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.
Thanks Steeler_fan. The reason I made the statement was two fold. As you state, many here made the claim NEOM would be there even though they didn't have a booth. Some of those same posters also made inferences that NEOM was going to be involved in the secret talks going on there, thus suggesting that if they were there for the secret talks, then surly they would also be in attendance at the conference.
However, unlike those claims, that were pure speculation, I also had an independent source confirm that the founder of Scanbuy intended to be there, and not only be there, but also unveil a new product at that conference. Thats why I used the word guarantee in my post. And if the founder intended to be there, then its safe to assume that Scanbuy would be there technically speaking, even if unofficially.
I think the 2 who responded to my post, must be missing a couple dots that needed to be connected, to draw the conclusion I drew, that Scanbuy would be at the conference...LOL
So DLE, bottom line is, my vision is just fine, and I dont need contacts or glasses.
I bet you are wrong on that one. Just as JP stated NEOM might not have a booth but will be there, I guarantee you scanbuy is there as well. By the way do you know why NEOM would be there to be involved in these secret talks so many mentioned, and still not have a booth? Cant they be there for both?
Hey Bob..........no problem
Thats right its pure fiction. The meeting apparently already occurred since the consortium published an up-date just Monday, so I doubt thats the case. Further more the consortium appears to be on its way to irrelevancy. If the 3gm board approved the idea to establish a standards unit as was reported at the conference just today, then I think their standards body will rule the roost and trump the HP/NEOM consortium.
Thats the dot connecting I have been able to accomplish.
Did everyone miss the part that he was under a contract and so they had to give him such a great departure package? NONE of NEOMs officers at the time were under such a contract, and that makes a very big difference in what you get or dont get upon being fired. Most contracts I have see specifically state the officer will get something for being fired, never saw one that didnt. Notice at the end is an additional 18 million if he sticks to his agreement for the next 4 years, which is a non compete agreement for 1 year and then some other terms that extend over 4 years.
"""""""Nardelli and the Company have agreed in principle to the terms of a separation agreement which would provide for payment of the amounts he is entitled to receive under his pre-existing employment contract entered into in 2000. Under this agreement, Nardelli will receive consideration currently valued at approximately $210 million (including amounts which have previously been earned or vested). This consideration will include a cash severance payment of $20 million, the acceleration of unvested deferred stock awards currently valued at approximately $77 million and unvested options with an intrinsic value of approximately $7 million, the payment of earned bonuses and long-term incentive awards of approximately $9 million, the payment of account balances under the Company's 401(k) plan and other benefit programs currently valued at approximately $2 million, the payment of previously earned and vested deferred shares with an approximate value of $44 million, the payment of the present value of retirement benefits currently valued at approximately $32 million and the payment of $18 million for other entitlements under his contract which will be paid over a four year period and will be forfeited if he does not honor his contractual obligations.
Nardelli has also agreed not to compete with the Company for one year, not to solicit employees or customers of the Company for four years and other restrictive covenants.
""""""""
Did she post some burn rates that I missed? Her post appeared to me to just offer the same break down of cash flow from operating activities, that the link I provided gave. Anyone who wanted to look at that link can easily assertain what was cash and what was non cash because its already broken out in the link, so I still dont get the point of her post.
But now you are referring to her operating cash flow numbers for actual cash, and referring to them as the burn rate, which you now expect to be lower then those numbers? Arent the operating cash flow numbers just one part of the burn rate? Didnt NEOM expend over 4 million dollars in ACTUAL CASH in the 3rd quarter 2006 as I clearly illustrated on the balance sheet? So are you now saying her 1.9 million she lists for Q3 was the burn rate for that quarter?
Please explain to us non accountants, how in Q3, NEOM spent 4,418,000.00 with a burn rate of 1.9 million as is alleged, is all of the cash portion of their losses. Maybe you forgot to add in the 1.7 million in losses in Investing activity, which she didnt include in her post either.
No matter what sheet you look at you come up with losses over 1 million a month, which makes my original statement she has been challenging 100 PERCENT ACCURATE. I never said whether the losses were cash or non cash adjustments, I never referred to actual cash burn rates etc. She and Success brought that into the discussion. But even then she is wrong if she is claiming the burn rate is 1.9 million when 4.4 million in ACTUAL CASH got spent that quarter.
INCOME STATEMENT Operating Income or Loss (5,444) (5,915) (4,127) (3,608)
BALANCE SHEET Cash And Cash Equivalents 3,133 2,550 7,115 2,291 (dont forget the 5 million in new funding in Q3)
CASH FLOW STATEMENT Total Cash Flow From Operating Activities (1,952) (3,843) (2,586) (558)
Total Cash Flows From Investing Activities (1,738) (425) (12,524) (1,843)
How did I get that 4 million number you ask? Well they ended Q2 with 2,550,000.00 in cash still on their books. They then recieved in Q3 new funding for 4,898,000.00 from Cornell after fees were subtracted. They also sold some stock either in options or warrants for an additional 103,000.00. Combined that means in Q3 they had a total of 7,551,000.00 in cash at their disposal, and at the end of that same quarter according to their balance sheet, they had 3,133,000.00 left. Looks like to me they spent over 4 million that quarter in ACTUAL CASH, not non cash adjustments. And if that is correct that averages out to over 1 million a month, more like 1.5 million a month.
By the way she still wont post a burn rate as the poster asked, and I wonder why that is, since she keeps reminding us of her expertice?
Jensen wasnt under any contracts as of MAY 2006 according to NEOMs 14A filed on May 2, 2006, shareholder meeting proxy filed at that time.......According to that same filing they also didnt have any Employment agreements in place at the time of that filing as well, which sometimes covers non compete clauses.
""""""Employment Agreements
No employment agreements are currently in place for any employees of the Company""""""""" PAGE 16
"""""""Base Salary : The Committee reviews the Chief Executive Officer’s major accomplishments and reported base salary information for the chief executive officers of other companies in NeoMedia’s peer group. During the period from July 16, 2003 to March 31, 2005, Mr. Jensen’s salary was $175,000 per year. On April 1, 2005, Mr. Jensen’s salary was increased to $205,000 per year. Mr. Jensen is not under contract with NeoMedia. """"""""" PAGE 21
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4382511&Type=HTML
02/07/2007 37 ORDER: It is ordered that, for the reasons stated on the record at the aforementioned oral argument, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be and hereby is denied and that it is further ordered that all fact discovery in the above captioned action shall be completed on or before July 30, 2007; and it is further ordered that all expert dicovery in the above captioned action shall be completed on or before September 30, 2007; and it is further ordered that a Markman hearing in the above captioned action shall commence on November 13, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 21C 500 Pearl Street.. (Signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo on 1/31/07) (js) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
02/07/2007 Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 7/30/2007., Markman Hearing set for 11/13/2007 11:00 AM before Judge John E. Sprizzo. (js) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
""""PP, Tobin Smith & you were perfect pumpers."""""
Since your post calling me a pumper has been up for over 4 hours now I guess its ok to reply in kind.
Maybe you should be asking Streetstylz what his point was instead of asking me, since it was he that was so quick to post false and misleading information, in a haste to attempt to prove something I said as false.
