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.
He got tired of the BS. Can't blame him!
Giovinco Monday, 10/12/15 11:59:59 AM
Re: Ijoking post# 61243
Post # of 61249
Did Red Angus go away ? that's not good
spooky, I never said there couldn't be punitive damages awarded for violations of the NDA. Kaplan will NOT award monetary punitive damages in his sanctions Order other than the award for attorney's fees and costs. Read VRNG's Motion for Sanctions. You will see that is the only monetary relief they request.
VRNG isn't seeking a sternly worded letter from Kaplan. They are seeking case dispositive sanctions in BOTH the NDA and FRAND cases. If those are all granted they lead to absolute money damages in the form of compensatory, and possibly punitive/exemplary damages, upon the trial of these cases for damages. As the trials for damages will be to Kaplan as the sole factfinder, he will decide what the compensatory damages are as well as what the punitive damages should be, if any. That is the appropriate time to award damages, not in the sanctions ruling. IF all the sanctions V requested are granted, V simply has to put on their case to prove their compensatory damages and punitive damages and they no longer have to worry about proving any of the other facts of the case as those would be a done deal. They would only have to concentrate on damages, so even though the sanctions the judge may impose aren't directly monetary, other than attorney's fees and costs,they do translate into monetary damages at the damages trial. You just can't get the cart before the horse. There is a time and place for the damages to get awarded, and right now simply is neither.
Besides attorney's fees and costs, the only other monetary penalty Z may get hit with as a result of the Motion for Sanctions is a fine from the judge payable to the Court. V didn't request that, but the judge could fine Z, and their counsel, on his own anyway as that is within his discretion. Whether he will or not is yet to be seen, but it's possible.
JMO FWIW. If you don't like to read my lay opinions just block me.
spookytrades Monday, 10/12/15 11:23:24 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61232
Post # of 61245
and you are also assuming Kaplan wont award some punitive damages on Motion for Sanctions - what's the point in sanctions if you dont get in their pockets ? You think a sternly worded letter going to stop Chinese from their game playing?
Folks, there will NOT be a punitive damage award, nor any other damage award, until there is a trial on damages scheduled before the court, and the case is tried to a verdict, which in this case will come from the Court as the sole finder of fact. The judge is without authority to issue any punitive damage award until the damages trial is tried before him.
The ONLY monetary award VRNG is seeking as sanctions in their Motion for Sanctions is their attorney's fees, and costs, related to having to file their Motion for Sanctions to force ZTE to play by the rules.
spookytrades Monday, 10/12/15 07:17:34 AM
Re: Rainmaker80 post# 61222
Post # of 61231
ZTE internal documents and court filings indicate that ZTE sent NDA protected materials to well over 100 internal employees plus several outside entities and filed NDA protected materials as evidence in Chinese court documents.
My math was punitive damages only not attempting to estimate damages yet :
NDA punitive damages:
1 million per internal NDA violation plus 10 million per external violation + something for filing in Chinese court = 150 million in punitive damages alone for NDA violations.
Those could be issued IMMEDIATELY along with injunction until paid while we wait trial on actual damages.
There is a bit of a poke to Kaplan here to either rule on the motion for sanctions or set it for hearing. It also revealed to the court that they have again violated his order in that they have produced 300,000 pages of documents in Chinese instead of producing them in English as a court has ordered.
Note that paragraph right at the end reminding Kaplan that the Motion for Sanctions is still before him, and it may possibly cure this deadline relief.
It's FAKE! Cliff did NOT make that statement.
The judge can still rule without having a hearing but he indicated that he was going to have one. Looks like that's still what is going to happen.
As I have stated repeatedly, there does not have to be a hearing. The judge can rule from the pleadings on file.
I'm hearing "the latter" may just happen.
JJSeabrook Member Level Wednesday, 10/07/15 07:49:25 PM
Re: VRNG24 post# 61113
Post # of 61172
The Motion for Sanctions is now 100% ripe for Kaplan to either set the hearing, should he choose to do so, or to simply go ahead and rule on the motion and response, if he so chooses. I'd prefer the latter, but I believe he indicated he intended to set it for hearing. We should know soon. Give'em hell Kappy!!! The ball is TOTALLY in your Court now.
