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 never said they didn't do an "immediate resumption" of their activities. My point was just don't expect the details in a PR while they are still involved as a defendant in the litigation with JNJ.
I fully expect they are moving forward with all the things they talked about in the PR without giving details. Given the success they've had against JNJ thus far in court, I will leave it to them as to when they feel the details need to be given.
I did give my opinion as to where I would be if I was a distributor or retailer of their product, but since I'm not, it really doesn't mean anything, other than my opinion.
Having read all the other posts tonight, it shouldn't come as a surprise that JNJ requested an en banc hearing. As far as I understand, they as much as said so in their latest filing.
I think you're missing the point that has been made many times before. JNJ has already been slapped down for contacting and threating DECN distributors/customers.
If I was a retailer/distributor of DECN product I wouldn't consider signing a deal with them until the litigation was once and for all over.
In terms of the updates, you're asking DECN to provide regular updates on their marketing, retail contracts, etc., etc. Why on earth would they give JNJ that road map to once again threaten their distribution channel until the litigation is over?
To me, it's unreasonable to ask for transparency and clarity while DECN is still involved in a lawsuit. That's like laying your case out well in advance for the other side. DECN has done a great job thus far in terms of JNJ's lawsuit, so I see no reason to question them now and the timing of how they release information.
gman3 -
Thank you for posting. I'm still trying to make sense of this (haven't had a chance to go on Pacer and pull the records for myself yet).
Based on what you posted it would appear JNJ thinks they may have a way to file summary judgment against DECN/Pharmatech based on the documents served on JNJ. It's hard to believe DECN would make that kind of mistake at this point in the court battle so makes me wonder if this isn't yet another delaying tactic by JNJ
Thanks Hugh. I stand corrected. I appreciate all the info you posted.
Actually it is available on Pacer and is the same as what Hugh posted. I don't know where the 2.5 hours came from as the court document clearly shows it was 1 hour and 41 minutes.
Yes it is a press release RELAYING the NEWS of what happened in court. Therefore I believe it makes it news!!
If JNJ issued a press release about some new product would you call that news or a press release?
You can't have it both ways!!
The losses just keep mounting for JNJ.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/high-court-rejects-appeal-over-dollar63m-judgment-in-motrin-case/ar-BBoqOAn
I fully understand. Been a shareholder for too many years to count!! Good luck to all us longs!
Diarch - it wasn't just your post but I appreciate your reply. Exciting days ahead for DECN!!
Maybe I'm missing something since I've haven't had a chance to logon to Pacer and look at the docs. Aren't these just briefs by the attorneys stating their position and not a ruling by the court? Some of the comments appear to suggest that this has actually been ruled on.
TIA
"I totally agree that DECN's funding options are limited to "special" deals with venture capital types and hedge funds."
Since you agree that this is their only funding option, are you suggesting that Option B - going out of business, thereby ensuring the small shareholders total investment loss would somehow be better?
Thanks for your input, but I'll pass on your investment advice.
You have to remember why they've done these funding deals. Let's see, oh yeah, frivolous lawsuits, fraudulent experts, etc., etc.
At least by doing what they've done, the company is still in business and has the potential for a lot of upside. Seems like a much better opportunity for the small shareholder than going out of business.
Congratulations to you both!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder how many CPAs leave Arthur Andersen off their bios since the Enron meltdown, whether or not they were involved?
Until the consumer figures out how badly they've been being overcharged for years. Consumer backlash can be ugly for a brand.
Hahahaha!! This is hysterical!! So now there's at least two cases that "JNJ and their powerful legal team" didn't bother to vet their expert. You have to wonder how many more cases are going to come up given that this guy has been testifying for a decade.
DECN just keeps ringing the JNJ cash register!!
And to think, if JNJ would have just made a reasonable offer last fall, none of this would have come out. Oh well... too bad for JNJ.
Not good - looking bad for JNJ
JNJ and its legal team has so consistently (and erroneously) been portrayed as buffoons on this thread that many readers have come to accept it as fact.
When the very powerful JNJ legal team finally rears its head to put this nuisance case to rest, some advocates of DECN may very well be in for a shock.
I agree with one thing in your post and that’s that there have been a few posts portraying JNJ and its legal team as buffoons and I don’t agree with that. However, there have been many more portraying them as arrogant.
So, according your post, all that has to happen is for the very powerful JNJ legal team finally rears its head to put this nuisance case to rest, some advocates of DECN may very well be in for a shock.