Unlike you I didnt pump NEOM on yahoo boards or anywhere else, like you have been doing here for at least what 2 years now? Day in and day out as well.
And you have the gall to call someone else a pumper?
And unlike you after I mentioned NEOM on Yahoo, I have since woke up to their lack of management. Did they have a good technology, of course they did. Thats not the problem. The problem is what they did(better yet, what they didn't do) with that technology.
As I stated here and on Yahoo, I expected them to have their technology up and running in 2004, and showing results in 2005. When the end of 2005 came around and there was no revenues then my opinion changed, just as any shareholders should change. Its a little bit late now when so many are aggressively developing the same technology using other codes and other processes isn't it?
And no my point wasnt to bypass NEOMs patents. If they had gotten the product off the ground in 2004 and early 2005, bypassing their patents would not of been a big issue, because the first one out there usually wins. Now not only are their patents being bypassed, but they surely aren't the first one out their with a working product, and therefore are losing the market share I once thought they would control by being first.
How many years do you think the average investor is supposed to sit around waiting for something to happen? Especially when the management, the investor put their trust in, has proven over and over they aren't capable of getting the job done? For me its been over three years and more then long enough for the self proclaimed LEADERs to get the job done.
You seem to think that an investor is supposed to remain loyal to an investment, and wait indefinately for the company to get their act together to make that investment pay off. I hate to tell you but most analysts disagree with your assessment, and re-evaluate their stock choices regularly, to weed out the non performers. And NEOM if they were in any type of fund portfolio would of been weeded out a long time ago.
I lost my belief in 2005 when the 3rd quarter numbers were released, and that big second launch of 2004 still wasn't producing a dime of revenue. And from there it just kept getting worse when they couldn't get 1 product off the ground, but financed the investors into oblivion to go on a buying spree. When I believed in the company they didn't have nearly 1.5 billion shares of stock spoken for in warrants, preferred, options and outstanding shares.
Then on my views of the technology. I still believe in the technology and think it will revolutionize how we conduct our daily lives. What I no longer believe is that NEOM will be the company taking it mainstream. Too many companies have already passed them by in development of similar applications.
And that comes down to what the real difference is between you and others posting here, and me. I can realize when I made a bad investment, and as I stated here have accepted my losses, so have no agenda to say what I now feel about the company. You and others however, do have an agenda, to protect your investment, and aren't willing to accept the facts because that would effect your investment, so you continue to pump the company, on about every blog site or web site out there that even mentions this technology. And you talk about me being a pumper? Did you ever see me going to multiple websites to pump this stock like you have done.....LOL
P.S. Someone better tell BEAM if she wants her patent approved in China then she better go to a CHINESE patent attorney and not a Hong Kong patent attorney........LOL And also let her know that her information that NEOM filed for a patent is not stated on that site as she claims. All it says is that is a list of Select Clients. Just some more misinformation on her part. It would be interesting to see a HONG KONG patent application list for NEOM though, even though no one here has posted one, yet all make assumptions that this means NEOM is patented in CHINA through a Hong Kong pattent attorney.....LOL
""""""Nice Sean, amazing what someone can find if they are truly after the true, but I guess that would take the air out of other posts."""""
You sure got that right. And anyone after the truth would have clicked on the links on that web site, and found out my statement was 100 percent accurate. NEOM HAS NO PATENTS IN CHINA.
Heck if someone really wanted the truth, they would of clicked the home page link, and would of found this site is not a patent agency site, but that it is instead a patent attorneys site. Then they wouldn't of had to ask why Scanbuy's name doesn't appear on the same list as NEOM, since they probably use different attorneys..LOL
And a little more research and they might of found the truth, that theres not even anything on that site that even suggests NEOM even has a HONG KONG patent. Hong Kong is very strict, and you have 6 months from the time you receive a EU or Chinese patent, to request it be extended to HONG KONG. If you miss that deadline there is no extension. Did NEOM meet the deadline? If not there are only 2 ways to get a Hong Kong patent. The first way is if you have a EU patent and missed the deadline, you can file for a Chinese patent, and when its granted request it be extended to HONG KONG. Or you can abandon your EU patent, which I think even they say is a drastic step.
But its funny to see that at least 4 posters here didn't catch any of that information and have been spreading the word that NEOM has patents in China based on faulty DD on their part, or showing their support of the false information with a cute little smiley response to the posters post......LOL
No its not good. And already here some are posting wait until the settlement. To those who say that(which is not you) I say the settlement wont involve any China revenue, since NEOM has no patents there.
O will also add, remember who here told everyone here this was gonna happen, and NEOM would be a niche player. The pioneer years ahead of their time couldnt get a cell phone manufacturer to embed their software, and a newer start up company could. And many ask why. Because NEOMs software wasnt even ready for embedding, and they are still working on developing it as we speak, while Scanbuys was out there in use and being tested.
But on another note, today was first time in a while I have been to the PP site, and the article right under the scanbuy news was quite interesting. Seems we had a discussion on this very topic not too long ago, when I pointed out that its very easy to make a static QR code dynamic by redirecting it web site address. Now even the PP is talking about it.
Also interesting that the Central EU BANK(non Asian) is using QR codes. Something some here said no one outside Asia would want to use.
Makes one wonder what all the DD here was about, when the one so called basher has been right on everything so far, and the DD here linking NEOM to the almighty bridge has been so wrong to date.
And for those wondering why Nokia would take the risk. They arent taking any risk. NEOM has no patents in China and therefore NOKIA and Scanbuy could use NEOMs exact process and still there would be no consequenses, even though I dont believe that Scanbuys process is the same as NEOMS. I think you will see QR codes in China which have nothing to do with NEOMs patented process.
And LES..no there wont be damages awarded NEOM for this venture, unless they get patents filed in China before NOKIA or SCANBUY does. And I expect they probably already filed for patents before they released this news.
Edited....My comment about revenue producing deals is in reference to QODE, not Gavitec.
"""""""My 7 months timeframe refers to the shareholders' meeting at the end of June, where mgmt stated the burn rate was THEN at 1 mill/mo.""""""""
Yes and my shorter 4 month time frame, shows that at the end of September the negative cash flow was over 4 million or a burn rate of over 1 million a month so I don't understand your point.
And I don't think you will see that improve for the 4th quarter, even though you mention changes have taken place and Mobot is gone etc. Did we have to borrow more funds from Cornell in the 4th Quarter? Of course because of the settlements etc we had to make to certain subs. So the cash burn rate will most likely be higher in the 4th quarter. What about the payment to pay off the silent partners? Wasn't that around 2 million as well? Or about 700,000.00 a month just to the silent partners in the 4th quarter.
But lets even go a little further. What about 1st quarter 2007. Will the company be spending less cash then they are taking in? Well with many of the subs gone the revenue will be drastically lower again. We know they have to pay Gavitec nearly 2 million dollars in February, so that one payment alone is about 700,000.00 a month negative cash flow. And I doubt very seriously they are not going to have losses from operations, since we are nearly half way through the quarter and I haven't seen any real revenue producing deals yet. So my bet is that 1st quarter 2007, they will also be cash flow negative of at least 1 million a month. Especially since it appears they are rehiring in the paint business etc.