Maas has completely cleared his docket for any pending motions before him, although he could later be reassigned for other matters for him to rule on. Nobody but the Big Kap left to pop a cap on ZTE right now. I hope the cartridge is a big round! LOL
Burger flipper deluxe LOL
I think it should have been in their motion if they had any intention of trying to get it before the time of trial. JMO
Here's what I'd like to have seen. The parties anticipated a breach of the NDA and provided for an injunction if it was violated as monetary damages, if any, may be inadequate. The agreed to that in an express agreement. Judge Kaplan has already held that ZTE violated that agreement. I'd like to have seen V request a temporary injunction banning the import and sale of all goods in the U.S. until the time of trial where it would then be decided whether or not he would make that injunction permanent. I think it would have been an appropriate sanction, and it's already something that Z agreed to.
I believe that once Kaplan rules on the Sanctions motion that Z will file for a Writ of Mandamus. Had the injunction been granted then V would get a look on the decision on Mandamus of how the appellate court felt about it, which may have been somewhat instructive as to how they proceeded on it at the time of trial and in their request to make the injunction permanent at that time.
Didn't happen so don't really know how that would have worked or whether Judge Kaplan would have granted it or not, but sure would have been interesting to see how it would have had the dominoes fallen that way.
Giovinco Thursday, 10/08/15 01:01:52 PM
Re: None
Post # of 61161
JJ, would you have asked for an injunction already ?
Look, this company deals in litigation. It dealt in litigation when you bought the stock, and will still be dealing in it when you sell it. That's their business, enforcing patents. Yes, they will license some, but there will ALWAYS be cases that will go to litigation. That's just the nature of this beast.
In any type of litigation you have to expect the possible appeal. In this type of litigation you should expect a certainty of appeal. Yes, this could potentially go all the way to the Supremes. However, IF they can get the injunction and make that sucker stick during the pendency of the appeal it certainly would bring HUGE pressure to bear upon ZTE in the U.S., possibly enough to force settlement. If not, then the case just proceeds through the appellate process and not a damn thing anyone, including VRNG, can do about it.
There is a possibility Kaplan will send the parties back to mediation once discovery is complete. Settlement is never an impossibility.
msl2008 Thursday, 10/08/15 12:27:42 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61151
Post # of 61154
Let's just say K grants everything. Won't Z just appeal and then we still won't see actual money in the bank for a few years?
These cases are going to be tried to the Court as the sole trier of fact and you want them to tell you what they think he's going to award? You won't get that wish granted. EVER!
As for their punitive damages request, they may have some idea of what they are going to ask for, but there's no way they could possibly give any real forward looking idea of what the judge may actually award, nor would they anyway.
spookytrades Thursday, 10/08/15 12:26:36 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61151
Post # of 61152
the problem is converting from a "lawsuits" to $$$ - we have no real guidance from anyone especially not the company
Yep, and let's not forget that IF all the sanctions requested by VRNG are granted it also wipes out the FRAND case other than the damage figure. They are requesting that ZTE's claims get whacked and that their counterclaims all be granted. BOOM! That's 2 cases with nothing left to determined but damages, IF, IF all their relief is granted.
IMO the hardest one to get past the judge will be the FRAND case. Not saying he won't do it, but that may be the biggest hurdle.
On a forward looking basis the granting of ALL of VRNG's requested sanctions should be HUGE. Puts them in an absolute no lose situation upon the trial(s) for damages in the two cases. From a lawsuit(s) standpoint, it just don't get no better than this.
spookytrades Thursday, 10/08/15 11:52:51 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61139
Post # of 61148
Motion for Sanctions Page 5
Vringo seeks
1. Judgement in Vringo's favor for all remaining counts of NDA
2. dismissal of ZTE claims in FRAND case
3. judgement in favor of Vringo on it's counterclaims in FRAND case
4. Vringos attorney fees and costs for ZTE's discovery misconduct
This will leave determination of damages as the only remaining issue
so if Kaplan will grant Vringo everything they ask for then this will be done deal with damage amount only blank left to fill in?
I expect you will see that request for injunction come to light upon receiving an award at the trial on damages.
Have fun! As you say, spooky, JJ's gotta go flip burgers.
spookytrades Thursday, 10/08/15 11:10:12 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61135
Post # of 61139
Why in the hell did VRNG not ask for injunction since NDA agreement allowed it as remedy?
I expect VRNG MAY get all they asked for in their Motion for Sanctions...hope so anyway. Judge could fine ZTE, but that would likely be payable to the Court if he does so. VRNG never suggested the Court should fine ZTE at all as I recall.
