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.
I didn't expect an answer and certainly not an honest one. My question was rhetorical.
So the e-mail you say you received said the product was "delivered" (why the e-mail others received from nnlx does it was suppied to but does not say it was delivered is odd) and you say that NASA does not "accept" "unsolicited packages". What proof do you have that the packages were accepted?
That sounds right, but if that is all that happened that email may have been misleading for it makes it sound like much more is going on with NASA.
Was this "product" solicited by NASA or sent with a to whom it may concern please test me note?.
Are you asking why sales figures haven't been reported?
Do not put words in my mouth. Your need to resort to a straw man argument merely belies your inability to win the one before us.
The fact is you defamed Novak when, referring to papers submitted in support of the Court's assertion of jurisdiction over Nanologix, you accused him of dishonesty
What "scathing" opinion are you talking about? Not the Ohio opinion chastising both Novak and Nanologix for racing to the courthouse.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-4_13-cv-01000/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-4_13-cv-01000-0.pdf
Anyone can judge for themselves if the Northern District of California opinion is "scathing". That you would tell these good folks it is says much.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2013cv01971/265759/33
Novak v Nanologix was only dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, which an attorney should know does not bar litigation of the same claims in a place with jurisdiction. That is anything BUT losing badly.
The docket for the personal injury case shows it was settled, which has nothing to do with its relevance - which is what did Barnhizer do to draw a personal injury suit. It may be no big thing, but together with the speeding ticket for 90 in a 55, it may indicate something.
If anyone has the information handy, can they update me on what is going on with these two law suits?
The personal injury action filed in Mahoning County, Ohio. David Johnson vs. Bret T. Barnhizer. The docket is at http://courts.mahoningcountyoh.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?7407637
It may not be relevant, but looks like it may be an auto accident case. If so, that may tie in with the theory of some that Barnhizer is less than responsible.
The other the actions between Novak and Nanologix. I believe Novak's was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the action filed by Nanologix in Ohio is still viable.
At least Barnhizer made a deal with a successful Arab. Faisal Nasser Al-Harthi not only distributes commercial dish washing equipment, but looks like he is well experienced with its use. Take a look at him in that one picture.
I thought it interesting that "Nasaem Al-Jazira Inc., a Saudi Arabian trading and distribution company" distributes grills, deep fryers, dishwashers and the like.
http://nasaemaljaziraest.en.ec21.com/company_info.jsp
http://www.thejambar.com/ysu-itac-helps-international-business/
I could care less about a ticket for 90 in a 55, unless there are other relevant details such as DUI, of which there is none. I do care that the CEO of a company that hides its financial date is driving a Porsche Cayenne. Wanna bet the company is leasing it for him with investment funds?
This is what Barnhizer called "such and accomplished business group" and it just got a minimal landing site on the web!
Very new, indeed. It was made today (or yesterday if the today's date was then as Singapore is a day ahead of us). It appears to be created just for the sale of Nanologix's rapid diagnostic kits and to be anything but an established and accomplished company.
I spent about 30 minutes googling it and found nothing but the press release from nnlx.
Just what does "in use" mean? Have sampled been furnished to and are they being tested by the supermarket chain or are they buying and using the product?
"under Delaware law a corporation may pay a dividend to the extent that going concern value exceeds long term debt and stated capital."
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=fac_pubs
Is this anything like what you are discussing?
Capital Impairment Rule
The capital impairment rule is a state-level legal restriction on corporate dividend policy. The rule, which applies in most U.S. states, basically limits the amount of dividends a company can pay out to shareholders. The limit is described as either a limit per capital stock or a limit as per the par value of the firm. Essentially, the rule says that for a given amount of capital stock or a given firm value, there is a maximum limit to the value of dividends that a company can distribute to stockholders.
The purpose of the rule is to protect claims of creditors who have lent money to the firm in question. The idea is that a troubled firm, one that is in default or on the brink of bankruptcy, must not be able to unload cash to owners and shareholders before going out of business. Doing so would leave debt holders and creditors high and dry, or at least diminish the amount of value they could recoup from their loans. The capital impairment rule, by limiting the dividend payout, ensures that creditors will be able to reclaim a larger portion of their loans in the event of default or liquidation.
http://strategiccfo.com/wikicfo/capital-impairment-rule/
I am not implying anything. By including the following in not the College of Business Administration's, but Nanologix's, press release. If Barnhizer didn't intend to adopted projection as his own, he sure didn't do anything to signal that it wasn't his.
Thank you, PDE, for doing your attempt to disassociate NNLX from the sales projection.
Are you saying that Barheizer says that isn't his projection?
At first I the sales forecast came from the university, but see this posted on the company's websight. http://businessjournaldaily.com/company-news/new-biotechnology-drives-market-nanologix-2014-1-29
The recent press releases and updates are indeed positive, but I want to see some current certified financials. I am assuming there is a real basis for the estimate of first year revenues of $900K, but the devil is in the details. Little things like is the 900 net any marketing costs going to the Saudi marketing group and just what are costs of operations. I don't see how anyone came up with 35% and is that supposed to be manufacturing costs or manufacturing costs and other costs of operations and R&D?