Of course if they sell the paint business, that will bring in new capital, but it doesn't effect the amount of cash going out the door for operations so to speak. So basically I expect operational losses to be at least 1 million for the quarter, or 300,000.00 a month, and the payment to Gavitec of roughly 700,000.00 a month average, or 1 million a month total. And then theres still 12snap to deal with.
How do you like that non answer you got? You might want to ask her why she has never posted a monthly burn rate in this forum. Oh yeah, if I recall she already answered that question several months ago, when she said something like she would have to go sit at the company about a week, to go over the records to see where certain numbers come from.
However, I never mentioned burn rates. That came from Success, when I responded to Yellowjackets post asking for my source of information. I clearly copied and pasted OPERATIONAL LOSSES so it should of been clear to anyone I was talking about operational losses and not burn rates. But when she hastily made her 7 month outdated remarks, and I responded, that it was only 4 months, then she threw in the part about what the CEO said 7 months ago about burn rate.
But as for your question that Beam didn't want to answer, on what the burn rate is and where you get that info other then the 10Q, I too wont try to give an actual burn rate.
I will say however, unlike her claims, I do have an idea what burn rate is. Generally speaking its the amount of cash going out the door monthly to sustain your operations. The best place to go to get a general idea is yahoo finance, so you don't have to go pulling up multiple 10Qs to compare, since Yahoo puts the last 4 quarters numbers side by side. Yes I know thats not perfect because Yahoo doesn't list every detail but it gives you a general idea of the cash flow, and thus the burn rate.
For instance NEOM ended the 2nd quarter 2006 with 2,550,000.00 in cash on the books. In the 3rd quarter they received an additional almost 5 million in new financing, for a total cash of 7,550,000.00 approximately. By the end of the 3rd quarter according to their balance sheet they had 3,133,000.00 of that cash left. That means they spent 4.4 million in cash on something, or means they had a negative cash flow.
Now if you look at their cash flow statement, you will see they had a negative nearly 2 million dollars from operating, or about 700,000.00 a month. They also had a negative 1.7 million cash flow from investment activities. So between those 2 areas they had a negative cash flow of 3.7 million dollars or over 1 million a month. That negative cash flow was offset by the 5 million in new funding and sale of some stock, leaving them cash flow positive by about a little over 1 million.
But you don't count the new financing to determine the burn rate. You use the existing cash on hand minus the expenses, and from that you can determine the approximate burn rate, thus determine when the company will run out of cash and need new funding.
I know its not that simple and there are many line items to consider, but this gives you a pretty good idea. All you need to look at is the Balance Sheet, Cash Flow Statement. and the Income Statement to make an estimate. All 3 are available on Yahoo all the way down at the bottom left side of the link below. When you change from 1 to the other at first it will give you annual data. Click the link at the top of the statement next to VIEW and it will switch to Quarterly DATA. The side by side columns make it easy to compare quarterly data quarter over quarter. Below that link is the link to a simple definition of burn rate as well, something I supposedly know nothing about.LOL As I stated there are a number of things to consider, but the average investor only needs an approximate burn rate, to determine whether a company has enough cash to go forward, without needing additional funding. And NEOM does not as best we know based on the MOST CURRENT NUMBERS we have. And I am still looking for that vast improvement in the 3rd Quarter someone here mentioned occurred in the cash flow. If I find it I will let you know. As to what the numbers will be based on the activities of the 4th quarter, I am not even going to attempt to address that issue until I see the numbers. Because those numbers are going to be a mess, including settlement costs, assets, etc. So for anyone to bring up the 4th quarter activity at this time is a little premature, and would only be speculation on their part. We don't know how many employees were let go, and how many new hires there were for example, we don't know how active the paint business has been. For there to be no waiting time to bring in a vehicle they must not be too busy. But there again we also don't know whether the expenses were cut drastically either. We just have to wait and see.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=NEOM.OB
http://www.specialinvestor.com/terms/2167.html
Editted for Success........WRONG, those are the last 4 quarters and the only numbers we have to go buy until the next report comes out, so they may be out of date in your eyes but they are the most current numbers we have. And its only 4 months since the end of September not 7 months.
last 4 quarters of operating income or loss........actually over a million a month on operations......Yeah you might say bottom line is not the same as operating income or losses, but the only reason the bottom line is different is because the 1st and 2nd quarter of 2006 they were able to write down one time gains on deriavative financial instruments, because of the drop in the share price. And quarter 2006 they wrote down a gain of 11 million dollars, thus changing that 5.9 million in losses to a 4.6 million gain on paper. But the fact remains that for the past year they have lost OVER 1 million a month from operations. Notice as well the 1st quarter 2006 they charged over 2 million as a gain for the pps decline or that quarter would of been over 3 million loss as well instead of a 1.4 million loss.
Operating Income or Loss (5,444) (5,915) (4,127) (3,608)
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares ($31,513) $4,653 ($1,454) ($3,678)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=NEOM.OB
""""""""Accomplishment of just this 1 task alone will change things overnight:
"Another of our key strategic goals is to look to attract a minority equity investment from a strategic industry partner to support our current financial structure with Cornell Capital Partners." """""
Yeah right. Have you took the time to research the other company our consultant has been working with and acting CEO for 5 months in 2004 and 2005. I have.
The news isnt pretty. They got involved in some venture financing in 2005, and then in July of 2006 they were registering 10 million shares for Cornell as well. And sadly their revenue and their losses went nowhere in 2005 under this consultants guidance, and neither did the share price.
However in 2006, when they introduced new tests their revenue doubled and thats when their share price jumped, because quarter after quarter since then their revenue has gone up and they eventually made it to being profitable. But they were no NEOM either, and they werent losing a million a month like NEOM is now, so it was much easier.
By the way in July of 2006 our new consultant was president of US Medical Consultants......I havent had time to research that firm yet and see why he is now president of SKS Consulting of South Florida.
But he is tied to Cornell. And he has been selling shares of NGNM during his tenure there. So for right now until I find out more I am not overly enthused, especially as I pointed out the first year and a few months at NGNM he didnt seem to have a lot of influence over revenue or profits or anything else that relates to the finances. matter of fact I believe their losses were actually going up, until their 1st Q 2006, when sales doubled due to the new tests they put on the market.
Hightechjunkie........again your whole scenario is not accurate.
Using your same chart, I will explain why. First off no one I have run across uses Thomson for trading because the data is so unreliable.
Before reading my explanation, please go back to your pie chart link and click the link above the chart that says how to use pie chart and read their definitions.
Now the issues of your post. The 2 percent institutional, according to Thomson's own site, are either brokers trading for mutual funds etc, or brokers own in house accounts or MM accounts. So the 2 percent can easily be explained as MM activity.
Then you say the non I-Watch portion of the chart has to be off shore accounts or outside the US because its not retail and not Institutional. You also imply that it then must be hedge funds that are shorting the stock through those off shore accounts. Again read their definition of what NON I-WATCH stands for. As they clearly state, using their proprietary system is voluntary, and many brokers do not use it. They also state in that definition, that these are trades either retail or institutional that are not going through their system.
BTW isn't a hedge fund an institution?
But again thats immaterial. As your first link shows the shares shorted from 1 month to the next was 30,000 shares on a company with over 600 million shares. Not a significant amount. And even if a hedge fund is shorting shares, they still have to be reported. And the number of shares short is around 7 million or about 3 days worth of volume, so surely short selling is not what caused the decline of the past year from above .40 to todays levels.
