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.
Yep, looks like someone is interested in the cc and expecting positive news. JMO
Victor, it is not hard to sell shares - I traded out of half my position, sold about 1 mil shares, kept about 1 mil shares. I have more than recaptured my initial investment along with a nice profit. Why why are you having such difficulty?
Very nice GBC. I would also add that Malak is an "advisor" to the BOD is some official capacity - that's what they told us. JMO
Good points all the way around - sounds logical to me.
Sorry, if that was offensive. It was a tough week and maybe that was a little harsh. What I intended to convey is that the mining stock may not be a bad example after all. Yes, you can find plenty of reasons for mining stocks to fail - most companies fail regardless of industry. The fact that our BOD and "Advisor" was involved in that failure is an important "track record" item for me. If that were the only such example, then I would heavily discount it. That is what brought up the completed research point. Before it can be discounted, you need to determine if it is part of a larger trend or just a one-off. I see it as a trend and have pointed to those examples, thus the mining stock is still relevant to me. JMO
You are certainly entitled to your opinion - as am I. I have already clearly stated that the only reason I have left half my position in stock is due to the involvement by Candy and Tucker - no argument there.
As for Sawyer, I have to look at a track record to try and predict the probability of future results. I don't just point to BRZG which you continue to argue - granted that could be seen as a one-off. I have also pointed out the results of Digifonica International, Inc. Okay, a ten year involvement which resulted in the complete loss of all initial investment and subsequent shareholder monies while affording a previous Director to scoop up the aftermath of that debacle, to which he later traded to us for 40% of the company (VPLM) also allowing him to skip any continuous expenses of running the co. as well as the ongoing patent expenses. Sawyer gets re-involved - its a nice little circle. Do you believe no one has ever received a dime over the last 10 yrs of this? I don't buy it, not by a long shot. Finally, I pointed you to Global Light Telecommunications - another "track record" of Sawyers. Look it up or don't, but it isn't wise to argue points you haven't fully researched.
I know what I am invested in and what the risks and rewards are, but many clearly do not. I truly hope this sells or licenses and generates great wealth for all those involved. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I am making money on it. JMO-GLTA
You miss understand the facts of Digifonica. As it pertains to failure, I'm referring to the parent company to which investors stuck $20mil, Digifonica International, Inc (DIL/H). That company still exist as was recently reported here:
insert-text-here
I think you can see failure in that.
What we bought was one or more of the subsidiaries that were sold to Malak from the above (which includes the patent rights)- see audited financials for DIL/H 2010-1011.
As for Brazillian Gold - it still demonstrates a pattern - Malak is still an Advisor, Sawyer was once the CEO - investors left with nothing - I wonder if they had the "goodies" according to the independent mineralization reports touted by the BOD?
As for Global, you should look at that over the weekend, its another grand resume point attributed to Sawyer.
JMO
Agree 100%, nobody is up until they actually sell shares. i can say I'm up, with half my position out in cash. I have more than cleared my initial investment and have a strong million+ core if it gets done. Either way, I'm not losing on this. Still hoping they manage to pull a rabbit out of their hat, but I'm not banking my money on it - I'll play the free shares for that. There are just way too many red flags to ignore just because I want it to happen and live the dream. See bag holders of Brazilian Gold, Global Light Telecommunications (another Sawyer resume co.), and of course the original Digifonica (20 mil to bust to sell the only assets to Malak). JMO
To be fair, Tucker and Candy didn't sell the company - Orange - Their boss's boss ( the owner) sold the company. They just worked there. JMO
I believe its under patents attny fees or patent application fees. Perhaps, they have since replaced Knobbe with Smart and Bigger, but the patent certs clearly show the patent attny as someone else already posted. It was def Knobbe during the prosecution and thus they work or worked for VPLM. This is my last post on this point because I do not see it as significant either way. There are far more glaring things in my dd to point to as shady and far more positive things to point to as well. I'm about 50-50 as is my current position. JMO
I agree with most of what you said, but wouldn't expect much out of the cc on Tuesday. Maybe more vague "progress" statements and promises of being "satisfied in every way" someday soon. In my opinion, once your CEO lies to you about something so fundamental as your share structure, then you might as well discount everything else he's ever said regarding the company. I have no doubt that Sawyer and Malik have no trouble getting their hands dirty - as for Candy and Tucker, they are the only reason I'm still here. JMO
Yes, Knobbe works for VPLM. You can look through the financials and tell who pays the bills for prosecuting the patents (hint - its VPLM). Digi hired them and we acquired Digi - they work for VPLM, period - no argument about it. Still not sure of the significance, though. JMO
It's the chronology of events that make it a blatant lie. He made the statement 5 days after it had already happened. How do you not expect something that had already occurred? It's like saying "I don't expect Seattle to win the SuperBowl while attending the victory parade in Seattle. It doesn't make any sense to me. JMO
April 01- they file in Nevada for an additional 90mil shares bringing auth to 990mil
April 02- they issue roughly 96 mil shares to various people and entities, leaving roughly 5-6 mil remaining as auth but not outstanding
April 07- Sawyer PR's the shareholder update - saying the increase in auth was to enable VPLM to complete all of its contractual obligations prior to any potential deal being completed and adding that they did not expect the outstanding shares to approach the new auth level of 990mil
Again, five days prior to that PR the auth were virtually all issued save 5-6mil.
