I don’t understand, did the file their delinquent financials with the SEC? This would be fantastic if they did. I don’t see anything though. Please provide the link. Thanks.

What does an “E” mean? Thank you.

I’ve never suggested there’s a settlement coming to shareholders either prior to the SEC revocation process or after. In fact I said I tend to agree with you and Renee. I’ve even gone as far and said those touting the large settlement thesis are misguided. I own a lot of INVT shares and I’ve accepted that I’ll likely be taking a large loss on my investment. What I did say to you was do better research on the patent litigation because it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. IMO

With all due respect. Without a deep dive into the specifics, it wasn’t a simple plaintiff vs defendant civil case. There were many other components, counter-suits, what you are referring to was Apple pulling their anti-trust suit against Fortress. There were other cases where Apple was the defendant.

trader59 I’ve come to value your knowledgeable opinions but you need to do a better job understanding the case specifics.

I agree Avid. What gives me the most hope is why would Kevin Kanning buy so many shares and was actively buying until recently, if INVT shareholders weren’t going to see some type of settlement monies. Kanning is partnered with Beyers at Silicon Turbine so is it reasonable to assume Kanning thinks he knows something? I have no idea but sure gives me hope in what is an otherwise challenging situation.

Thank you Avidfisher. If there was indeed a settlement the question then becomes will there be enough to trickle down to Inventergy Global. More importantly will it trickle down to shareholders and if Inventergy doesn’t survive the SEC administrative law judge as a publicly traded company, who will ensure the “private shareholders” get their payout? Based on previous financials and the recent TCA receivership, it appears Inventergy owes tens of millions in debt. So again the question becomes will a settle ever reach INVT shareholders. I have no idea but would love to hear further dialogue on this. Thanks

Thank you trader59. I appreciate your and Renee’s input and taking the time to discuss. It’s good to have varying opinions. Please let us know what you can find.

The lawsuit the supposed settlement a few regular posters keep referring to. Some big settlement. I’ve never found those claims credible but it’s nice to hope.

Again do you know of a similar revocation situation where shareholders took action against the company? I’m not looking for a lecture on failed shareholders rights, just a similar case you came point use towards.

One last question. Kevin Kanning is the CEO at a company called Silicon Turbine. Silicon Turbine’s cofounder and chairman is also the CEO and cofounder of Inventergy. Kevin Kanning has been buying a ton of INVT shares. Per Kanning’s last 13D filed on 12/1/21, he now owns 29.7 % of INVT shares. Why would someone who clearly knows and works with the CEO of INVT, keep buying so many shares if he thought INVT was going to be revoked by the SEC?

Could the plan all along by Inventergy to have gone private and they are just letting the SEC do it for them through the administrative process?

trader59 and Renee I appreciate your information and bringing what I believe to be an honest and informed dialogue. I have a few follow up questions based on trader59 statement:

“After revocation, even that trading will cease and the shareholders will hold stock in essentially a private company that they will be unable to liquidate.”

Based on the SEC information that Renee provided, it appears the class of shares we hold will be revoked. If the shares are revoked and we then hold as you put it stock in a private company, what happens if there is a settlement from the Apple litigation if there is enough for shareholders? Could the company keep the money and not inform shareholders?

If the shares are revoked and can’t be traded, how can we sell them to take our capital loss if the shares are now private?

Do you know of a any companies that faced similar revocation and situation, where shareholders held the companies executives and members of the board responsible for not performing their fiduciary duties? If so could you provide information.

Not accusing anyone of wrong doing. Just trying to completely understand the path forward in totality. IMO

Thank you for sharing that SEC Administrative Hearing filing, Renee. I was recently going through some old filings looking for clues for what’s going on with INVT and had forgotten that back in 2018 INVT had entered into debt financing with TCA Global. I googled TCA Global and found that the SEC filed a complaint against TCA:

“violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties. The court yesterday granted the SEC’s request to appoint Jonathan E. Perlman as receiver over the TCA, TCA-GP, and the TCA funds.”