Think about it. Do you really think that 30,000 new shares shorted in a month is really going to change the pps of a stock that has 600 million shares outstanding. 30,000 shares wouldn't have very much effect on the pps over a 30 day time period. As we have seen watching level II etc, sometimes it takes that many shares to move the pps up one hundredth of a penny, from say .0495 to .0496. And that swing occurs many times a day based on the volume of over 2 million shares a day. So the small number over a 30 day period will have virtually no impact on the pps.
If the number of short shares was growing month over month by many millions of shares, then I could accept your theory, but that just isnt the case here based on the facts that we have. And as I stated before, that short share number has not changed drastically over the past 12 months, so the amount of off shore or overseas shorting is very minimal, and a 1 percent short number on any stock is a very good number. The time to worry is when you see that number grow to 20 or 30 percent or higher. Thats a clear signal that a large percent of investors, whether they are retail or institutional, believe the pps is too high for the fundamentals and is coming down. Its also a good time for a short squeeze and a good run as well if the company is on the brink of some big news, so a high short number can work both for or against the investor. But a low short number really has not much of an impact on the daily pps. Heck even a company with only 40 million shares outstanding isnt going to be impacted much by 30,000 new short sales in a month. Especially if there are buyers for the stock. There activity will more then offset the short sales, and force those shorts to cover.
And that is the problem with NEOM. There are not enough new buyers coming in to take up the shares that are for sale. And as we saw by one posters post yesterday, the buyers that are there are trying to buy the stock on the MMs bid price, thus causing the mms to lower their bid. The one poster even said he had several orders in at increments below the mms bid. Now is the mm going to buy the stock at their bid price, and then sell it to this investor below that price for a loss? Thats why typically an investor buys on the ask not on the bid. The BID is the MMs price they are willing to pay for new shares to add to their inventory. The ASK is the price they will see their inventory shares to the investor for. The same holds true for the ask. If a retail investor has 10,000 shares of a stock, and the MMs bid is .05 and the mms ask is .06 and that shareholder puts in a sell on the ask price, they are going to wait in line until the mm sells all his shares at that price first. If however they see the mms bid is .05 and enter their order to sell at .05, they bump themselves to the front of the line and that MM bidding will grab their shares in seconds.
Also last week someone said they put in an order on the bid and it took 1 1/2 hours to execute, and they concluded their were no sellers. The sellers are not on the BID. There were plenty of sellers on the ASK and had that poster put their order in on the ask price I bet it would of been filled in seconds. That is a big misconception by a lot of investors, that if they place an order on the bid and it dont execute there are no sellers. They are trying to buy the stock out from under the MM who has that bid price, and of course that MM is going to take all the shares available at that price that they have orders for, before the retail investor will get their shares, so it typically will take a very long time to fill.
I copied and pasted the pop up window here with the definitions
""""""""""""""""After a broker/dealer executes a trade, it often reports the trade to Thomson's proprietary communications network. The Total Trade Volume Chart segments each trade as either Institutional or Retail, based on the broker reporting the trade.
Institutional - a trade reported by a major brokerage firm which typically trades on behalf of major mutual funds/portfolio managers. While these firms also have retail branches, the amount of trades reported on behalf of institutional investors dwarfs the limited amount of retail trades that are reported.
Additionally, Institutional brokers often maintain internal house trading accounts as "market makers." When these firms report their trades it is impossible to determine whether the trades were executed on behalf of an institutional client or for the firm's own house trading accounts. While trading patterns for institutional clients and house accounts tend to differ, the fact that "Big Money" is behind the trades means that these investors/traders have the ability to move markets.
Retail - a trade reported by a broker that primarily executes on behalf of retail investors, such as Charles Schwab's Mayer Schweitzer.
Non I-Watch - this portion of the chart refers to trades not reported over Thomson's proprietary communications network. Broker participation is voluntary, so it is rare that all trading volume is accounted for. These trades can be related to either institutional or retail trading.
Compare today's activity to prior 30-day average - this comparison lets you know if today's activity, specifically the breakdown between Institutional and Retail, is "unusual" relative to the rolling 30-day average.
Editted..Success...go find that quote by me that you claim I made that NO US investor can short a stock on a US exchange. Bet you cant find it.
EDITTED FOR CSPECK...since no one has answered your question there is no quarterly report, its the annual report so they have a longer time to complete it. I am not sure under the new rules when that is but its beginning or end of march.
First of all my post did in fact address Bobs issue, but you were so quick to attempt to dispute something I said you must not of read the whole post. Secondly I was posting to Bob so I dont care what you wanted to see as a reply. Thirdly you cant even get that right. I said there is NO US BROKER and you come back with THERE ARE CANADIAN BROKERS.is a canadian broker a US BROKER? And I dont think you will find many Canadian brokers taking orders to short the stock, because as I stated the monthly report dont change a whole lot for the past year. And the number of shares short is minimal at best. So if there is massive shorting going on, those shorting are covering because the number dont seem to change much. And I think I covered the covering part in my first post as well.
Bob......first of all I wasnt ignoring you. The powers that be decided they didnt like me posting on another message board and thus reduced my posts to 3 a day, so I use them to address the misinformation mainly.
As to Hightechjunkies rebuttal, one thing he forgot to mention that I did mention, is the shares short on NEOM are miniscule. Whether someone is shorting against the box(legally) or shorting in the traditional method(legally as well) those numbers are reported and the number is published monthly. I think the last months numbers on NEOM are 6 million shares or something like that, or less then 1 percent of the outstanding shares. That is a very low persent, and clearly indicates there isnt massive short selling going on.
Then there is the other issue he didnt mention. NO US broker allows an investor to short a penny stock. And if you check the volume on the other exchanges outside the US there isnt enough volume to suggest there is massive shorting going on there either.
I never said shorting a stock was illegal, but you cant short a penny stock in the US. At least the retail investor can not.
Then he states he owns a stock with 23 million shares short that isnt on the list I presented. Well no kidding. If they are not on the list, that means the brokers or MMs bought the shares to cover the short positions, or have the shares in their inventory to cover those shorts. Maybe those 23 million shares shorted are the same shareholders who actuall own 23 million shares and are hedging their bets by owning the stock and at the same time shorting it. Happens all the time. That list is for stocks that have been shorted and the MM has not found shares to cover the shorts for 5 days or longer.
And my post was not in reference to his post per se, but if I recall at the end of his post he did ask if any of the info was innacurate to feel free to correct him, then he comes out blasting when someone posts something that does correct him. My post was in reference to several other posts claiming maked short selling and short selling causing the pps to decline. He as well responded to those posts with his explaination just as I did.
Now as to my view on NEOM. As I have said, in my view they will survive, and be a small niche player in the market and some day the stock will be worth 1.00 a share. Just isnt going to happen any time real soon.
So many myths, theories, uncertainties etc raised last night, that I will try to address them all in one post.