Spook, VRNG didn't ask for any dollar amount in their sanctions motion nor did they ask for an injunction. Probably would help if you read their motion to see what this upcoming ruling is really about. The only monetary award VRNG is likely to get from their sanctions motion is for attorney's fees and costs that are related to their being forced to bring the Motion for Sanctions to make ZTE follow the rules and comply with their discovery requests.
spookytrades Thursday, 10/08/15 11:01:24 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61132
Post # of 61134
did VRNG specifically ask for dollar amnount in monetary damages in the sanctions or are they hoping to use sanctions to get US injunction thus forcing settlement?
That's what I recalled. Couldn't remember where I saw it, but remembered him saying that he would have a sanctions hearing. He's actually not required to under the rules, but I tend to believe he is doing it out of an abundance of caution. I feel he is certain ZTE will file for a Writ of Mandamus once he has issued his Order on Sanctions. I'd certainly be surprised if they didn't.
ipnoob Thursday, 10/08/15 10:58:00 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61129
Post # of 61132
In one of his orders, Kaplan DID say there will be a hearing on the sanction issue.
After this Motion for Sanctions ruling there's not going to be anything left to ask for in a Motion for Summary Judgment, provided VRNG gets the sanctions they are requesting. There will STILL have to be a full blown trial on damages before Judge Kaplan. Can't get around that spooks.
spookytrades Thursday, 10/08/15 10:55:59 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61129
Post # of 61130
Can't VRNG ask for summary judgement once discovery is done and avoid trial being delayed until 2016?
Spooky...uhhhh...NO! You're confused. This is NOT the trial ZTE asked to waive a jury. What we are currently waiting for is a setting for a hearing on VRNG's Motion for Sanctions, or a ruling on that motion on the pleadings. This is just a MOTION before the Court. This isn't the trial. The trial won't take place until 2016 and that trial will be a trial to determine damages which will be solely before the Court and not before a jury. There is no trial on a Motion. Motions are ruled upon by the judge without a jury, EVER. Motion rulings are solely at the discretion of the Court. You can't waive a jury for a ruling on a motion because you're not entitled to a jury anyway.
There have already been LOTS of motions that have been ruled upon by both Judges Kaplan and Maas. This Motion for Sanctions is just another one of them. Kaplan has already ruled that ZTE breached the NDA quite a long time ago, and that ruling also was the result of a motion. Other than that particular ruling, this one is the most important one that has come up since the lawsuit was filed. It has the potential of eliminating the factual matters in controversy, but it will not establish, nor award, damages as that is what the trial is going to be all about.
Discovery is still ongoing. Damage reports from the experts have yet to be filed. Those things are all in anticipation of the TRIAL on damages that is still yet to come.
So no, this isn't the trial before the judge without a jury, and the judge can not rule on the damages portion of the case until the trial before him on damages. Hope that helps catch you up to speed.
spookytrades Thursday, 10/08/15 10:27:57 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61127
Post # of 61128
this is the trial ZTE asked to waive the request for a jury - correct? so if that is case Judge only - and he can rule without a trial ....
Because there is still going to be a trial on damages.
The Motion for Sanctions is now 100% ripe for Kaplan to either set the hearing, should he choose to do so, or to simply go ahead and rule on the motion and response, if he so chooses. I'd prefer the latter, but I believe he indicated he intended to set it for hearing. We should know soon. Give'em hell Kappy!!! The ball is TOTALLY in your Court now.
Maas has completely cleared his docket for any pending motions before him, although he could later be reassigned for other matters for him to rule on. Nobody but the Big Kap left to pop a cap on ZTE right now. I hope the cartridge is a big round! LOL
“Our basic point of reference when considering the award of attorneys' fees is the bedrock principle known as the American Rule: Each litigant pays his own attorneys' fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise,” wrote Clarence Thomas for the majority in last month’s United States Supreme Court decision in Baker Botts L.L.P. et al. v. ASARCO LLC, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 3920, 83 U.S.L.W. 4428 (June 15, 2015).
I expect the cash burn for Q3 attorney's fees to be considerably higher due to the tremendous amount of work done on ZTE in SDNY. The beautiful thing about it is that when Kaplan rules on the Motion for Sanctions that the majority of that attorney fee cash burn will be awarded to VRNG as a portion of the Sanctions award.
