors,” of all this fraud, of all of these fails, will be the biggest fail of all, the failure of our entire American economy.
And that’s the Faulking Truth.
This article is also posted on Mark Faulk’s blog at The Sanity Check, along with an excellent comment section, at:
http://www.thesanitycheck.com/Blogs/MarkFaulksBlog/tabid/86/Default.aspx
Mark Faulk is the Editor of The Faulking Truth, and the author of the upcoming book entitled ''The Naked Truth: Counterfeiting the American Dream,'' due out in September, 2006. For more information on the book and on the stock market scandal, go to http://www.faulkingtruth.com , and to pre-order your copy, go to http://www.theownersgroupinc.com/cart /
Add your name to our mailing list on our homepage, and we'll update you on developments in the Stockgate scandal.
To read more about the issue of stock counterfeiting, go to:
http://www.faulkingtruth.com /
http://www.investigatethesec.com /
http://www.thesanitycheck.com /
http://www.financialwire.net
http://www.americaneedstoknow.com /
And I doing it again this morning Chuck
got to love it
bought @ .1299
I didnt retreat I sold some @ .16
EDIG.OB > SEC Filings for EDIG.OB > Form 8-K on 28-Aug-2006 All Recent SEC Filings
Show all filings for E DIGITAL CORP | Request a Trial to NEW EDGAR Online Pro
Form 8-K for E DIGITAL CORP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28-Aug-2006
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Unregistered Sale of Equity Securities
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
e. Digital Corporation (the ''Company'') has entered into certain warrant agreements as more fully described in Item 3.02.
Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities.
The Company has received $654,531 of cash proceeds and $105,062 reduction of short-term notes from holders who exercised the following outstanding warrants:
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------------
Exercise
Number of Number of Price
Holders Description Common Shares Per Share Proceeds
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------------
21 ''A'' Warrants expiring February 28, 3,703,125 $0.10 $370,312
2009
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------------
21 ''B'' Warrants expiring February 4, 2007 3,703,125 $0.09 $333,281
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------------
-0- Series EE Warrants expiring November -0- $0.08 -0-
2007
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------------
5 Warrants expiring June 30, 2007 700,000 $0.08 $56,000
------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- -----------------------
The 8,106,250 shares of common stock issued by the Company upon exercise of the above warrants was registered on registration statement #333-136096.
As an inducement for early warrant exercise the Company offered to holders of outstanding ''A'' and ''B'' Warrants a new warrant exercisable for 25% of the shares issued exercisable at $.15 per share through August 31, 2009 (''New Warrant''). As an inducement to holders of outstanding Series EE Warrants the Company offered each holder a New Warrant equal to 12% of the shares issued upon exercise. No Series EE Warrants were exercised. There was no modification to the terms or conditions of the outstanding warrant agreements.
In connection with the above warrant exercises, the Company has issued New Warrants on an aggregate of 1,851,566 shares of common stock. A complete copy of the form of the New Warrant is filed herewith as Exhibit 4.53 and incorporated herein by reference.
The foregoing exercise and issuance transactions include the exercise by one officer of the Company of 156,250 ''A'' and 156,250 ''B'' Warrants owned for aggregate cash proceeds of $29,687. In connection therewith, such officer was granted New Warrants on an aggregate of 78,125 shares of common stock on the same terms and percentages as unaffiliated holders.
The short-term note reduction of $105,062 applies to reduce the principal amount of the Company's 15% note payable dated June 30, 2006 owed to Davric Corporation and was applied to convert warrants held by Davric Corporation and its affiliates.
We paid no placement fees. We expect to use the cash proceeds from warrant exercise for working capital purposes.
We offered and sold the New Warrants without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 to a limited number of accredited investors in reliance upon the exemption provided by Rule 506 of Regulation D thereunder. The warrants and any shares issuable upon exercise may not be offered or sold in the United States in the absence of an effective registration statement or exemption from the registration requirements under the Securities Act. An appropriate legend was placed on the warrants issued, and will be placed on the shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants, unless registered under the Securities Act prior to issuance.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits:
4.53 Form of New Warrant Exercisable at $0.15 per share through August 31, 2009.
Patent Fight Rattles Academic Computing ~ Aug 27, 2:56 PM (ET)
Every day, millions of students taking online college courses act in much the same way as their bricks-and-mortar counterparts. After logging on, they move from course to course and do things like submit work in virtual drop boxes and view posted grades - all from a program running on a PC.