So, my take is the PR on the 7th was a blatant lie as to our true share structure at that time. I can't think of another way to view it.
JMO
Do any of those who feel completely comfortable with their investment have any explanation as to why our chairman would blatantly lie about the share structure in the PR dated April 7th, 2014? Curious what others thoughts are on that. JMO
GBC,
Why do you think Malak is distributing shares to anyone other than himself? The financials clearly show that VPLM pays for all the filings, attorney fees, IR, web design and a host of other services in addition to "debt settlement" - all in the form of additional shares being issued.
I think the shares that go to Malak are specifically for Malak. By definition, an anti-dilution clause is specifically to maintain a consistent ownership %. Although, as I have stated repeatedly, the math does not add up with the 86mil shares.
JMO
So these "gut" feelings are actually rumors?
Not sure why this would reverse without more positive news out. I will consider adding in the .14 - .13 range.
as did I
Ive been avg down for what seems like forever - nice to see this reversing. GLTA
I agree with V... The dilution due to the purchase of Digi is one thing, but what about the other dilution. I don't understand the math on the anti dilution clause - 86 mil? How does that number jive with the other dilutive effects of running the business? There are just way too many shares being doled out that have nothing to do with the Digi purchase, way overpaying for "services".
In VVV example, he bought in at 308mil outstanding, add the Digi shares to that number, then look at the current outstanding count and tell me you feel good about that - I don't think so.
There is more dilution coming. We have less than 5 mil shares remaining which is not even enough to pay the board through this quarter much less attorney fees, IR, web services, patent fees, etc...
Plus, now we know we have to pay a premium on every diluted share because Malak will be taking 40% of new shares right off the top. Tell me you like that - not.
JMO
I wish that were the case, but the majority of the shares were issued on april 02, the day after the Nevada filing to increase the Authorized shares. The PR "explaining" the filing came out on the 7th. Re-read that PR with the knowledge that almost all of the new shares were already issued at the time of the PR.
Voip-Pal.com Inc. ("Voip-Pal", "Company") (OTC Pink: VPLM) announced that they have increased their Authorized Shares from 900 million to 990 million. The increase was necessary to provide the Company ability to fulfill all of its remaining contractual obligations prior to any potential acquisition. Management does not envision the final outstanding share issuance to approach the new limit, but provides flexibility in planning if required to enhance shareholder value. Any additional issuance will be restricted Rule 144 shares and thus subject to a one year holding period.
I've been a defender of the BOD and company for a long time, but this defies explanation. 86mil shares for an anti-dilution clause - these clauses are meant to keep an ownership percentage on par with the time of a transaction so future dilutions do not effect ownership percentage - no problem with that. What I cannot understand is how Malak's ownership percentage seems to be increasing due to the clause - BS.
JMO
I don't think the surprise is the fact that we are using the authorized shares. What surprises me is the manner in which we used them. How does an anti-dilution clause warrant 86m shares? I don't get the math there. And, why is this the first time we hear of such a clause? That is "material" to me. Burning through another 100mil shares in one quarter is alarming to say the least. You can throw out the argument that we can't afford lawsuits with the big boys. Even at .12 cents, thats $12mil we just spent through share issuance. That would pay for several lengthy lawsuits against anyone.
I for one will be reevaluating my position. We are either on the verge of a sale or facing much more dilution before the end of the quarter. We don't even have enough shares left to pay or BOD or other service providers for this quarter at this point. JMO
I must admit that this looks ugly. I think the Malak shares indicate "...FBO Ed Candy" so they are actually Candy's shares - not sure why they are going through Malak though. I had been anticipating this report since the additional authorized shares were filed 04/01/14, the day after the last quarterly filing. Hence, keeping us in the dark for another three months as to what they would be used for, which was supposed to get us over the goal line. I was thinking Director bonuses, lawyers etc... for closing a deal. Now, those shares are gone and we have about 5 mil left authorized. Is that enough to get the deal done?
Since there is an anti-dilution clause, it seems Malak will be getting 40% of any new shares issued in order to keep him at the same percentage ownership. No doubt why he didn't mind locking up his shares.
The only good thing about this is that I checked the Nevada state site and they have'nt filed any additional amendments for increasing the authorized as of yet.
I agree, but I also think we will continue to drift down to pre-blackout pps if there is no substantial news near term. Personally, I will be adding on the way down. I don't think the story has changed at all - just some have less tolerance for risk. This will pay off big at some point - it just takes time to get the best deal possible.
JMO
appears someone is exiting their position - big numbers on the ask.