VRNG is proposing a R/S and an A/S increase. ZTE should realize that VRNG will do whatever it must to raise the cash necessary to fight them to the end. Too much potential value for VRNG to just fold for peanuts. Even though they lost to GOOG, they've show that they will, in fact, take it all the way to SCOTUS in the U.S.. After the NDA suit goes to final judgment and IF VRNG obtains an injunction against ZTE the screws really begin to tighten on ZTE. That may be what it takes to get ZTE to cave in to a worldwide settlement.
I do not believe there is any chance for an injunction to be put in place as a result of the Motion for Sanctions. VRNG did not ask for it, and Kaplan is extremely unlikely to award anything VRNG did not ask for in their motion. He's already advised them to set forth in their motion the relief they are seeking, which they did. Don't expect the judge to order any more than VRNG has asked on his own (sua sponte).
IMO Kaplan and his clerks are authoring his Order and it will be ready for entry subsequent to the hearing, which I expect could occur before the end of the month, but you never know. I expect he may very well rule from the bench at the conclusion of that hearing. Oral argument, if granted, will likely not affect his decision in the slightest. Should be a very good day for VRNG when that Order comes out.
SA-Justin Giles---Supreme Court Decision Hammers Vringo Stock, All Eyes Now On ZTE
Oct. 6, 2015 11:21 AM ET | 4 comments | About: Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), Includes: GOOG, ZTCOY
Disclosure: I am/we are long VRNG. (More...)
Summary
SCOTUS strikes down Vringo's Writ Of Certiorari and what this means going forward.
After a long fight against Google, investors now turn all of their attention to ZTE.
Why I believe the selloff was overblown, why I'm still holding my shares and why I'm looking to double down on my position.
* Disclosure: I've been covering Vringo on Seeking Alpha for a number of years now (you can see my articles here), and still believe the reward outweighs the risk after Monday's reaction from investors.
It was a rough day for Vringo (NASDAQ:VRNG) shareholders Monday morning after learning that the company's Writ of Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of The United States.
Despite winning a jury trial, a district court ruling and numerous re-examinations attempts by Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Vringo received an adverse split-decision (2-1) earlier this year at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Writ of Certiorari was Vringo's latest attempt to overturn the injustice from the CAFC, who chose blindly to ignore an indisputably jury verdict.
Andrew Perlman, Chief Executive Officer of Vringo had this to say in a statement to shareholders on Monday (emphasis added);
Given the exceptionally low historical odds of being heard at the Supreme Court, we believe that the decline in today`s share price does not accurately reflect the change in Vringo`s underlying value. The decision by the Supreme Court does not have any effect on the over 600 patents and applications in Vringo`s patent portfolios.
As a Vringo shareholder, this decision is unfortunate, however I'm actually more disappointed in what it now means going forward for all entrepreneurs / companies who spend countless hours and money on patents that can now be declared worthless, despite winning every battle leading up to an appeal.
In it's Amicus Curiae brief supporting Vringo, the Boston Patent Law Association summed it nicely saying (emphasis added);
In effect, the Federal Circuit's treatment of the patents makes the jury trial nothing but a dress rehearsal, not the main event, as it should be.
While bad news is bad news, I didn't expect shares to fall as much as they did. While unfortunate, investors must now move forward as the attention now shifts directly on ZTE (OTCPK:ZTCOY) and the trouble it has put itself in.
VRINGO V. ZTE
Things have been heating up between Vringo and ZTE over the last few months in its battle in the Southern District of New York. First, Vringo accused ZTE of manipulating its shares. Second, ZTE keeps getting new lawyers, and lastly, subpoenas are flying everywhere as Vringo looks into whether or not Grayling, Edelman and Google saw NDA materials and, if so, what was done with that information that was given by ZTE in its breach of its NDA contract with Vringo.
Perlman talked about ZTE in his statement Monday adding (emphasis added);
We continue our global litigation against ZTE, which remains unaffected by today`s decision, and which to date, has achieved positive results and rulings in many countries around the world. While ZTE is a large player in the telecommunications infrastructure and handset industries, it represents a small percentage of the revenue that is generated from sales of those products.
This last paragraph tells me that ZTE isn't the only one Vringo has its eyes on with the likes of Huawei, China Unicom among many others.