Drmyke.....again you asked the question of shareholder power. As I explained yesterday, the shareholders of this stock have more power then the majority of shareholders of non BB stocks. If you look up any NASD or NYSE stock you will find that INSTITUTIONS and INSIDERS hold the majority of shares of these companies, thus they control the voting. This is typically the case in non BB stocks. These institutions typically consist of MUTUAL FUND MANAGERS, large capital investment firms, brokerage houses etc. They do not trade the stocks they hold daily, and thus the pps is stable. NEOM right now has what is listed as ZERO institutional ownership. Yes there are some shares owned by institutions, but its such a small percent of the outstanding shares that its listed as ZERO, because its well under 1 percent. Look up a Google or Microsoft etc. and you will see what I mean. Google is 79 percent owned by institutions, therefore the retail investor has no say in voting. There is much discussion going on right now, matter of fact, as to why these big institutions aren't holding boards accountable for high officers pay etc, since they control the voting in these companies.
Then there are the many posts last night about MM manipulation, short selling and naked short selling. MM's are not going to tie their funds up in a penny stock, when they make their money moving shares daily. The more shares they can move of all stocks the better for them. So they aren't gonna sit on a stock like Neom, and hold onto millions of shares just so the can drive the pps down, for someone elses benefit. They make money whether the stock goes up or down. Then the shorting and naked shorting. On the shorting issue, there aren't enough shares shorted to really have any impact on the pps. And considering the pps has been in decline for nearly a year, and the short sales during that time have not drastically increased we can put to bed that theory. Some might claim the short number is low because they are covering at lower prices. If that were true, and they were shorting and that drove the pps down, each time they started covering the pps would have went up to the same degree basically. Then comes the naked shorting. Under Reg SHO any company thats being naked shorted without the shares to cover has a mandatory time line to find those shares. When they find them and start covering the naked short it would reverse the direction of the pps. NASDAQ TRADER publishes a daily list of threshhold stocks who are not in compliance with the SHO rules.Of course some will say there are ways around these rules. And they are right, anything involving real people, there will be some crooks out there that dont consider the risks. And since we have all seen actual cases this gives the posters claims some credibility. But I dont think that a major MM will risk their business license to focus on 1 penny stock, day in and day out for almost a year just to drive the pps down for some investor, that wants that companies patents etc. NEOM is not on that list. Some have compared NEOM to MOBL. MOBL is on that list and is also marked by a YES in the column that represents they have to now cover those shares. Scroll down the page on this link and you will see last nights list.......
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx
Then theres the theory of who shot JR on the grassy knolls.....wait thats Dallas and JFK combined.....LOL. That and the other theory suggests that Cornell or some outside company wants NEOMs patents so bad they will do all kinds of things to get them. Lets look at 1 little fact that hasn't been brought up here, and I haven't mentioned it cause it scares the heck out of even me. In NEOM's filing they state they are in default with Cornell at this time, and therefore Cornell can exercise warrants for 175 million shares of NEOM common stock, on a cashless base. Thats right, Cornell can at any time demand NEOM issue them the 175 million shares, for not one penny, dump them on the market and pocket the profit. If they want the patents so bad, or they are working with someone else that wants them so bad, why haven't they took advantage of this yet. They have had 2 months to do so now, according to the filing, but they haven't. Also NEOM has defaulted on the warrants issued in reference to the preferred stock, and in this case Cornell has the right to convert warrants for 250 million shares on a cashless basis. NEOM had until November to get all these shares registered and did not and therefore defaulted.
Read the footnote 1 on bottom of page 17 and continued on page 18.
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4909545&Type=HTML
Everything in her post was false. And that is everything. She said that NTPs patents were declared invalid and yet RIMM still settled with them. Thats false. The patents were not declared invalid, and even the link in JPs post states that. RIMM settled because the court case was moving faster then the Patent Office was moving. If I recall they asked the court to delay the case and the court said no, so they settled, because they didnt want to risk losing the case before the patent office got around to declaring the patents invalid.
Then she stated NTP bought Virgin. They didnt buy Virgin, they bought a small piece of Virgin.
Then she said licenses dont transfer when a business is bought. That is false as well. No company buys a business and then has to shut down that business' operation until they can go and renegotiate licenses that that business had. Further more even NEOMs own statements make her claim false. When Symbol got bought a shareholder here emailed the company, and asked if their license transferred to Motorola and the answer from NEOM that was posted here was yes the licence did transfer. I think I have those two companies right.
I see that she has responded to you stating she presented some facts. I would like to see the source of those facts, because as I stated even JPs post states in the link about the RIMM settlement that the patents hadnt been declared invalid yet by the patent office. Yes the denied the patent request but on what grounds? And since it was the second final rejection by the patent office, how many do you get before a final ruling they are invalid? Apparently from the sounds of the article they had at least 1 more shot to refile them, but the court case was moving faster and RIMM settled out of court. Here is the quote from JPs link and I reposted the link here as well again, for those who did not read it.
"""""""""""""""The patent office just issued its second final rejection on NTP's patents -- meaning that it was almost to point where the patents were ruled invalid," he said.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/03/technology/rimm_ntp/index.htm
I see you didn't answer the question about how you voted. But thats okay. Yes it was pointed out last year that there was very little Institutional ownership in the company, and it was pointed out that there was very little insider ownership in the company. So to your question as to whether the small investors vote would of counted, in my opinion it would have. The best I can tell from the filings, the small investors collectively held more shares then the insiders and institutions. Especially if you add up the over 1000 investors shares, and if they all own about as many as everyone here claimed to own. But I have no way of knowing that and neither do you at this time. We do know it would of sent a strong signal to management and the board if every small investor voted NO.
As to the too late to cry remarks, that statement wasn't made as a legal statement. It was made in reference to you personally, based on your actions during this whole process. If I remember, all summer long you were posting how you were buying more, every time the price dropped. A few here including myself, warned you and others that buying on the dips wasn't a good idea, and to wait for a clear reversal, but you chose to listen to others instead, and kept buying, thus increasing your risk, while at that same time knowing the details of these deals and the guaranteed share price etc. It was all discussed at length here, and you participated in those discussions. Had all gone well and the pps skyrocketed, I doubt you would be attempting to claim negligence on the boards part and would be praising them.
Now that gets us to the next issue. Negligence and fiduciary responsibility are two different things. Fiduciary responsibility means the board has to act in good faith, with the investors best intentions in mind. Negligence means they just neglected the investors and acted in such a wreckless fashion that it would be apparent to anyone the results would be a disaster. Those are different standards and I personally don't see the negligent part as far as acquiring the subs goes. It might not of been wise, but it wasn't negligent either.
As for the property being used as collateral thats pretty standard business practice. And no the company doesn't have to go to the shareholders to raise the funds, and typically they do not go to the shareholders, and you can thank SEC regulations etc for that. They typically do a second offering, a VC funding, or similar financing. So again nothing wrong there, they followed the normal procedures. The patents still belong to the company, so I don't see what your point is there, unless you just don't like that they were put at risk. When all you have is intellectual property and no real property to secure a loan, you use what you have, or you don't get the loan. And where would your investment be now, if they hadn't got the loan?