It may seem self-evident that virtual classrooms should closely resemble real ones. But a major education software company contends it wasn't always so obvious. And now, in a move that has shaken up the e-learning community, Blackboard Inc. (BBBB) has been awarded a patent establishing its claims to some of the basic features of the software that powers online education.
The patent, awarded to the Washington, D.C.-based company in January but announced last month, has prompted an angry backlash from the academic computing community, which is fighting back in techie fashion - through online petitions and in a sprawling Wikipedia entry that helps make its case.
Critics say the patent claims nothing less than Blackboard's ownership of the very idea of e-learning. If allowed to stand, they say, it could quash the cooperation between academia and the private sector that has characterized e-learning for years and explains why virtual classrooms are so much better than they used to be.
The patent is "is antithetical to the way that academia makes progress," said Michael Feldstein, assistant director of the State University of New York's online learning network and one of the bloggers who has criticized the company.
Blackboard, which recently became the dominant company in the field by acquiring rival WebCT, says the critics misunderstand what the patent claims. But the company does say it must protect its $100 million investment in the technology. The day the patent was announced, Blackboard sued rival Desire2Learn for infringement and is seeking royalties.
"It just wouldn't be a level playing field if someone could come onto the scene tomorrow, copy everything that Blackboard and WebCT have done and call it their own," said Blackboard general counsel Matthew Small.
Waterloo, Ontario-based Desire2Learn said it was surprised by the lawsuit but will defend itself vigorously. No court date has been set.
The dispute is part of a contentious area of the law concerning patents awarded not just on invented objects, but on ideas and processes. In theory, patents can be awarded on a whole range of ideas as long as they are "non-obvious" and the Patent Office sees no evidence they have been described before. Patents have been awarded for everything from types of credit card offers to methods of teaching a golf swing.
Now, the issue is surfacing in the growing field of e-learning.
According to the Sloan Consortium, 2.3 million U.S. college students were taking at least one course entirely online in the fall of 2004 - a figure that is likely higher now and doesn't include "hybrid" classes with both online and in-person components. Most of those students use so-called "Learning Management Systems," which provide the electronic backbone for online education. For-profit and traditional universities are investing millions in these systems, hoping the upfront investment will pay off down the road with a more efficient teaching model.
About 90 percent of colleges use some kind of LMS, according to data from Eduventures, a Boston company that does research and consulting on online learning, and they are used in about 46 percent of classes. Blackboard has about 60 percent of the market for those systems, followed by eCollege and Desire2Learn with about 20 percent each, according to Eduventures.
"A few years ago this was a place to just hang your syllabus, maybe post a couple of links," said Catherine Burdt, a senior analyst with Eduventures. "Increasingly, we see these systems as the foundation of academic computing."
Blackboard's patent doesn't refer to any device or even specific software code. Rather, it describes the basic framework of an LMS. In short, Blackboard says what it invented isn't learning tools like drop boxes, but the idea of putting such tools together in one big, scalable system across a university.
"Our developers sat down and said 'college IT departments are having a lot of trouble managing all these disparate Web sites from each class. How can we turn this into one computer program that manages all of the classes?'" Small said. "That was a leap."
Critics say it was a tiny hop at most.
Blackboard's claims are "incredibly obvious," said Feldstein. The company's patent suggests "that they invented e-learning," said Alfred Essa, associate vice chancellor and CIO of the Minnesota state college and university system.
The academic IT community has taken its case to the blogosphere. Over recent weeks, a sprawling Wikipedia entry has emerged tracking a history of virtual classrooms as far back as 1945 in an effort to demonstrate the idea was not Blackboard's.
Why are universities concerned? Many use off-the-shelf systems sold by Blackboard already. But others use rival companies like Desire2Learn, or mix and match to meet their own needs. Because universities are decentralized and have such varied systems, one size rarely fits all, says Feldstein. Many borrow from open-source courseware programs with names like "Moodle" and "the Sakai Project."
The fear is that universities, afraid of being sued for patent infringement, would stop that mixing, matching and experimenting - and that innovation would suffer. Feldstein notes most LMSs started out as university research projects - including Blackboard itself, at Cornell.
Blackboard's Small denies the company is claiming to own the very idea of e-learning. He says the company supports open source, and notes a Blackboard product called Building Blocks allows users to create their own systems off Blackboard's basic platform. Blackboard, he says, is focussed on commercial providers and has no intention of going after universities - its customers, after all - in court to collect royalties.
