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.
“If they do win the suit, then they will have to pay a fee to their lawyers for the legal services that have been provided to them. “
If they win the lawsuit, Cantor Colburn will get their 15% contingency fee. That’s 15% of the money GERS gets. So GERS will have enough to pay them. They get to keep 85%
If GERS loses they do not need to pay for the legal services.
So what is the problem?
“From my recollection, Attis doesn't own any shares in GERS, just Flux Carbon.”
You’re correct, but Flux JVCo is the owner of GERS for 80 percent as I recall, and Attis now holds 80 percent of that JVCo
I never have seen a mention of Attis being part of that JVCo.
GERS is the seller, so it seems gers is seen as the owner of the JVCo To me then buying part of Attis still seems like buying part of the company owning you.
I must admit, I don’t know how these JVCo construction normally work.
“There's no plan. This purchase was as much as the Greenshift Corporation could afford to spend.”
On what facts do you base that?
“They're already spending a lot on legal services for their lawsuit, which is costing them much more per hour because it's now being heard in an appeals court.”
Their legal services are provided on a 15% contingency fee
Not a real downside so far, but I would like to know if this buy is a normal buy, or some kind of reward.
Also does it mean more dilution for them, of are these shares that already have been available.
And what does it mean for the previous deal of Attis buying GERS. Like I've said before, it seems strange that a company is 'bought' for 80% by another company and then buys a percentage of the company that buy them.
It seems like a circle to me. It isn't the same as a buyback.
What is your idea about that?
“I'm sure KK is just a savy investor looking for the capital gain like you stated.“
Gers bought the shares, not KK
I guess... a bit more speculation:
The constructions seems strange to me. It’s like the child eating the mother. I wonder if it happens more often.
Or could it indicate that the conditions to finalize the attis deal haven’t been met so far?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152726946
500.000 shares, seems like probably way less then 5% of the OS
https://www.sharesoutstandinghistory.com/atis/
The dilution seems familar. Any idea why GERS would want to buy a small percentage? There must be a plan behind it.
Your balance is always appreciated ballot! I love it how some here are still able to talk and listen to each other without forcing their opinion too much on others or overconvidence.
IMO these findings are based on how he experienced it in court. It doesn't mean it will work out like that. But in that, but in the past, before the last RS he also shared his opinion and some people accused him of bashing. However over years most here learned that this opinion was always based on facts, and when these facts where reason for more optimism, he also would share it.
I always did see these opinions as realistic and free from sugarcoating. One could disagree of course. But as far as I've experienced from my chair in the Netherlands, I always found these opinions as the next best thing to being able to there myself.
It is however always nice to read more opinions to get a broader perspective. And it doesn't always mean I totally agree.
Looking at where we stand now and what I've read so far, I would say our chances went from 70:30 to 40:60
It seems like we might not learn anything new before the outcome of the appeal. Also I don't expect much more activity.
I even start wondering how the PPS would react to an outcome. Will it be extreme? Maybe not much will happen until GERS is released from all boundaries.
So I'm hoping (but not expecting) that as a prelude to the outcome GERS would do everything to update the filings, making it more likely that whatever the outcome, GERS might profit from showing that they don't need to win the appeal to have a great future. Maybe that can save us from a huge drop in case GERS loses the lawsuit.
That differs from my previous opinion, when I believed it wouldn't matter much, if they waited to update their filings until briefly after the appeal. My new opnion is mostly based on what could help if they lose the lawsuit. Maybe I'm hoping that would cause some kind of run on the shares, making me able to get out for a nice price before the outcome LOL But I still think that there might also be reason enough not to publish the numbers, if that causes dilution to kick in again.
Well I guess next time this year, we won't be on this price level anymore for sure, and we'll know enough
"NO, just being honest and objective. "
Like we know you One could argue if ventilating a more negative point of view on a owned stock serves the price, but it is your honesty that we have always appreciated here.
Thanks!
My hopes are also set on the appeal, and I don't think GERS would survive if the lost it.