So my point I was making in that original post to you, is you bear the brunt of the responsibility for your investment decisions. If things are happening that you don't like, but you keep buying more and more, then why look to others when things go bad? You could of sold at .40 if you didn't like the news of the subs, just like I could of. But instead you kept buying, when Chartist and others said wait till there is a real turn around. Now its all the Boards fault, for the decisions you made. Not only was all this open public information by the company, it was discussed here, and I and others personally attacked this strategy, so its not like no one here had a clue. Except those who at that time(I had been posting about 3 weeks) had already labeled us paid bashers, who didn't own the stock, and were going on their ignore list. Even if we hadnt attacked the strategy, it was there in each filing for you to see.
So you can not blame NEOM or the board, because YOUR strategy didn't work, just as theirs did not work.
And yes we are incorporated in Delaware, and I do not know what the statutes there are. Its been my belief that they are less favorable to shareholders, and thats why most start ups go their to become incorporated, but thats just my opinion, based on the number of start up companies I have personally researched, who went their. And the list I researched is hundreds, so I drew my own conclusions based on that.
Drmyke........its a little bit to late to cry over spilt milk. Whats done is done and cant be changed.
You say you feel ripped off over the guaranteed share price, the dilution,whether the companies were near bankrupt when acquired, and the fact you feel the board didn't act in the best interest of the shareholders. So I will address these 4 main issues.
First of all, the guaranteed share price. You have to look at reality. Lets use Gavitec as an example. If Gavitec offers to sell their business for a price of 7 million dollars, they expect to receive 7 million dollars for it one way or another. NEOM could not meet their price demand, and therefore had to find a way to guarantee them that sale price, or not buy the company. Since their cash was limited, they then worked out a cash/share deal, and guaranteed the pps of the shares so Gavitec is made whole and is guaranteed they will get their 7 million dollars. Fortunately for them, Gavitec was willing to wait at least a year for part of that sale price(most of), which is usually unheard of. The seller usually wants their money at closing. So the guaranteed share price is nothing out of the ordinary. Just as if you were to sell your house, and the buyer couldn't come up with the cash, would you take something that could in a year be worthless as the bulk of the payment, without some type of guarantee that what you took won't become worthless? I think the misconception here is that these companies were investing in NEOM. They were not investing in NEOM, and perhaps the stock of NEOM meant nothing to them, except it guaranteed they will get the sale price they asked for when selling their business.
Next is the issue of dilution. This was discussed here at the time and some of us were very upset about the dilution. Remember NEOM had to borrow money from Cornell to buy these subs, and I pointed out that meant NEOM would have to borrow the money, because their balance sheet showed they had no cash to be buying subs with. You might remember I was attacked, because you and others here felt this was the best thing could happen to NEOM to buy all these subs and be the SUPER COMPANY. When those concerns were raised here by me and a couple others, that was the time to complain to management and the board, if you didn't like it. That was also the time for all shareholders to vote no on the increase of shares to send a strong signal to the company they didn't approve this, but at the summer meeting many here stated they were voting for the increase. This could have all been turned around back then, when the PPS was at a higher price if the shareholders heeded what I was saying at the time.
Then you are concerned at what the value of the companies were at the time of acquisition and whether they were losing money etc. You might remember again, there was an opportunity before these deals were closed to raise your concerns with the company, but most of you here didn't agree with the concerns I posted. Remember I stated these appeared to be MOM AND POP operations and was attacked. Remember I stated here that it appeared NEOM went down a list of companies ready to go under and again I was attacked. Remember I said some of these companies were so broke NEOM was having to lend them money to pay the daily bills until NEOM could close the deals and again was attacked? Remember as well I was very concerned about the magnitude of acquisitions, and stated that no company even with big funds etc, buys 5 companies in a month and expects to be able to reign them all in. Again I was attacked. That was the time to go to the company and the board as shareholders and let them know you were concerned, but no one was willing to do that, and instead attacked those who raised these critical issues. Now a year later you want to blame the board. Those posts are all archived by the way if you want to go back and read them now.
As to the last issue of whether the board maintained their fiduciary duty to the shareholders of course they did. You all supported them and what they were doing at the time, and even voted to keep them on the board some 4 months or so later. The fact the deals at a later date unraveled doesn't change that. You all gave them a vote of confidence and so they went forward and closed the deals.
I for one voted my displeasure with the whole scenario and voted no on the additional shares, and voted no on the board members up for reelection. What did you vote?
""""""guess you were too busy trying to post something to refute something?? Dunno.
Anyway, here's your quote:
"""""""
By the way thats not my quote, its a copy and paste legal definition off the web, and thats why its in quote marks to indicate its a direct copy.
But maybe you were too busy trying to refute something that you missed the point and the fact.
As you stated the defendent has a burden when FILING a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. They met that burden when they filed the motion. Then if NEOM wants to win the hearing the BURDEN then shifts to them. And we are talking about the phase now where NEOM wants to win right? Not talking about the filing which was months ago right? Here is the part that relates to NOW in that definition, and it clearly states the nonmoving party(NEOM) has to produce evidence in order to defeat the motion. That is what I was talking about right, NEOM having to produce evidence and Scanbuy forcing their hand to show what they have? And that burden continues to be on NEOM through the trial as well if it goes to that right?
On a side note seems to be a lot of new posters showing up today with alias' born today. Go figure.
And Jonsie is right, if there are any material facts where a judge or jury could rule in favor of either party, the judge cannot issue the summary judgement, and the case goes on to trial. And I expect in this case unless scanbuy had something real good in their motion, it could get ruled either way, and therefore all that was accomplished was NEOM had to reveal some of their intended evidence they would use at the trial.
""""""""In order to defeat a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not simply rely on his pleadings but must present some evidence on every material issue for which he will bear the burden of proof at trial."""""""""
""""""""IT WAS NOT EVEN NECESSARY FOR US TO GIVE ALL OF OUR ARGUMENTS!!!!!!!! YOU CAN REQUEST THE COURT DOCUMENTS YOURSELF TO VERIFY THIS!
"""""""""
The court documents would not state whether NEOM had to give all their arguments or not, so the only way to know this was a fact is one would have to be in the courtroom at the time, or have been told this by someone inside the company. I like how you use the term it was not necessary for US?
And your other issue about wouldnt Scnbuy use their best defense is wrong as well. NEOM has the burden to produce evidence above the mere allegations in their suit, so its a way for SCANBUY to make NEOM show their hand. Read the legal definition below. Scanbuy has no burden, NEOM has the burden of proof so to speak.
Then in your second post you say the judge granted summary judgement in favor of NEOM. If the judge GRANTS a summary judgement its in favor of the defendent. If he denies a summary judgement then its in favor of the plaintiff. So did the judge GRANT the motion for summary judgment or DISMISS it?
A motion for summary judgement can only be requested by the defendent in a case, and cant be granted to the plaintiff in a case.
""""""""MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - A request made by the defendant in a civil case. Asserts that the plaintiff has raised no genuine issue to be tried and asks the judge to rule in favor of the defense. Typically made before the trial.
"Each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Id. In order to defeat a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not simply rely on his pleadings but must present some evidence on every material issue for which he will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
""""""""
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m043.htm
Nice try. NEOM has no summary judgement pending against Scanbuy. Its the other way around, scanbuy is asking the court for a summary judgement against NEOM. So the most that will happen today is the court will say no to Scanbuys request, and then the case goes on to trial sometime late in the year. However if the court rules in favor of Scanbuy, then some of NEOMs allegations in the original suit are dismissed.