I then looked at the TCA Fund Receivership and it lists Inventergy as the following:

Inventergy Global Inc.
Loan Origination: Loan Principal: Loan Interest: Fees w/ Interest: Total Outstanding: Status:
December 2017
$2,326,418
$1,121,333
$8,784,388
$12,232,139
Non-Responsive and Not Paying
The borrower is an intellectual property and patent litigation company located in California. The loan is in default as of April 29, 2018 and the last payment was made on May 28, 2018. A settlement agreement was entered into in November 2018, pursuant to which borrower was to obtain other financing by February 28, 2019, in the amount of at least $1 million. Pursuant
27

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2020 Page 31 of 70
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA
to the settlement agreement, the Master Fund and the other lender would then enter into an inter- creditor agreement, and the Master Fund would receive $200,000 at closing. The borrower did not obtain financing pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, and at this time, no inter- creditor agreement exists. Additionally, no payments have been made to the Master Fund for over two years. DSI has attempted to contact the guarantor, however, the guarantor has not been responsive to multiple attempts.

https://www.tcafundreceivership.com/docs/DE070RecSecondQStatRep.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-110

If anyone has insight on what this all means for us shareholders, I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions. Thanks.

I wait.

As a tampa bay BUCSFAN and enjoyer of the warm waters of Bradenton tom brady threw for 558 touchdowns while gmailing his old coach.

Jackie once you speak to Mr. Kanning please update us. I’m very interested to hear what he has to say and if Invt has a plan. Also I think the phone number for Invt goes to an answering service associated with the place they use for an office or mailing address. I did a Google search of their address and it comes up as one of those virtual, coworking and office space type of place. I don’t know if they just have virtual space or rent actual office but the address is the same as Invt. It’s called Pacific Work Places.

https://pacificworkplaces.com/

¿Que?

I did read the rule and information put forward from brokerages. The rule is quite simple, but whether it’s enforced is entirely different. A year ago you claim INVT wasn’t required to file and now you call the filing requirements scare tactics. Call me naive but I personally don’t consider brokerages following federal securities laws as “scare tactics”.

JackieAdams based on direct communication with my brokerage, what you posted is not completely accurate.

1) SEC Rule 15c2-11 goes into effect on September 28, 2021 not in August.

2) Beginning in late August, non-compliance with Rule 15c2-11 means no new buy orders.

3) After September 28, 2021, non-compliance with Rule 15c2-11 means no guarantee shareholders will be able to sell shares.

4) To quote you regarding non-reporting of prior SEC filings:
“After the move to the Pink Sheets they no longer owe you or the SEC any documents or filings. Probably a good move since the CFO left the company on 5-4-2018. Beyers assumed the role of interim CFO on 5-9-2018. REPEAT.... there are no SEC filing requirements as they are now trading on the Pink Sheets.”

Clearly you and Inventergy couldn’t know of a future and yet unpublished SEC reporting rule change. To be clear I am not accusing Inventergy of any wrong doing in any way, just highlighting that going communications dark may have seemed like a good strategy 2-3yrs ago, but given the rule changes this could now cause unintended negative consequence to shareholders in a post SEC Rule 15c2-11 world.

5) Quote from my brokerage:
“Ahead of the regulatory enforcement date, we will only accept orders to liquidate positions (i.e. no new buy orders) starting in late August 2021. Please note: After the amendment officially goes into effect on September 28, 2021 it may be more difficult to liquidate these securities.”

6) Long INVT, I don’t intend to sell, and I wholeheartedly support INVT in suit against Apple.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-212

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152157774

An update and PR would be fantastic and even if not completely positive, it would likely do wonders for the stock price as investors have been starved for updates for quite some time. I’m not even sure they could put out PR if they wanted to as Inventergy’s status with California Secretary of State is still “FTB FORFEITED” and I believe that limits their ability to operate until they regain good standing. I haven’t checked in a few months but they were also delinquent with Delaware Secretary of State. This was discussed many months back that based on what’s available on the State of California website and other sites, it appears the California SOS and/or FTB has revoked Inventergy’s ability to operate in California as a foreign corporation (Delaware) and as long as they remain in that status their ability to conduct business is extremely limited. Some on this forum suggested this was a legal tactic by Inventergy to assist in their suit against Apple by showing further corporate impairment. I’ve never subscribed to that theory but I continue to hold my INVT shares with hope things will turn around, a settlement will be announced and a plan and shareholder update will ultimately be put out.