So let’s recap –
This case has been going on for 3 ½ years going on 4. To date this powerful legal team hasn’t reared its head.
Instead, the only wins they’ve had in court were with an expert with falsified credentials.
Even with that, they have lost 3 times in court.
They inappropriately sent threatening letters to DECN’s distributors and customers.
They now have the Solicitor General aligned against them.
If all that had to happen was for this powerful legal team to rear it’s head and put this nuisance case to rest
why has it taken so long?
If I was a JNJ shareholder I would be extremely upset about this not happening several years ago. Why have they spent millions of dollars on a nuisance case that could have been put to rest by simply rearing their powerful heads?
Doesn’t JNJ have enough other lawsuits going on? Why on earth would they waste their time, effort and money on a nuisance case when all that had to happen was for their powerful legal team to rear it’s head?
All This In My Humble Opinion
Actually I believe they talked about acquiring certain property and not a company.
Looks like desperation and grasping at straws!! LOL
The link seems to be missing something.
The Pacer case number is 15-1149. There are a lot of cases with this number so you have to scroll down to the appellate cases.
This doesn't seem to be the Rule 36 Mr. S was referring to. Here's a link to what I could find about it.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:35%20section:143%20edition:prelim)
I have no idea. Why don't you ask him and report back?
Yes I do remember you hammering this issue that you didn't seem to grasp. You kept hammering that they were a foreign entity in Nevada when in fact their filing was correct showing them as a domestic entity.
You need to go back and read Mr. S's post. He clearly says "I believe" which makes it speculation, not a statement of fact.
Thank you for clarifying. I've been a long term shareholder and want to see this company succeed.
I don't think so. I would suggest that you go back and read all the previous posts from the various posters. That might help to give you some insight as to what some of the current posts are.
I totally agree!! Let's quit having insinuations that change direction with the wind. And no, I for one don't hang on every word as I've done some questioning before. Everybody on this board seems to call out everyone else at some point for their posts. All I was asking for was an explanation for what appeared to be a different stance than what had been previously posted.
Possibly, but the point was one statement seemed to be made to be interpreted one way and then the later statement seemed to contradict that. That's why I'm asking for clarification.
Would you please explain why it appears from your statement its only going to make all diabetics happy? Earlier you stated this was the game changer you were looking for in early January. The game changer statement I would think applied to shareholders and therefore make them happy.
You can always find old and outdated information on the internet if you search for it.
Pastrycf05 - I totally agree with what you said. The other thing everyone needs to keep in mind is all the other lawsuits (hip, bladder sling, etc, etc) that JNJ has going on. I have to think in terms of dollars, this is probably one of the lower dollar lawsuits they have in progress. I really hope I'm wrong on lawsuit values.
Scoop - It has nothing to do with having a "leg up". It is a subscription service and while I haven't read all the details of their terms of service, I'm sure it prohibits the dissemination of information obtained from their site to the general public (ie, it's public information and if you want it you have to pay for it).
It appears it was filed in August, 2013. The end game PR refers to it.
http://www.accesswire.com/viewarticle.aspx?id=423706
It's referred to in the paragraph right above "Forward Looking Statements"
Scoop -
You can get the letter JNJ's attorneys sent to the judge off of the Pacer system.
This appears to be the schedule someone posted previously about the DECN v. Shasta case and doesn't involve JNJ. I can't say for sure. Can anyone help?
Huh? Since when does voluntarily filing something turn it into a requirement to file?
"You don't need an accounting firm if you don't intend to issue a 10-K."
There are many companies, including non-public companies that need accounting firms, so DECN can have many reasons to hire an accounting firm regardless of whether or not they intend to issue a 10-K.
You've been provided the link by many others here to the SEC regulations showing that companies such as DECN are not required to file. Whether they should or not is a different matter, but the point at issue is whether or not they are required to.
Seriously?? I thought you were a CPA. This would be eye opening for all the CPA firms out there that don't provide SEC reporting services. Guess they all better start looking for jobs as their clients don't need the services of an accounting firm since they don't file with the SEC.
Thanks Leirum - This certainly helps explain what's going on with the stock price.
A - What's your opinion of JNJ using a bogus expert? Surely a company like JNJ and their high powered lawyers would have vetted their own expert.
Awesome post Mr. S!! Hard to believe that JNJ and/or their attorneys didn't know who and what this guy was. So what do you think DECN's next move should be - keep piling it on or keep some bombs in the rack?