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.
Not a big chart guy when it comes to small-caps. Charts are pretty meaningless. Have to look at the assets, operations, and what is likely to happen in the next quarter or two.
if you are looking to flip this short term you may want to wait for a better price but I don't think you are going to get much better than .17 if it even goes back to that. If the information the company provides is correct, and if the price of NG continues to hold steady or rise, and there are no other surprises (like closing down a well), then next quarter will be an inflection point for the stock price.
History is not really a guarantee of future performance. JMHO.
I believe you can have it transferred it at its basis. Do it now if you can (and if you can wait to get at it). I did it a somewhat inefficient way, while it was still trading. I sold 250K and then purchased it again in the other account (not all at once). Not a method that is open anymore.
This is why I can wait to get the max value. Screw settling, lets go all the way.
Not if your have your shares in a roth IRA.
Not a naysayer, but do they have the funds to tie in Kokopelli and South Rangley and do the 2D/3D?
Don't get me wrong, I am still adding, but I am worried that they may have to dilute again.
The market does not appear to have much enthusiasm about tomorrows earnings release. If anything it appears most people are expecting bad news, or perhaps it is just because they are expecting no news at all.
Perhaps saying nothing is the wisest move management could make right now.
I agree with our basic numbers but I think it is difficult to compare pre-Sabu factors to the current post-Sabu company. Even factoring in the loss of concession percentage you still have to consider the additional perceived risk after the dry well. I think we will be in better shape to see $1 after the final deal with Tullow is signed and there are no unforeseen contract terms.
Have to factor in what it cost in ultimate return on investment to be in bed with Tullow. If this was a $10.00 stock once a well was in place it is now a $4.00 stock. Factoring in residual risk and as well as the risk of Tullow backing out before the deal is signed and I think we are about right if not a little high. But then again, I am a skeptic.
Seems to have stalled at .83. I have to admit that is more than I expected. The question now is; does the +/- 4,000,000 shares traded clear out all the profit takers, resulting in a slow but steady increase in pps as things move forward ... or is there still too much risk for people to take a chance on this company, resulting in a slow but steady decline until the next PR?
I guess I have to agree with both your points, although I am still feeling like my shares just lost a huge portion of their potential value.
Then again, perhaps this inevitability has already been priced in considering the current pps.
OK, so half of what HDY had would have been 38.5% of the concession and they traded 40%? They traded more than half of what they had? Not seeing how this is going to be received by the markets as a good thing.
Not clear from the PR what exactly we are getting for more than half of what we owned. How is this different from a 50% dilution of shares?
OK, if HDY owns 77%, and they trade 40% of that away to Tullow, that leaves them about 46%, is my math is right?
They will use the shotgun approach; they will through everything they can against the wall and see what sticks. Plus it swamps the little guy because now we have to examine everything they ask to try to divine what the reason was for the question in order to be prepared for it in court. It is a good investment, a million dollars in legal work could save 100 million in damages they have to pay.
Yeah, that theory worked so well for us in our case against Diac.
Should probably note that, in the category of circumstance or situations that could result in receiving attorney's fees is litigation misconduct. All that complaining about the company not complying with discovery requests may not matter in the actual case but may set the stage for denying us attorney's fees - essentially acting as a wash against our claims of willful infringement.
It is clear that "normal" market forces are not pushing the pps to .69 because they instantly drop again in the AM. Lets see where we close today.
"The patent statute states that the court in exceptional cases, may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. As a general rule, attorneys fees may be justified by any valid basis for awarding enhanced damages. However, conduct which a court may deem “exceptional” and a basis for awarding attorneys fees may not qualify for an award of enhanced damages. Similarly, where damages are enhanced a district court may decline to award attorneys fees.
Whether attorneys fees should be awarded requires a two-step inquiry. First, the district court must decide whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the case is exceptional. Second, the court must decide whether to award attorney fees to the prevailing party.
Even exceptional cases do not always mandate an award of attorney fees in all circumstances. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has acknowledged that there are many factors which can impact upon a decision regarding whether an award of attorney fees is warranted in a particular case. The types of conduct that could support a showing of exceptional circumstances resulting in the award of attorneys fees include, but are not limited to, willful infringement, inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office, litigation misconduct, and vexatious or unjustified litigation or frivolous suit.
Obtaining attorneys fees in any patent litigation is rare. Furthermore, in order to obtain attorneys fees it is necessary to litigate the matter to a conclusion. Given the increased role of alternative dispute resolution in patent litigation the percentage of cases that are fully litigated to a conclusion is continuously dropping."
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/patent-infringement-damages/
No, but he has to realize that, considering the parties involved and the potential costs, T-Mobile will appeal on any grounds they think they can reasonably raise. No judge likes to have his cases overturned, so I am guessing he is spending a little extra time to get it right.
I don't honestly believe it will work. The issue of the ability of the patent owner to market the patent is usually tied to anti-trust suits, where we were keeping T-Mobile from using it after we sold them the phones. I believe it is called tying, but that is clearly not the case here.
This would be something even more obscure built on an equity claim. I am not going to outline it here, but lets just say that I don't really think the facts in this case support this type of equity defense.
Could be. Plus I do not understand what the significance of .69 would be as far a pps.
Still, my instincts are to be cautious ...