"Blackboard is not a troll," he said, referring to the term for companies that establish a patent but don't use it except to exact royalties from others. "We're not trying to put anyone out of business. We're not trying to hinder innovation. We're seeking a reasonable royalty."
Desire2Learn founder and CEO John Baker says his company will fight the patent hard.
"We hope that after we defend ourselves this will be good for everybody in the industry - clients, students, educators, everybody," he said.
"The ITC presents a uniquely fast and threatening forum," said Stefani Shanberg, a partner and patent litigator with Perkins Coie LLP in San Francisco. "The ITC's decision would have come down before any district court decision, and that was probably a motivating factor in getting the settlement done quickly. Both companies had a pretty quick day of reckoning coming."
The one-time licensing payment would not materially affect Apple's financial performance, said Apple spokesman Steve Dowling. The payment will add 85 cents per share to Creative's earnings in the current quarter, which ends Sept. 30, Hoo said.
Michael Kroll, a Syosset, N.Y.-based patent attorney and engineer, called the one-time payment "nickels and dimes" for Apple, which has a market capitalization of $57.4 billion.
"A settlement doesn't mean anyone's right or wrong. In general it's just the cheapest way to get on with life," Kroll said. "You do what's best at the time. I'm sure that's what Apple was thinking."
The announcement came after U.S. stock markets closed. Apple stock closed Wednesday at $67.31, down 31 cents from the previous day. In after-hours trading on the Nasdaq Stock Exchange, it lost another 16 cents.
The settlement had a bigger impact on Creative, which has a market capitalization of less than $500 million.
Partial Client List
Atlantic Physician Associates
Baylor Health Care System
Bolingbrook Hospital
BJC Health Systems (Boone Hospital)
Carolinas Healthcare System
Central Texas Medical Center
Chippewa Valley Hospital
City of Hope Cancer Center
Columbus Children's Hospital
Community Health Network
Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula
Cottage Health System
Diabetes Center of America
Doylestown
Emory-Adventist Hospital
Family Care Partners
Florida Hospital - DeLand
Florida Hospital - Fish Memorial
Florida Hospital - Flagler
Florida Hospital - Heartland
Florida Hospital - Lake Placid
Florida Hospital - Ormond Beach
Florida Hospital - Wauchula
Florida Hospital - Oceanside
Florida Hospital - Waterman
Florida Hospital - Zephyrhills
Glen Oaks Hospital
Gordon Hospital
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
Health Central
Health First, Inc.
CASE STUDYHeritage Valley Health System
Hinsdale Hospital
Hoag Memorial
Huguley Memorial Medical Center
Integrated Health Associates
Integris Health
Intermountain Orthopaedics
Jellico Community Hospital
John C. Lincoln Health System
LaGrange Hospital
Manchester Memorial Hospital
Melbourne Internal Medicine Associates
Memorial Hospital & Health System
Methodist Hospital
Metroplex Hospital
MinuteClinic
Nevada Cancer Institute
NextCare Urgent Care
Northwest Chest Consultants
Norton Health Care
Ohio State University Medical Center
Owensboro Dermatology
Park Ridge Hospital
Parrish Medical Center
Pediatric Allergy Immunology Associates
Podiatric Smyrna, GA
Providence Health System
Radiology, Ltd
Riverside Regional Medical Center
Rollins-Brook Community Hospital
Saint Barnabas Health Care System
Satellite Medical
Sentara Healthcare
Shawnee Mission Medical Center
Southern California Edison
Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System
St. Joseph Hospital
Takoma Adventist Hospital
ThedaCare
TriHealth
CASE STUDYUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Valley Baptist Health System
Village Podiatric
Virginia Urology
CASE STUDYThe Westchester Medical Group
Westfield Eye Clinic
Woodhams Eye Clinic
Wireless - eClipboard™ - MediKiosk™
Galvanon's MediKiosk™ wireless units are called eClipboards™. These devices are specially designed and configured for Galvanon's patient self-service applications. Each eClipboard™ comes pre-configured with Galvanon's MediKiosk™ software for ease of use and maintenance. eClipboards™ can be equipped with card scanner, electronic signature capture, digital photo and biometric functionality, enabling patients to perform virtually every check-in or registration task from the wireless device.