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/

https://www.ftb.ca.gov/help/business/my-business-is-suspended.html

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/canceled-suspended-forfeited-what-s-the-75525/

Fatcat I posted this week. Received correspondence from my brokerage regarding INVT and that it is an impacted security due to the new SEC Rule. I hope INVT has a plan in place.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165062305

Thanks for sharing that fatcat. Mr. Kanning owns nearly 28% of INVT and works directly with the INVT CEO (Mr. Beyers) at Silicon Turbine. Based on SEC filings Mr. Kanning and Mr. Beyers also collaborated years ago when Mr. Kanning was at ADOM. We don’t know the extent of their relationship but we do know they know each. Your point is that just because Mr. Kanning and Mr. Beyers know and work together, Mr. Kanning’s large INVT purchases shouldn’t be considered a bullish directionally indicator?

Fatcat good question. This was discussed prior and the conclusions were:

A) Mr. Kanning is the CEO of Silicon Turbine (founded by INVT CEO Beyers) and due to his working relationship with Mr. Beyers, Mr. Kanning feels comfortable investing this amount in INVT.

B) Mr. Kanning’s investment strategy has a high tolerance for risk.

C) Mr. Kanning now owns nearly 28% of INVT and as a majority shareholder he could theoretically assist INVT and approve any plan the board puts forward requiring shareholder vote.

D) Others are investing and either don’t need to report purchases as Mr. Kanning has or they have not reported.

My personal theory is “A”. Would like to hear any conclusions or theories you may have.

Yeah I think we all agree that regardless of any percentage splits, settlement would make INVT whole. Due to the possibility of the settlement being subject to state and federal tax, and the common shareholders being the lowest on the hierarchy of debt, $2-3 per share range seems plausible. Again I could be way off. What has always made me frustrated is Apple acknowledged the patents and paid Panasonic but ceased once those patents changed ownership. Apple should have purchased the patents outright. In my opinion if there was such a thing as a reverse bad faith legal defense, then look no further then Apple.

What I said was I thought it was an 80/20 split, but I also said it was an old recollection and wasn’t sure. A quick search yielded the following and it appears the split is 70/30 with 70% going to FIG. This agreement I believe was the precursor to FIG beginning “assertion campaign of former Inventergy patents with cases against Apple”. There are other debt financing agreements between INVT and FIG that date back to 2014 as well.

So if FIG gets 70% of a settlement, after federal and state taxes, repayment of other expenses such as debt holders, series e preferred stock agreement and possible other preferred series agreements, filing fees owed to NASDAQ and SEC to become current/compliant and California and Delaware state SOS fees, what percentage of 30% will shareholders actually receive? I don’t have that exact figure but it certainly appears a lot less then what you were suggesting. If I had to guess, I’d say 10-12% seems about right and again if that equates to $2-3 per share, I’d be thrilled with that.


———-> “For its efforts, Fortress will take the higher portion of a 70/30 split with Inventergy on all future net revenue resulting from monetizing the patents, as will be defined in a new revenue sharing agreement. The split goes into effect following payments being made to the previous patent holders, payment of any other monetization costs and Fortress collecting approximately $30 million.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/inventergy-gets-heavyweight-partner-in-fortress-investment-group-595281461.html

———-> “ Unable to make scheduled payments on $10M of debt, Inventergy entered into a restructuring agreement with Fortress in December 2016, after which it assigned 740 telecommunications patents to INVT SPE LLC, an entity managed by Fortress affiliate DBD Credit Funding LLC. INVT SPE, which sued ZTE on August 29, also has active cases against Apple and HTC; all three lawsuits assert the same seven patents, which were acquired from Inventergy in April and which originated with Panasonic.”

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/8164-fortress-hits-zte-over-patents-acquired-from-inventergy

I have no idea what stocks this rule change affects. All I know is my broker sent me notification that I am affected by the rule charge because I own “ impacted securities” (INVT shares).