Looks like a paint job to me.
My guess is that he understands the ramifications these terms will have on the outcome of this case as well as the impact this case could have on the entire market, so he wants to take the time and get it right.
My memory of Patent law is rusty, but I do remember that it was a defense to patent infringement if the company that owned the patent did not have the ability to market it. Not sure it will matter in this case, but it is something T-Mobile looks like they are going to pursue as part of their defense.
This hinges on whether there is a settlement or a judgment. Attorney's fees will come out of the settlement amount if that is the way things go. If the judgment is in our favor then the judge can award attorney's fees. We did ask for that in our prayer for relief. My guess is that we will get it if there is a showing of willful infringement.
Just one of the other reasons going to trial rather than accepting a settlement acts to maximize shareholder return.
Hence, the "(fka CLYW)" that is included in the Board's title.
Not relevant to the conversation.
EOM
Market is acting like whatever you thought was going to happen, ain't gonna any more ...
What was I supposed to see? Small spike in buying?
I wasn't referring to Diac's attorneys. Diac gets 28% plus expenses (I would guess the actual total will be about 33% give or take). I expect that our legal team, paid for by the receiver on a contingency basis, will take what a contingency lawyer costs. If it is less all the better, I am just not counting my chickens before they hatch.
Settlement really does us no good (unless it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars range). We need to prove the validity of the patent in order to prove its value. We only get a portion of the T-Mobile case and there are "reasonable" attorney's fees that will also be subtracted. My guess is you can see about 1/3 the settlement/judgment going to the company. The other two thirds go to Diac and the lawyers. Then we have to pay debts. The real value in the T-mobile case is in establishing the validity and value of the patent.
I am fairly certain the receiver's law firm is funding this, not Daic. So I would agree that the receiver understands the value of the patent.
I agree. I am happy with a receiver. I believe time will prove that having a receiver will result in the T-mobile case going farther than was ever possible under previous management.
Ultimately, the question has always been, either this patent is really worth what we all think it is or it is worthless. Either way, I think we have a chance now of actually finding the answer to that question.
I guess you missed my point.
FYI, many people on this board know my name. If any of them want to file a suit they are more than welcome to attempt to attach my pay from the US Army. I have tried to help the parties of this company come to some agreement. They refused my offers (just ask Kyle). My consciences is clear (and my legal obligations are non-existent).
I like the way you think!
I will disagree in one sense. You are correct that there are really two priorities here. The first is proving that the patent is valid and that T-Mobile was infringing. That is in the court's "court" (bad pun intended). Once that is done it establishes the value of the patent, which is then sold for many millions of dollars.
Anything after that, that does not result in a larger return for the shareholder, is superfluous. I really don't want to see a portion of my return spent on finding out if you really can extradite a crook from Paraguay, or foreclosing on the limited assets of managers in California. It may make some shareholders feel better, that somehow the world makes sense because the criminals are hauled out into the light of day and exposed for what they are. At this point, I really don't care. The number of managers who have screwed the pouch, from Patton on to Kyle, are all to blame, but so what?Concentrate on return to us, the shareholders, who invested our hard earned money in an idea (not a management team or a board). Let it go.
We will see how serious everyone is when we see the motions to compel discovery which are due later this month. We can prove infringement all day long but we will need some financial data from T-Mobile to prove the amount of damages (based either on revenue associated with devices using 923 or what reasonable licensing fees are). Without some basis for the demand for relief it will difficult for us to argue for any specific amount. T-Mobile ain't Calypso. They are not going to rollover for multiples of the entire value of the company.
I can't see an injunction happening in this case. Injunctions generally require a showing of irreparable harm and we don't have this here. All the harm T-Mobile has done is "repairable" via monetary damages. So my guess is this is just gamesmanship.
What might be interesting is to see what portions of T-Mobile's business would be affected if the injunction was granted. Not sure that will come out in the pleadings or the arguments, since it is really not relevant to the matter before the court. But you never know.
You keep missing the point that money is only part of the problems with this company.
You and I are on the same sheet of music on this. The era of CLYW as a traded stock or as a going concern are over. Management screwed the pouch on that one. Now we MUST win the law suit, prove the validity of the patent, and sell it to the highest bidder if any of the "shareholders" expect to see a return.
The judge did not order just on our lack of cash flow. There were two other reasons; one was the lack of compliance with SEC rules and the other was the fraudulent nature of the corporate operations. Curing cash flow does not solve the other two.
When I see a petition for a stay of execution from the Receiver in order to cure the SEC Compliance failures and to somehow rectify several years of not having annual meetings and an unelected board, then I will rethink my position.
I am assuming you have already done this. Do you have the cite?
Until I see a legal precedence, what will happen is what is in the summary order. (OK, what I see really doesn't matter to what is actually going to happen ... I just can see no course of events that leads to this company being brought back from death roe.)
"3. DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP: The Receiver shall dissolve the company and wind up its affairs, subject to the supervision of the Court."
I see nothing in there that offers much wiggle room unless the Court itself relents. Since this was an action in equity there is some leeway to be "creative" but what you are suggesting is a bit beyond the pale.
Again, if someone can show me legal precedence in a non-bankruptcy proceeding I am willing to listen. Until the court changes the mandate in this order, this company will be dissolved.