Geez, PNRG that sounds like VPLM believes people may be infringing upon our technology. But, they have never actually said that, right? LOL
I think it is pretty clear what our BOD thinks is going on. Nice post!
Agreed - nice post. Just got off restrictions and wrapped up a few other dealings. Managed to stay current with the board - go longs!
I added some more last week. Haven't been here for a while since the stock is just stagnant. Hopefully, we will get some news in the coming weeks. GLTA
2/2 Regarding the Microsoft patent rejections and the statutory 90 day timeline for filing a response:
1.) I find it hard to believe that a company as IP savvy as Microsoft is would purposely allow a deadline to expire if they had a response to file - see history of responses - never missed the deadline in their previous 3 rejections of the LI patent.
2.) If they qualified for the "special exception", which is questionable, why would they not just file the response on time? Under the special exception, you still sacrifice the patent term adjustment which determines the protection timeline under the rule. That does not make sense to me - they would have just filed the response on time.
3.) Lets just say they qualify of the exception and they for some reason voluntarily forfeited part of the patent term protection by not filing the response on time - what are the actual chances of them getting that patent awarded? So far, they have been denied 3 times in their 5 year effort and I believe this would make the 4th if they attempt it - we already have the patent and nothing they do short of licensing or buying is going to change that.
JMO
It looks like the sell volume kicked it off this morning, but the buyers came out of the woodwork compared with previous days volume. Pretty nice support considering the tone lately and the lack of news. I think some are just impatient and expecting a fire sale. The BOD has all the info/contacts/expertise they need and will do these negotiations in a methodical fashion. So, if it drags on longer then that is just more beneficial to me as I will be a buyer as the shares get cheaper. In my opinion this could take a few weeks or a few months, but the timing doesn't change the fundamentals of the investment at all. JMO
I would say the simplest explanation is that he is traveling on Hutchinson Whampoa's dime and they have a policy against marketing your other directorships, etc. while representing them in an official capacity.
He also doesn't mention he is a professor or his own company Strategitel Limited. But, maybe he is "hiding" that information as well, right?
JMO
1/1 Here is a link other than a VPLM PR that discusses the two patent applications by VPLM and Microsoft for Lawful/legal intercept.
TMCNet Article
For the statutory timeline of Microsofts filing, please do the following:
1.) look up the microsoft patent application on the public pair system
2.) go to the "Image File Wrapper" tab
3.) the top of the list is the actual rejection letter (20 pgs)
4.) open that letter and look at the top of page two.
That is it. I just reread it and tried to copy and paste, but it kept selecting the whole document. It looks like there may be an exception which could allow 180 days although you still lose some patent term adjustment under that scenario so it is not something anyone would choose to do if you had a proper timely response. Again, the time starts running from the mail date of the rejection. You can clearly see that Microsoft has never missed this deadline for a response within the Transaction tab (you posted those details previously). I believe this is done and they are forced to go in a different direction.
Hope that helps - Go Longs!!
JMO
If you want to know if it is final or not, then look at the dates of the mailings of all rejections - final or not. Then, look at the response filings - they are all within a 90 day window except for the last which had no response. If you look at the actual rejection letter sent to microsoft on the Image File Wrapper tab, then on page 2 of 20 it clearly states in bold letters that a response must be filed within 90 days.
That's how you get final rejection or they could just start over on another 5 year trek. There will be no "tweaking" or anything like that. They tried that angle for the last 5 years and failed. This is done and they have to go in another direction. Is that VPLM? I think so, but that is just my opinion.
JMO - Go longs!
2/2 Contrary to popular opinion, almost all deals are done through legitimate licenses. Litigation is an outlier. Also, not to jump on the Apple bandwagon, but they already pay an estimated $20-$35/device for royalties. Those are the known royalties - there are others that are not disclosed.
JMO
Totally agree with you and Clueless. I think a license deal would provide immediate value and validity to the market. Our share price would explode and a later buyout would be at a greater price. Also, it could probably allow us to uplist along the way. JMO
2/2
You may be correct with some of these "pennies", but it is hard to tell from the article - it only states the current exchange where they are listed, NYSE, Nadaq, etc. It does not say where they traded during the penny days.
Atleast, TRLG and Monster were both OTC stocks in the beginning then uplisted. Regardless, the point is to know what you are invested in and act accordingly. All of those stocks had nothing but naysayers during their penny days and not only happy investors during their success but also a lot of folks who wish they had taken a flier on a penny stock. JMO
These are examples of pinks that made it big. Rare, but still it happens. I trust the BOD and the patent portfolio to deliver some extraordinary returns. JMO
insert-text-here
Awesome, looks like we can add some more future RBR royalties to the pile. JMO
You nailed it. RBR is being applied everywhere (infringed upon). The others are unique and robust, but not actually implemented to date. Anyone that examines the actual functionality of those technologies and compares it to what is available in the marketplace today should recognize the value they represent. JMO