You math is accurate but I think when INVT sold the patent portfolio to FIG the vast amount now goes to them. I’d have to go back a research everything but off the top of my head I think it’s like an 80/20 split. Even if say FIG and debt holders got 90%, and 10% trickled down to INVT shareholders, that still leaves $2-3 per share. I’d personally be happy as a pig in poo with $2 per share. Again my numbers are based on very old recollection.

I agree. I can’t see Mr. Kanning buying as much as has, while working directly with the INVT CEO, if INVT didn’t have a solid plan. I hope though that any potential INVT plan doesn’t include a reverse split. Mr. Kanning owns almost 28% of INVT, he could probably singlehandedly approve or disapprove any plan INVT puts forward. I guess we will find out soon enough.

Avidfisher I received this yesterday. I think this is what you were talking about. Doesn’t sound good at all. Not gonna sell but dang it, I don’t want to get trapped and never be able to sell either. Hopefully INVT has a plan.

——-> Learn how amendments to SEC Rule 15c2-11 impact your account

On September 28, 2021, new amendments adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) go into effect to enhance investor protection and improve issuer transparency. These amendments restrict the ability of market makers to publish quotations for those companies that have not made required current financial and company information available to regulators and investors.

Ahead of the regulatory enforcement date, we will only accept orders to liquidate positions (i.e. no new buy orders) starting in late August 2021. Please note: After the amendment officially goes into effect on September 28, 2021 it may be more difficult to liquidate these securities. Quoting and market liquidity may also be very limited.

What this means for your account(s).
You’re receiving this notification because you currently hold the impacted security noted at the end of this notice.

You may have multiple options to consider, such as:
Take no action. You are not required to sell these securities; however, starting in late August 2021 we will restrict these securities to liquidation-only transactions. You may continue to hold them, but you may have difficulty selling them in the future and there is no guarantee as to what their future value will be.

Place trades to liquidate. You may place trades to liquidate these securities now. Due to the uncertainly, we cannot guarantee there will be sufficient liquidity to close your position(s) in the future.

Transfer your positions to another financial institution. Other U.S. financial institutions are also impacted by this amendment so you may have difficulty transferring them out. If you are interested in transferring the assets, please contact your other financial institution to initiate the transaction.

Mr. Kanning now owns 27.6% 5.237mil shares of INVT.
Seems that big volume on Tuesday was indeed his purchases.
http://archive.fast-edgar.com/20210715/ANB4I22CI2223JZZ28292ZZZLRWTZ2T2Z232/

I missed this too. PATENT LICENSE - USE AND MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT
This is a patent license agreement between Silicon Turbine and Adomani and was signed ADOM COO Kevin Kanning. The collaboration history goes back quite a ways and now Mr. Kanning owns over 27.6% of INVT. As you said, very intriguing.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1563568/000119312516800412/d249922dex1a15addexhb8.htm

Adomani owns 15% of Silicon Turbine? Connecting some interesting dots..

PARTNERSHIPS/TEAMING AGREEMENTS

Silicon Turbines Systems Inc. ("STS")

STS is a breakthrough-patented technology that has the potential to generate electricity "on a chip" by forcing magnetic flux through millions of coils on a microprocessor "like" platform situated on a superconducting thinfilm. Required infrastructure including power electronics and housing dictates that the smallest economical viable system would be a 3kw power generator unit with a dimension of ~ 1 cubic meter.

For ADOMANI a 6kw unit mounted in a vehicle would reduce the battery requirement. Calculations suggest that the battery needs would be reduced to ~ 10% of what is currently used, while increasing range up to 10x beyond what is currently projected by other new emerging technologies. This dramatic increase in range and reduced battery dependence will differentiate ADOMANI from others in their market of interest, all of which are dependent on how battery technologies incrementally improve over time. ADOMANI will have an exclusive worldwide license to use and manufacture STS technologies in our field of use markets. ADOMANI has entered into a licensing agreement with STS whereby ADOMANI, for the investment of $3,000,000.00, will be granted a 10-year worldwide exclusive in the transportation industry plus 15% of the common stock of STS.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1563568/000100201414000600/adoms1-11122014.htm

Pretend I’m australopithecus afarensis and troglodyte‘s came 37,000 years after me. What exactly is going on?