On July 30, 2015, document 178-10 (Exhibit J) made headlines as ZTE openly shared Vringo's patent license price between both parties at $817 million:
(click to enlarge)
While I figured the licensing agreement was going to be worth more than a couple of peanuts (unlike some shorts have tried to claim it would be), this information clearly shows us just how much is on the line between both parties.
Yes, the loss against Google was big, but the battle with ZTE has now become just as big, if not bigger with what's transpired over the past year.
Guo Xiaoming, part of ZTE's general counsel, refused to appear in New York for his deposition this summer in the contract breach between both parties.
ZTE's reasoning is over fears that Guo will be arrested by the FBI after facilitating unauthorized exports to Iran, which was a direct violation of U.S sanctions. This is just further proof that ZTE does not honor its word when its says that it respects the intellectual property of others and is willing to negotiate royalty fees on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) principles.
SDNY District Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected ZTE's request to show "mercy" and reconsider his order to appear in New York.
This of course means that sanctions are certainly on the way and Vringo is ready to roll.
(click to enlarge)
Instead of the normal four pages to do so, Vringo requested to file an over-the-length brief (as you can see above) of up to 12 pages in support of its sanctions motion. This of course is on top of the $800M+ license agreement the two companies are trying to hash out. As you can see, this is turning into a billion dollar case.
Conclusion
Monday's whopping 41 percent share decline is in no way justified in my opinion given the exceptionally low historical odds of being heard at the Supreme Court. Less than 10 percent of cases are heard as I mentioned in a previous article.
I believe investors should rethink the current situation in that Vringo's battle with ZTE is the fight for the cake, and anything that were to come from Google is just added icing.
Right now, Vringo sports a market cap of just $35 million. With cash of $22.3 million as of its latest quarter, the market is currently pricing in Vringo's patents and the rest of its business (assets, etc.) at $12.7 million. Does this seem right to you considering that the company has the upper hand against ZTE in a billion dollar battle? Of course not.
It's my belief that a plethora of traders were playing Monday's announcement as well as those investors who have lost track of everything else that is currently going on and in Vringo's favor.
With several injunctions already placed on ZTE throughout the world (Romania, Brazil, etc.) for more than a year now, Vringo continues to squeeze ZTE. This is why I plan on adding to my position as investors begin to finally realize what's actually at stake.
Risk Factors
1. Vringo may not be able to successfully license and monetize its patents and patent portfolios.
2. The court system is not always fair and just.
3. Vringo relies heavily on raising capital to help fund operations/business plans. With just over $22M in cash and a monthly burn rate of just over $1M, Vringo may need help to raise capital if a settlement isn't reached with ZTE in a timely manner.
4. To meet listing requirements on the Nasdaq, Vringo must trade over $1 by December 14, 2015, to regain compliance. A reverse split seems to be likely in order to maintain Vringo's listing if a settlement doesn't happen with ZTE.
Editor's Note: This article covers one or more stocks trading at less than $1 per share and/or with less than a $100 million market cap. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3553856-supreme-court-decision-hammers-vringo-stock-all-eyes-now-on-zte?auth_param=3ho9d:1b17ppn:e70e02a5af6af6b60d1b1182d6050794&uprof=51#
Aoxing Pharma to Announce Fiscal 2015 Financial Results, Host Webcast and Conference Call Oct. 13 at 8:30 AM Eastern
Accesswire
2 hours ago
????
JERSEY CITY, NJ / ACCESSWIRE / October 2, 2015 / Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. (AXN), a leading China-based pain management company, today said it would announce financial results for its fiscal year 2015, ended June 30, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, October 13, and immediately follow this announcement with a conference call chaired by the company's chairman and chief executive officer, Mr. Zhenjiang Yue, and chief financial officer Mr. Wilfred Chow.
The call will be accessible on the company's website, www.aoxingpharma.com, and via phone conference. Directions for both will be announced prior to the call.
During the call Mr. Chow will discuss Aoxing's performance during fiscal 2015 and the company's plans to grow its core traditional Chinese medicine business as well as develop its new narcotic medicine division in fiscal 2016. Messrs. Yue and Chow will then answer investor questions.
All interested investors are invited to participate in this call.