Specs
CPU — 400MHz Intel XScale?
Video — 10" TFT Flat Panel
OS — Windows CE.NET 4.2
Battery — 3.5 ~4 hrs battery life
Wireless — 802.11g WLAN
Weight — Less than 3 pounds
Resolution — 800 x 600
Memory — 128MB SDRAM
Pointing — Resistive Touch Panel
Accessories
— Tough Case
— Magnetic Card Reader
Do U see R name ?
http://www.galvanon.com/company/partners.htm
What is Busted is the Mezzo partnership. Just wait and see. Notice how there was no mention of Mezzo in the latest e.Digital shareholder communication. Could this relationship possibly have gone south in less 60 days tooooooooo ?
Question, Why is Mezzo mentioned anywhere @ WAEA ?
Dude, the only thing here BUSTED is the Stock $$$
so get a grip
support@fusiondigitec.com is functional.
Try this one.
support@fusiondigitec.com
Hmmmmm, this must all be wit in the last day or two ... interesting I will call the company.
Your message has encountered delivery problems
to the following recipient(s):
info@fusiondigitec.com
(Was addressed to info@fusiondigitec.com)
Delivery failed
550 <info@fusiondigitec.com>: User unknown in virtual alias table
No recipients were successfully delivered to.
Reporting-MTA: dns; mail2.ojai.net
Received-From-MTA: dns; [10.0.1.3] (unverified [75.16.35.230])
Arrival-Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:26:12 -0700
Final-Recipient: rfc822; info@fusiondigitec.com
Action: failed
Status: 0.0.0 (Unknown class - no additional status information available)
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 <info@fusiondigitec.com>: User unknown in virtual alias table
Beko House
Caxton Way
Watford
WD188UF
Telephone
+44 (0) 870 6060044
E-Mail
info@fusiondigitec.com
info@fusiondigitec.com
I wrote an email to info@fusiondigitec.com and asked if there was any plans for future release dates of their Digifusion. The answer was shocking. Bottom line,
" We no longer have anything to do with the manufacturing company. The company was unable to follow through with any of its business model. "
Ouch !!!
Apple to pay $100 mln to Creative in settlement
Wednesday August 23, 5:16 PM EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL) said it will pay $100 million for a license to use Creative Technology Ltd.'s patented digital music player technology, settling legal disputes between the two companies
Court orders EchoStar to halt DVR sales: TiVo
NEW YORK (Reuters) - TiVo Inc. (TIVO) on Friday said a federal court in Texas has ordered EchoStar Communications Corp. (DISH) to halt the use and sale of several of its digital video recorders (DVRs) after a jury ruled in April that EchoStar had infringed on a TiVo patent.
EchoStar, owner of the No. 2 U.S. satellite television broadcaster Dish Network, said it planned to ask a federal appeals court to block the permanent injunction while it launched an appeal.
The injunction, issued Thursday, would require many DVRs used by Dish Network customers to be shut off within 30 days, EchoStar said in a statement. DVRs allow viewers to record dozens of hours of programming, while they watch or pause live TV.
TiVo shares rose 14 percent in premarketing trading.
U.S. District Court Judge David Folsom also on Thursday also ordered EchoStar pay $5.6 million in interest and $10.3 million in additional damages, TiVo said, on top of a jury damage award of $74 million in April.
The April ruling followed years of legal wrangling over software within the TV set-top box.
The judge also denied EchoStar's request to stay the injunction, pending appeal.
EchoStar said in a statement the judge concluded that it did not act in bad faith or copy TiVo's technology, and denied TiVo's request for damages to be tripled.
"We believe that, for a number of reasons, the Texas Court should be reversed in all other respects on appeal," EchoStar said. "We also continue to work on modifications to our new DVRs, and to our DVRs in the field, intended to avoid future infringement."
TiVo brought the case to federal court in Texas, accusing EchoStar of stealing its technology. Last year, EchoStar countersued TiVo, saying the company used technology patented by EchoStar between 1998 and 2003.
Analysts have suggested that the ruling could lead to a licensing deal between the two companies, and that TiVo may use this decision to take on other companies that make and distribute DVRs.
"This decision recognizes that our intellectual property is valuable and will ensure that moving forward EchoStar will be unable to use our patented technology without our authorization," TiVo said in a statement.
Satellite providers have used DVRs to woo customers away from cable companies. In turn, more cable TV providers have been placing DVRs in subscriber homes.