Hi jackieadams75. I agree it’s reasonable to assume that Mr. Beyers and Mr. Kanning talk.
Mr. Beyers is the co-founder and chairman of Silicon Turbine and Mr. Kanning is now the CEO. 1+1=2

Even more interesting is Mr. Kanning’s purchases since become CEO at Silicon Turbine. Mr. Kanning’s LinkedIn page indicates he became CEO of Silicon Turbine in January 2021 and since then his INVT share ownership has increased from approximately 2.9mil shares to over 5mil shares since be becoming CEO.

Check out these approximate purchases and percentages owned.

November 2020 - 2.9mil shares 15%
January 2021 - Becomes CEO of Silicon Turbine
June 2021 - 4.7mil shares 25%
July 2021 - 5m shares 26%

Oh ok. That makes sense. Would be great if there’s still ongoing collaboration. What’s your take on Mr. Kanning becoming CEO of Silicon Turbine in January and then continues to significantly add to his INVT holdings. I don’t ever recall seeing something like that but as a INVT shareholder it certainly gives me reassurance of my investment.

I don’t know who any of them are but I’ll check it out. I forgot about ADOM, is Mr. Kanning the founder of that company? Do have any information of the stuff INVT was working with ADOM on?

I really don’t know how it all ties together but Mr. Kanning seems to be the common denominator to all three companies. Would be great to wake up to Apple and Intel settlement news and INVT sitting at $1.

All great questions Mr. Avidfisher. I have many theories but in the end I’m quite puzzled myself. We know Mr. Kanning is a very large INVT shareholder and we know he has continued to add to his position. I think his June ownership filing he owns over 5 million shares (26.5%). Assuming he’s not just looking to throw his money away, then I think it’s fair to assume that based on his INVT purchases, Mr. Kanning feels pretty strong about the future of IMVT. At least that’s my take.

Circling back to Silicon Turbine, I really don’t know much about them other then what I’ve read online and that Mr. Beyers cofounded the company. As you said, it certainly is intriguing that the largest INVT shareholder is now CEO of Inventergy founders other company. Mr. Kanning seems to be a tech industry veteran so I wouldn’t think he’d take a leadership role at a company without feeling very confident about the prospects. So in the end a guy who owns 26.5% of INVT shares is also the CEO of the founders other company. Is it fair to assume through Silicon Turbine, Mr. Kanning has regular and direct contact with Mr. Beyers, so does mean Mr. Kanning is also privy to what’s going on at Inventergy, I can’t say for sure, but it wouldn’t seem unlikely. Then add Mr. Kanning’s big INVT purchases and that indicates possibly good things to come for INVT shareholders. But in the end who knows and it’s all certainly intriguing.

Large volume today makes me wonder if volume will precede price action soon. The INVT wale could also be adding again. Check for possible ownership filing updates.

As suspected the indirect news does not translate to moving the INVT needle. In my opinion until the company announces an update regarding the lawsuits and possible settlements, the stock stays where’s it is.

Apple Settles With Fortress, Leaving Intel To Go It Alone

Apple appears to have struck a global bargain with Fortress Investment Group, dropping out of a joint lawsuit with Intel accusing the hedge fund of running an anti-competitive patent aggregation scheme...

https://www.law360.com/amp/articles/1396667

Yeah I’m still hanging on to my shares.

Interesting. Apple’s withdrawal and possible settlement with FIG, Uniloc and assuming Inventergy, is likely more to do with Apple’s massive antitrust defense and investigations into their anti-competitive actions then anything else. Apple has also been in a prolonged legal battle with Epic Games and the basis of their arguments has been “intellectual property holders should be able to use their assets without restrictions.” Apples defense assertions in the FIG case could then be their best defense in their antitrust accusations. Oops.

Hopefully a potential settlement trickles down to Inventergy and more importantly Inventergy shareholders. My hunch is the antitrust case attorneys forced a settlement in the FIG case because the negative optics could threaten and weaken their antitrust case. Will Intel now file a new complaint omitting Apple? The inverse occurred in 2019.

Oh I get what you are saying. You are confident that Inventergy will get their financial filings updated to remain in compliance with the OTC rule change. That would be fantastic. Did I get it correct?