No one is asking me and I generally am pessimistic about the company, but that article is pretty positive.
I think the operative question is how "real" is the unidentified Swiss based expert and what did he base his projection upon.
This would be big news if it was from NNLX. Just what it is given the fact that it has been provided as an "update" I don't know. I earlier thought that having reiterated the release from outside the company as an update, the company has adopted it as its own release, but I am not so sure if that was the intention. That is why I am looking to see if having had time to consult with legal counsel, Barnheizer will stand behind the revenue projection.
The sourcing of this "press release" is odd, but unless the company refutes it I would think that NNLX's CEO has as much as issued it since it has been published on the company web site.
A few things to consider in reading it.
While the document has been published on the NNLX web site, it is not directly from the company or its CEO.
The document is from a Marketing/Coordinator of External Relations/WCBA Conference Center at Youngstown State University, whatever that is.
It is reporting not what the company estimates but what an unidentified "Swiss based Saudi marketing expert" estimates, but says nothing about the experts credentials or what work or things form the basis of his projection.
Was a major supporter recently in Switzerland.
Unless the company comes out with something on this, I see the news as a red flag.
I was thinking that the pps might recover some with shares sold for end of year tax planning being bought back with the new year. Today's action indicates not.
Sometime you have to listen to the market and make decisions with your head and less with your heart. I made quite a bit on this one, but in my most recent venture into nnlx I lost a significant sum when I failed to recognize rather obvious red flags. Still, I keep a close eye on it since it could pose an opportunity for a future play.
That she had to work as a bartender for 9 years indeed indicates that the woman is anything but a stellar scientist. If she were at some point during her education she would have found work in a related field. While it is possible that the best paying work she could find was as a bartender and that finances dictated that she not look for work in a lab, there is noting to indicate that to be the case. As noted, nothing indicates that she did well in her educational pursuit. Her GPA isn't posted, nothing about dean's list, order of the coif, published papers, nada. For all we know she is flipping burgers on a second job to supplement any income from NNLX.
See her resume at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michelle-durkin/76/b3a/7b2 Had she stellar grades or high honors, they certainly would be mentioned. Instead she lists 9 years of experience keeping a sanitary food and beverage bar.
I see what you mean about the Dec 20, 2010, PR and Wednesday's.
Nanologiix is "pleased to announce its collaboration with Advanced Medical German Company of Kuwait" and the Kuwaiti company is "We are pleased to work with NanoLogix."
They really are different. The 2010 announcement was released five days before Xmas while this month's came out 3 whole weeks before.
They are working with Nasaem-Aljazira to establish exclusive distribution and/or manufacturing of NanoLogix products means what? They are negotiating/considering that in the future they may reach a deal?
That the big sale was to Battelle is the primary reason I feel that the company is either selectively disseminating material information or is close to it. When I look at materiality, I don't focus on a single release in isolation, but look at all the facts and circumstances.
You said it fine and your opinion is due respect even if by those that disagree with it.
If I can touch upon a subtlety too easily overlooked. To determine materiality you do not ask whether a reasonable investor would consider information after a degree of due diligence which may give rise to certain expectations. The issue is whether a reasonable member of the investing public would consider it.
Even the investor who had formed an expectation that sales were being made to Battelle, and I didn't notice any info from the company to that effect unless one reads between the lines, would consider info confirming his expectation. I submit that the longitude and latitude of where the pictures was taken does just that and it was material inside information.
Is it ready for the court? I agree with you that for many reasons it isn't. The primay factor being that whoever sent the pictures out may not have realized that since they were electronic they were embedded with Battelle's location.
What could very well get NNLX in trouble is, should it be true and I have no reason to believe the declarant, things like what staff reportedly said to a single investor who visited Hubbard without an appointment.
The CEO was out delivering a "big" order.
There were various customers and significant orders were being developed with others
The investor was shown a large area of the cold storage room seen in the photographs and he was told had just been emptied to fill the shipment being delivered
This was before the photos were distributed be enews.
Providing a single investor with information regarding a "big" order is inexcuseable IMO.
Information is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding to buy or sell a security. In addition, information that, when disclosed, is likely to have a direct effect on a security's price should be treated as material.
If anyone questions whether the photos and accompanying information was material information, please tell us if an announcement re sales to Battelle Corporation and another customer would or would not a reasonable investor would be substantially likely to consider a sale, and especially an initial sale, to Battlle in deciding to buy or sell Nanolgix. In the alternative, is it information that, when disclosed to the broad public, is likely to have a direct effect on the price of the company's stock?
That information has been identified in other posts, but material information is that product was delivered to at least two customers, of which one was Battelle, and that storage space was increased in September. That storage space was increased implies a need for expansion due to increased sales. Possibly the amount of product in those two shipments.