TiVo stock rose 90 cents to $7.39 on the Inet electronic brokerage system.
08/17/06
SHAREHOLDER ALERT
e.DIGITAL CORPORATION SEEKS INJUNCTION
AGAINST DIGEPLAYER XT™ IN AMENDED RESPONSE TO DIGECOR COMPLAINT
Maycom Provides Delivery Schedule for 1250 Unit digEplayer™ Order
(SAN DIEGO, CA, August 17, 2006) – e.Digital Corporation (OTC: EDIG), a leading innovator of proprietary secure digital video technology and products, and patented technology in the utilization of flash memory in portable devices, announced today that it has filed a motion seeking to amend its response to the digEcor complaint with the following counterclaims:
• e.Digital is seeking an injunction barring digEcor and its agents from alleging, asserting, declaring or implying that e.Digital is in breach of the 2002 NDA, the 2002 Agreement, the Purchase Order, and/or the DRM agreement in any way, or that e.Digital is limited in any way by those agreements, any other agreements between e.Digital and digEcor, or any other right of digEcor, from manufacturing, marketing or selling its eVU™.
• e.Digital is seeking an injunction against digEcor’s manufacture and/or sale of their next generation player (currently marketed as the “digEplayer XT”) to the extent digEcor and its agents have improperly used e.Digital’s confidential information as alleged in the full amended response.
Further legal action is also being contemplated.
1250 Unit digEplayer™ Order
In mid-June, e.Digital received both written and verbal assurances from Maycom that they were targeting a mid-to-late August ship date for the delayed 1250 unit digEplayer™ order. e.Digital forwarded this information to digEcor in mid-June and requested their confirmation of the delivery schedule. Last week, digEcor communicated an interest in receiving the 1250 units. e.Digital has recently received written confirmation from Maycom that it is going ahead with its preparations to begin manufacturing the 1250 units with a mid-October delivery schedule. In the written confirmation, Maycom also agreed to onsite inspections during the manufacturing process and to pay a $3,000 per day penalty for every day the delivery is delayed. However, delivery of this order is not assured nor can there be assurance that digEcor will accept delivery pursuant to the terms of the order.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
e.DIGITAL CORPORATION REPORTS Q1 FISCAL 2007 RESULTS
Provides Update on eVU™ Business and
Flash Memory-based IP Monetization Efforts
(SAN DIEGO, CA, – August 14, 2006) – e.Digital Corporation (OTC: EDIG), a leading innovator of proprietary secure digital video technology and products, and patented technology in the utilization of flash memory in portable devices, today reported revenues for the first quarter of its fiscal year 2007 ended June 30, 2006 totaled $21,000 compared to revenues of $998,000 for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. The decrease resulted from the inability or unwillingness of contract manufacturer, Maycom, to timely deliver a 1250 unit digEplayer™ order as previously reported and the resulting digEcor litigation which has hindered volume eVU™ orders. At June 30, 2006 the prepaid order was still behind schedule. While waiting several weeks for digEcor’s definitive instructions regarding the 1250 unit order, Maycom has recently advised the Company that it is going ahead with its preparations to begin manufacturing the delayed order. Maycom has consented to onsite inspections by employees of e.Digital during the manufacturing process and has agreed to daily penalties for any further late delivery beyond their promised mid-October delivery date. However, delivery of this order is not assured nor can there be assurance that digEcor will accept delivery pursuant to the terms of the order.
The company reported an operating loss of $684,000 for its first fiscal quarter 2007, compared to an operating loss of $530,000 for the same period last year. Net loss available to common stockholders for the first fiscal quarter of 2007 was $(0.01) per basic diluted share, compared to $(0.00) per basic diluted share for the same period last year.
“While the digEcor complaint has hindered volume eVU mobile entertainment system orders to date, our turnkey entertainment services business continues to be well-received by companies offering, and expected to offer, eVUs to their customers/passengers/patients,” said Will Blakeley, e.Digital’s president and chief technical officer. “With Maycom’s scheduled delivery of the delayed 1250 units in mid-October and volume eVU production beginning this quarter with our U.S. manufacturer, we are focused on closing volume eVU orders and aggressively pursuing the monetization of our flash memory patent portfolio.”
In addition to direct eVU product sales, e.Digital believes that as its turnkey entertainment services solution is adopted, the Company will capture more margin on each unit sale and collect monthly revenues from content and other services, and could become profitable with annual deliveries totaling approximately 4,000 eVU units.