But either way the court rules on Scanbuys motion today, the case still moves on to trial later in the year, unless NEOM and Scanbuy reach an out of court settlement before the trial is scheduled to begin. Its my understanding the motion for summary judgement is for only part of the original allegations, so the remaining even if Scanbuy wins still ahve to go to trial.
Jonesie..what I am still racking my brain on and cant figure out is the comment in yesterdays filing regarding the ADDITIONAL SHARES. It states in the filing if those 61 million shares arent registered by August NEOM will pay interest at 8 percent of a value of 1.9 million dollars. Thats a pps of around .03 a share, and not the .05 that the shares are trading at today. Where did this value come from? The shares today have a value over 3 million. Are they saying they expect the value to decrease in the next 6 months? I can not figure this out. Also note the new ammendment to the S-3 filed today has the same phrase and this ammendment does not include the additional shares to Gavitec. Its also worth noting that the original 13,660,511 shares are still included in this registration statement, and I BELIEVE that Gavitec can in fact sell those shares when the 1 year time period has expired this march. I dont see anything that suggests that those shares are now under a new time table to coincide with the NEW ADDITIONAL SHARES.
QUOTE FROM YESTERDAYS 8K
"""""""""" 61,000,000 shares of NeoMedia common stock (the “Additional Consideration Shares”), to be issued no later than February 28, 2007. The Amendment Agreement stipulates that, in the event that the Additional Consideration Shares are not registered for resale by August 31, 2007, interest shall accrue at a rate of 8% per annum on the agreed value of the shares of $1,900,000. """""""""""
QUOTE FROM TODAYS S-3 AMMENDMENT
"""""""The amendment agreement stipulates that, in the event that the 61,000,000 shares are not registered for resale by August 31, 2007, interest shall accrue at a rate of 8% per annum on the agreed value of the shares of $1,900,000. """""""
""""""""Stock consideration issued to acquire Gavitec AG 13,660,511 """""""""
"""""""And unless shares are registered for resale 7 months from now, interest will be paid by Neomedia. So, sounds like (assumption!) that Gavitec is willing to wait 7 months before selling into the market. That's good!""""""""""
If you look at what they gained, I too would be willing to wait an additional 6 months......LOL
The original agreement was they were to be bought for 7.2 million dollars. 1.8 of that was cash and 5.4 in stock, which at the time, amounted to 13,660,511 shares of common stock.
This new agreement now raises the value to 7.43 million or almost an extra 1/4 million dollars to wait 6 months. When the amount still owed was 5.4 million, minus the value of the 13 million plus shares of stock, the additional 230,000.00 is a lot of interest for 6 months.
Now add to that, the interest already accruing and due on Feb, for the 5.4 million thats in default, at 8 percent and that equals another 178,000.00 for those 5 months of interest, w2hich is due and payable in February.
So the last day of February they are due a payment of 1.8 million, plus the 100,000 per the new agreement, plus the interest of 178,000.00 or nearly 2.1 million. As you can see the value of the deal is now above 7.6 million as of February, and keeps climbing from there until all shares are registered.
In the meantime, NEOM this month alone, has diluted the shares potentially by over 100 million new shares or better then 16 percent again. I say potentially, because the 42 million new warrants issued to Cornell earlier this month, aren't outstanding shares yet, and wont be unless Cornell exercises the warrants. They do go into the diluted share count however for calculating earnings etc. Sixteen percent is a huge number, when the year is just started, and NEOM still doesn't have adequate funding to go forward with, thus more dilution MIGHT be necessary later this year, especially in light of the 12snap deal not yet finalized either.
On the other issue thats been discussed here last night, No Gavitec is not the major shareholder of NEOM now. Gavitec now only exists under the NEOM umbrella, and a sub isn't a controlling owner of the parent company, its the other way around. The old owners of Gavitec, are now key shareholders of NEOM, but there are 8 of them to divide that 73 million or so shares between. I dont remember which shareholders receive what amounts, but its in an earlier S-3 filing I believe, what the break down at that time was, so the percent each would of received of the original shares, would be the same percent for the additional shares.
The largest shareholder to date remains Cornell, and Fritz. These individual share holders can not combine their shares collectively to become a majority holder, just as the shareholders here cant combine their shares. Yes they can collaborate and all vote the same, giving the same effect, but they cannot collectively combine their shares I do not believe.
The bottom line is NEOM owns Gavitec, Not Gavitec owns a large stake of NEOM. As the owner, NEOM can replace those 8 shareholders from Gavitec, and they would then be nothing more then NEOM shareholders, not GAVITEC shareholders. I dont even believe that any one of them would qualify as a 5 percent shareholder of NEOM, but again I will defer that to the breakdown in a prior filing. At this point one shareholder would have to hold about 35 milliuon shares to be a 5 percent holder I believe.
yup he must be precisely correct.
If financing was just around the corner, then NEOM paying the difference in share price wouldnt of been an issue/problem. And if financing was just around the corner, NEOM wouldnt of needed to hire a facilitator to bring the two sides together to work out some kind of deal, before March. My opinions of course.
What this tells me and this is just my opinion, is that there is no financing coming anytime soon, and thus the need to work out something with Gavitec so as to not lose that company as well. It also tells me that vote of confidence wasnt as strong as some here think, when gavitec apparently(again my opinion) wasnt willing to settle without the facilitator coming up with something they were happy with.
Now it will be interesting to see what happens with 12snap, because i believe their money is due in February.
And by the way the statement made by the CEO confirms what I said a while ago, that a few here challenged. The CEO said the money would of been due the beginning of MARCH or 12 months after the restricted shares were issued to Gavitec. Even though the S-3 apparently isnt approved yet, the CEO at least knows the 1 year rule applies if the shares arent registered by then.
The agreement is for 1.8 million in cash, plus 100,000.00 in expenses gavitec had paid for the acquisition process, or 1.9 million in cash. So their cost basis on the stock is about 2.7 million.
Someone else posted they must know the financing is in place or they wouldnt of took such a deal. Again speculation. Perhaps the 1.9 million is coming from the sale of the paint business and has nothing to do with future financing.
Then with the new stock to be issued, they stand to get a much higher purchase price for the company if the stock goes up. Now instead of a guaranteed share price on 14 million shares of stock, they own an additional 61 million shares. So if the pps goes up to say .10 over the next month, they walk away with an extra 3 million off the sale of their company. Actually it was 13,660,511 shares they were to originally recieve.
The real question is does this 61 million shares include or exclude the original shares. I believe it excludes them, but until we see the revised agreement filed with the SEC thats just speculation as well.
""""""Didn't think he would be, after bashing iHub, iHub Admin, and iHub moderators.""""""""
what I said there paled in comparison to whats being said on this forum in the questions and answers board, by moderators no less......I suggest you read that forum and see how many times the subject is addresses. Here are a couple of links.
And since the post I am replying to is still up on the board, I expect my reply to that post is acceptable as well.......
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16473572
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16475858
I didnt say I just wanted to clear things up, so I would appreciate you posting false and accusatory information.
I had every intent to file both SEC and if applicaple criminal complaints against the company. Therefore the intent wasnt to clear up JACK.
And I as a shareholder do not have to wait for company approval, to post and discuss something of this magnatude. I posted the facts as they were presented with my opinion when asked what that meant. You didnt see that site remove the content did you?