About the Company
Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. is a US incorporated specialty pharmaceutical company with its operations in China, specializing in research, development, manufacturing and distribution of a variety of narcotics and pain-management products. Headquartered in Shijiazhuang City, outside Beijing, Aoxing Pharma has the largest and most advanced manufacturing facility in China for highly regulated narcotic medicines. Its facility is one of the few GMP facilities licensed for the manufacture of narcotic medicines by the China Food and Drug Administration ("CFDA"). For more information, please visit: www.aoxingpharma.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains certain statements that may include "forward-looking statements." All statements other than statements of historical fact included herein are "forward-looking statements." These forward-looking statements are often identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "believes," "expects" or similar expressions, involving known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, they do involve assumptions, risks and uncertainties, and these expectations may prove to be incorrect. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release. The Company's actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of a variety of factors, including the risk factors discussed in the Company's periodic reports that are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available on the SEC's website (http://www.sec.gov). All forward-looking statements attributable to the Company or persons acting on its behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by these risk factors. Other than as required under the securities laws, the Company does not assume a duty to update these forward-looking statements.
CONTACT:
Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company:
646-367-1747
investor.relations@aoxingpharma.com
or
Asia IR•PR
Jimmy Caplan, 512-329-9505
jimmy@asia-irpr.com
or
Media Relations:
Asia IR•PR
Rick Eisenberg, 212-496-6828
rick@asia-irpr.com
SOURCE: Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc
The Google case isn't a FRAND case. The royalty was set by the jury, and later enhanced by the judge in his running royalty ruling.
Long term Thursday, 10/01/15 01:44:06 PM
Re: None
Post # of 60901
Vrng24
If “G” moves to settlement, what position does that put “v”in. I'm referring to the FRAND process. As I understand, as side numerical calculations, the process requires both parties to negotiate in good faith. As a result “V” must demonstrate good faith. That being said, what factors & amounts would “V” then be able to consider while demonstrating “good faith”
My feeling avoid “g” crying fowl on FRAND issues…..absolutely NO SETTLEMENT !!!
I saw a couple posters called IR and were told that ER & projections will come out on 10/14.
AXN
They filed an NT 10-K so ER, and projections, probably not until 10/15. AXN
I didn't see it either, but I'm running on one eye with a contact in it and one without this week. LOL
Kaplan already instructed V to request whatever sanctions they wish him to award. Seems unlikely to me, especially after doing so, that he would award any more than the relief requested, and as far as I see that excludes an injunction at this point of the game. Not sure that he may not jump up and fine the hell out of ZTE of his own volition at this point though. I wouldn't think that would be totally out of the question.
Again, I'm not saying an injunction may not be coming once the damages trial occurs. It just seems unlikely to me that an injunction, certainly an unrequested injunction at this point, would issue with the Sanctions Order. Impossible? No. Likely? No. Would I LOVE to see Kap hit Z with an injunction as a sanction? Hell yah! I've LOVE it! LOL
I'm not sure how much more we'll know on Nov 5 as those expert damage reports will likely be sealed. If not totally sealed, at least anything with figures will likely be redacted completely.
Giovinco Friday, 09/25/15 01:36:22 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 60772
Post # of 60774
JJ We will know more by Nov 05, that's when damage expert reports are scheduled
Red, I don't see that V even requested an injunction as a form of relief in the Motion for Sanctions. Am I missing it? If not, I'd think it would be unlikely for Kaplan to order that sua sponte, don't you?
V says that if all their relief is granted that it would leave nothing but damages left to be determined. At that point, it would again appear to me to be the time to request injunctive relief.
I understand that the breach of the NDA provides for an injunction as monetary damages may be nonexistant or inadequate to compensate them for their injury. No question an injunction is still on the table, but I don't see that V asked for it now. Again, I may just be missing it as I scanned over the Motion for Sanctions pretty quickly again. Got a page that the request for injunction is on in the Motion for Sanctions?
Red Angus Thursday, 09/24/15 09:22:37 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 60750
Post # of 60768
JJ, as mentioned, the problem I see with granting a damage-related award of some kind as a result of the motion for sanctions is that Vringo doesn’t really have enough evidence in that proceeding to substantiate an award. I do think Kaplan could entertain a limited receipt of evidence at the sanction proceeding, but of course procedural and appeal problems also arise there. If we don’t get some way to introduce evidence in the sanction proceeding I don’t see a monetary award there, BUT in view of the fact that the parties both signed on to an agreement that an injunction would be appropriate if the NDA is violated---and everybody agrees it was---I do think there’s a possibility there. If challenged on appeal, Vringo could point out that ZTE itself refuses to cooperate in the normal production of evidence and compliance with court orders in general. ZTE should not be able to challenge an injunction based on its own misconduct.