My expectations on the appeal have been higher. I'm not completely sure we've lost it however. I think we still have a chance.
My reason to comment on your post was mostly that even though I don't think it will do much for us, it is still interesting to know what we as common shareholders are owning.
The IP might already be transferred to the JVCo making us own only 4% of it. But I'm not sure if all conditions are met yet. If not, it wouldn't mean 'we' are entitled to the income out of the IP, but it just means we haven't turned over the keys yet as a insurance for getting everything done.
But we can't decide to keep the keys if all conditions are met.
There is an agreement, the buyer gives the seller what they own them, then the seller needs to give the buyer what is promised.
Only if the buyer doesn't provide, we will get to keep the IP.
And maybe the buyer already did provide, or maybe not.
So the IP is sold, from that moment on, the income belongs to the buyer, and only if the conditions aren't met in time, we get to keep the merchandise
I think we are on the same page with that. Only you might be a little more sure about the status of the deal.
That's probably why it confused me LOL
I was more or less trying to sum the facts up, and not drawing too many conclusions from it, beside trying to translate what it means.
Just trying to get the facts straight as how it is published.
Doing so, it raised a few questions for me, one of them was how the previous ownership of 20% of the IP, is converted to the ownership of IP in the new situation.
You answered that one :
okay, it appeared to me like you where replying to me my bad.
"Because something “remains in the name of” does not mean that entity OWNS it."
I didn't say they own it, well I didn't mean it that way, I meant if the terms aren't met, the IP will not be transferred, and then they still own it. It seems like some kind of safety to me.
"As for the post about until GERS files an 8-k" I didn't write anything about GERS filing an 8k. Did I?
What are the facts? (please correct me if I'm wrong)
These are published by AttisThese are published by Attis. Let's assume they are correct, unless GERS denies them, which they didn't so far
Exactly, brings me back to my point: “why would somebody want to have large percentage moves in his own brokerage account without being able to put them to a real profit? It's a just paper profit or loss if you aren't able to sell the shares at that price.”
I know, but I don’t see why that is important if you aren’t able to cash out at that value.
Profitable yes, but I think most people here are looking for higher profits money wise.
Lol... didn’t get to meet slash, kevin or maybe even the skunkhunter?
A $233 worth sell over 4 cents sounds like a good buying opportunity to you?
Nice to hear. Did you have some interesting chats at the court?
What makes it you don’t try to sell? Enough faith or in all the way?
I hope this hasn’t been the last moment for greenshift to say their say?
Thanks for sharing!
That’s the spirit, looking forward to the outcome! Thanks for being there for us!
No problem, I am happy with any information you share. Family time is way more important, then keeping us up to date almost realtime
Looking forward to your findings. Thanks for sharing them so far, and thanks for letting us know you’re attending.
Are you going to be at the court tomorrow?
How long will these hearings take?
So Stroock & Stroock (2013 Go-To Law Firm for the Top 500 Companies-Intellectual Property) and Cantor Colburn are incompetent to handle a make-or-break legal case that involves multiple patents and an appearance in a Federal appeals court?
RS, and hoping for a real rebound of ethanol. But I don’t see this happening in this political climate.
So probably moving down until after the next elections.
So dud the defendants. Even the best lawyers in the world and the largest politicians make mistakes, does that all make them worthless?
Just take notice of a possible typo and it might be not so hard to get what I meant (and read back to the original post to get the context)
“Ah I get it, you thought that (previous text said ‘the’ instead of ‘that’)having the wrong legal team, had nothing to do with the sentence before that one about the attorneys, even not after he replied with a link to Cantor Colburn after your reply.
Ah I get it, you thought the having the wrong legal team, had nothing to do with the sentence before that one about the attorneys, even not after he replied with a link to Cantor Colburn after your reply.
Cantor Colburn is the legal team of GERS and you made a comment to a post about that subject connected to the lawsuit .
And when Nobody replied that they are very repected, and you came back with a reply that you have been through some hard times owning GERS.
So it was hard for me to see how one thing related to the other.
But thanks for clarifying.