Because it is shareholder critical information, and worthy of discussion on that companies message boards, regardless of who owns those boards.
You opinion as to whether its helpful to the company or its shareholders is just that, your opinion. Myself, and others I am certain, disagree with your opinion.
Just be lucky I didnt file the complaints first, before giving the company the heads up.
And I dont need yours or the companies permission to post facts, whether they are detrimental to the company or otherwise. Sure is better then posting the lies and deception I have seen repeatedly by some.
And who are you to attempt to judge whether my post was complete or not complete? I didnt hide the fact I was posting the information on the other site, and I didnt hide why I was posting it there either. Funny how you wont find a single post about such an important issue as that here, will you?
I wonder why that is?
Speaking of waxing poetic, what happened to your post on that other site???????LOL
""""""""""Is that something like wanting to be the first to know and tell? I wonder how the attorney or Mr. Fritz would know his phone number, if he wasn't the one constantly calling and complaining and wanting to know information, no other stockholder was aware of.
Is this insider information, or a company's constant struggle to ward problems, and only this named "problem has a right to discuss on this board, their heresay problems and their contacts with NEOM"."""""""""
There you go making statements about something you know nothing about again, and making false claims about me.
NOPE I didnt call wanting to know information no other shareholder was aware of. Matter of fact I emailed my number WITH INFORMATION that was posted on this board.
For your information and everyone else here, that wants to speculate on the how and whys I will make it quite clear. Unlike so many here that constantly harass management, sorry to disappoint you but I am not one of them. All those posts here about crap that has nothing to do with NEOM, and the remarks to kick it up to them are just examples.
I on the other hand contacted the company 1(THATS ONE) time in the last year and a half, unlike your allegation. I did so with very good cause as a shareholder, of what I perceived and had evidence of purported insider information being disseminated, and personal information being given to third parties. Unlike the tons of emails and phone calls they receive daily from others on this forum.
When the CEO got my complaint, which I filed on their website, he forwarded it to the attorneys, not me. The attorney then 2 days later contacted me to assure me they had taken corrective actions, which is typically how complaints of this magnitude are handled.
So contrary to your other claims, there was no sharing of information between the attorney and I, they merely were addressing my complaint and to follow up on that with the party making the complaint is standard action.
"""""I think we all better, ignore this person, otherwise, we could be subjected to hearing heresay insider information and might be called on to testify against an outsider wanting inside information for the purpose of controlling NEOM's pps.
I think we better stay away from this outsider, claiming to have inside information until the bad smell of this stuff goes away.
What do you think? ; )"""""""
I think you spend to much time THINKING about how to bash and personally attack another poster. Unlike so many of you here, I provided the attorneys name, and I am sure anyone here who wants to call them, will be told there was a complaint and actions were taken on that complaint. Nothing INSIDE about that at all.
As to your comments about calling the company and wanting to know information, I think I can pull up a few of your posts advocating other posters do exactly that. Unlike me, who has never suggested to anyone here that they contact the company for information.
""""""""Indeed, the existence and timing of the strategy session itself, info about which was being given out through selective and non-regulated distribution channels, channels which are or were controlled by a few shareholders, is IMHO material information.""""""""
Exactly. When specific dates of when this meeting was to occur were given in that email response, that went beyond any poster here merely speculating that a facilitator may be used to mediate any kind of settlements etc.
And a perfect example of your other point about how information gets distorted using these back channels to disseminate info can be found in the email itself. The author of that email said his source was RICK Pavane, not ROGER Pavane.
On another issue that was discussed here yesterday, its quite interesting that the company has a new IR firm in place as of 1 January, and there is no public announcement or PR to the shareholders, informing them of this major change, in nearly a months time, until someone calls the other day and is told about it by an operator. All the calls that have been talked about on this board and none of the posters were told in a months time period, that there was a new IR company and to call them? All the emails that have been talked about here and the responses from company officials and none of these posters were told to contact the new firm in the future?
But thats ok, some here will spin the information in a light favorable to NEOM and I understand that. Whats important is that Chas Fritz, and Clay Parker from the attorneys office, both saw it the same way I did, as inside information, and took actions to put a stop to it.
yup..it sure is....but try calling the company to talk to anyone and see how much hearsay it really is. Matter of fact the attorney told me they waited to contact me until they had drafted and sent a letter out to all employees. Of course thats hearsay too, but I will take the word of that attorney over anything I read here anyday.
We will see how many of you get through to NEOM management, and then we will see how much of it is hearsay.
For the record Neoms attorneys just contacted me in regards to what has transpired over the past couple days. I was informed that new procedures have been put in place to insure this never happens again in the future.
Any shareholder with questions will now be directed to the PR firm, and that firm will only discuss information thats already been made public, and has been approved by the attorneys office.
So anymore posts here suggesting this is in the works, or that is in the works, will be pure hearsay on the posters part, and not something coming from within side the company.
Thats ok NEOM2006. This is a public forum to discuss NEOM and NEOM related issues, and any post deleted has to be archived by IHUB as well, so they are still accessable by the proper parties.
Oh I should of added its a violation they will claim because its private emails. Just like the private one you sent NEOM that got spread around, with your name, phone number email etc.
Thats not what I posted about is it. Did they or did they not state on their website they would be partnering with Smart?
My post was about how nextcode pulled the rug out from under them on that deal.
Sure they have other things going on but the big story is the one I posted about, that you neglected to mention. Its under the solutions tab of their website.
"""""""""This venture is soon to be partnered with the original movers and shakers of what is now Smart Communications, the group of Mr. Dave Fernando of TSS (Technology Support Service Inc.).""""""""
http://www.omniprime.net/
I think if I read the articles correctly and Omniprimes web site properly, they and Gavitec just got the rug pulled out from under their feet by nextcode.
According the the 4 month old omniprime, there are 35 million cell phone users in the phillipines, and nextcode just gained control over 2/3s of them apparently.
I also read that They were to be partnering with Smart and then the news comes that Smart is partnering with nextcode basically. And those 22.9 million cell phone users with SMart will more then likely be using nextcodes platform, and perhaps there codes as well.
In4it......when you post false and misleading information on these blogs you can be held for libel.
QR holds the highest density of the 3 codes and there are many sites that support that claim. I will provide a link to one below, and the QR code holds nearly twice the capacity of AZTEC. However Datamatrix and AZTEC are very close to holding equal amounts. Close enough that its more then the average vender would probably need.
Then you say Gavitec is the company makes the readers for cell phones. Do they have an AZTEC code reader on their site that I missed, since you are pushing AZTEC codes as the highest capacity? And beyond that are they they only company makes readers for cell phones? Whose reader is now being preinstalled on certain model cell phones? Is it Gavitecs?
Then you say NEOM has a product that will read all codes. Did you mean to say is being developed so it will EVENTUALLY read all codes?
Here is the link to the data capabilities, and I can get you about 10 more if you need them.......I added a second link I ran across a while back by one of our own as well. See how many mistatements are made by this poster in his one blog entry.
http://www.datascan.nl/product.php?catid=1&productid=55&subpagid=24
http://www.barcodemobile.com/introduction-to-two-dimensional-camera-phone-barcodes/