Since the NDA was violated, and since ZTE refuses to allow Guo to be deposed or allow other evidence to be discovered in the now-combined proceedings, Kaplan could allow ZTE to extricate itself by showing to the court a change of legal tactics by permitting proper discovery. Kaplan could take the position that he does not have to close his eyes and pretend that the parties and proceedings are unrelated.
But I’m just guessing, like all of us.
I’d love to see proper discovery in these combined proceedings. Tying ZTE to Google, and finding out what interaction is between ZTE and Google would be a real bonus. Of course some type of evidence of shorting with ZTE involvement would be really big. Finding out what really went on in ZTE’s declared “war” against American company Vringo would be fun as hell. Basically all of that is now being withheld from us. There are a million things Vringo could inquire into under oath.
What do you think? I’m really open to hear ideas on this one. This is really interesting. How many times have we heard a party---ZTE here---almost beg to be sanctioned? Weird, but everything’s weird with ZTE.
Too bad the common shareholders get left out again.
Retractable Technologies, Inc. Declares Dividends to Series I and II Class B Preferred Stock Shareholders
September 25, 2015 12:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
LITTLE ELM, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Retractable Technologies, Inc. (NYSE MKT: RVP) announced today that its Board of Directors has declared dividends to holders of its Series I Class B and Series II Class B Convertible Preferred Stock in the amounts of $12,312.50 and $44,050.00, respectively. The dividend amount is $0.125 per share for Series I Class B shareholders and $0.25 per share for Series II Class B shareholders. Dividends have accrued at 10% per annum and cover amounts in arrears from and including July 1, 2015 through date of conversion or September 30, 2015, whichever is applicable. The dividends will be paid on October 22, 2015 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on October 12, 2015.
RTI manufactures and markets VanishPoint® and Patient Safe® safety medical products. The VanishPoint® syringe, blood collection, and IV catheter products are designed to prevent needlestick injuries and product reuse by retracting the needle directly from the patient, effectively reducing exposure to the contaminated needle. Patient Safe® syringes are uniquely designed to reduce the risk of bloodstream infections resulting from catheter hub contamination. RTI's products are distributed by various specialty and general line distributors.
For more information on RTI, visit our website at www.vanishpoint.com.
Forward-looking statements in this press release are made pursuant to the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and reflect our current views with respect to future events. We believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are accurate. However, we cannot assure you that such expectations will materialize. Our actual future performance could differ materially from such statements.
Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to: our ability to maintain liquidity; our maintenance of patent protection; the impact of current and future Court decisions regarding current litigation; our ability to maintain favorable third party manufacturing and supplier arrangements and relationships; our ability to quickly increase capacity in response to an increase in demand; our ability to access the market; our ability to maintain or lower production costs; our ability to continue to finance research and development as well as operations and expansion of production; the impact of larger market players, specifically Becton, Dickinson and Company, in providing devices to the safety market; and other risks and uncertainties that are detailed from time to time in RTI's periodic reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Contacts
Retractable Technologies, Inc.
Douglas W. Cowan, 888-806-2626 or 972-294-1010
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Red, I definitely see the possibility of an injunction coming in this case, but I don't see it coming as a result of the Motion for Sanctions, do you? My thoughts are the injunction won't come until that damage award comes at the trial on damages. If the Court were to levy the injunction now, ZTE would have no way to extricate itself from the injunction until damages are awarded at a later date where they could free themselves of it by paying the damage award.
Just so I'm clear, do you believe injunction to come, and be given, as a result of the Motion for Sanctions, or are you speaking of it coming at a later date upon the trial for damages?
Thank you my friend! Always appreciate your input!
JJ
$1.23 is doable today.
$1.14 HOD up 8.57%. Nice afternoon so far.
Barring a settlement I have no reason to believe Z won't use every appeal it can. I think the first one we see is after the Sanctions ruling Z will file a writ of mandamus attempting to reverse Kaplan's ruling, but that's just my guess.
Personally, I don't think there will be any injunction until after there is a damages award in this case, but again that's just my opinion.
Because in the federal court the judge can rule solely from the pleadings and does not have to grant an oral argument. This is true even with a motion for summary judgment, which is a dispositive motion.