Blakeley concluded by providing an update on the company’s efforts to monetize its flash memory-based patent portfolio. “Over the last month, we have had productive IP consultations with several well-respected intellectual property law firms. We believe there is significant interest in prosecuting our patent portfolio on a contingency basis. With the assistance of IP veteran, Pat Nunally, management and outside law firms have been conducting patent due diligence while evaluating the licensing potential to companies in the cell phone, PDA/Pocket PC, portable A/V recorder, digital camera, camcorder, and other portable device industries. Based on results to date, we are encouraged about the prospects of beginning the licensing process to monetize our important patent portfolio this calendar year.”
About e.Digital Corporation:. e.Digital is a provider of secure portable Video on Demand products including its eVU™ mobile entertainment system. e.Digital also licenses its MicroOS™, Content Mark-Up Language (CML) application, LDP software, patent-pending Hardware Security technologies, Digital Rights Management (DRM) solutions, Content Download applications, Encryption and Content Protection solutions, and Video Display software applications. Additionally, e.Digital partners with leading, innovative companies, designing and providing manufacturing services for products employing the Company’s proprietary digital technology platforms. e.Digital is also pursuing the monetization of its flash memory-related patent portfolio. For more information about e.Digital and its technology platforms, please visit the company website at www.edigital.com.
Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform of 1995: All statements made in this document, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. You should not place undue reliance on these statements. We base these statements on particular assumptions that we have made in light of our industry experience, the stage of product and market development, expected future developments and other factors that we believe are appropriate under the circumstances. These forward-looking statements are based on the then-current expectations, beliefs, assumptions, estimates and forecasts about the businesses of the Company and the industries and markets in which the company operates. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested in the forward-looking statements, including but not limited to the Company’s ability to finance its operations, favorably resolve the complaint filed by digEcor, Inc. against the Company and certain of its officers and employees, sell its products, implement a turnkey financial, product, and maintenance solution, manufacture and ship orders in a timely manner, secure additional business, monetize its patent portfolio and other risks identified and discussed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. More information about potential factors that could affect the Company can be found in its most recent Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and other reports and statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). e.Digital Corporation disclaims any intent or obligation to update these or any forward-looking statements, except as otherwise specifically stated by it.
Note: eVU and MicroOS are trademarks of e.Digital Corporation. All other company, product, and service names are the property of their respective owners.
CONTACT:
e.Digital Corporation: Robert Putnam, (858) 304-3016 ext. 205, rputnam@edigital.com
e.Digital Corporation and subsidiary
Condensed Balance Sheet
(000's omitted except per share amounts)
March 31, 2006
March 31, 2005
$
$
ASSETS
Current
Cash and cash equivalents
1,059
1,290
Accounts receivable
2
52
Deposits and prepaid expenses
32
505
Total current assets
1,093
1,847
Property and equipment, net
63
126
Total assets
1,156
1,973
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' DEFICIT
Current
Accounts payable
261
522
Accrued liabilities and other
627
616
Customer deposits
794
707
Lease liability
515
515
Unsecured notes, short-term
1,016
35
Convertible subordinated notes
397
942
Total current liabilities
3,610
3,337
Long-term liabilities
-
897
Stockholders' deficit
(2,454)
(2,261)
Total liabilities and stockholders' deficit
1,156
1,973
e.Digital Corporation and subsidiary
Condensed Statements of Operations
(000's omitted except per share amounts)
For the year ended March 31,
2006
2005
$
$
Total revenue
3,250
4,252
Cost of revenue
3,136
3,255
Gross profit
114
997
Operating expenses:
Selling and administrative
1,318
1,518
Research and related expenditures
1,338
1,515
Total operating expenses
2,656
3,033
Operating loss
(2,542)
(2,036)
Other expense
565
381
Loss and comprehensive loss
(3,107)
(2,417)
Imputed and accrued dividends on preferred stock
2,161
1,326
Loss attributable to common stockholders
(5,268)
(3,743)
Loss per common share - basic and diluted
$ (0.03)
$ (0.02)
Weighted average common shares outstanding
177,472,037
165,525,386
EDIG -SEC filings today
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886328/000114420406030009/0001144204-06-030009-index.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886328/000114420406030011/0001144204-06-030011-index.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886328/000114420406029805/0001144204-06-029805-index.htm