endlich0 Monday, 06/17/19 02:25:54 AM Re: SamuraiAnimated post# 68186 Post # of 68248 There are 2 Points that Sound extremly positive to me in nr 6 and 7 -the words 6: " revo had no income at THIS TIME " yes ok but in the future it will have 7 : Revo owns 40 % Ali owns another 19 % percent of the income out of the patents ….if he owns those 19 % via fraud, they go back to REVO ;) 6. In January 2014, at Ali’s direction, REVO began issuing press releases stating that REVO was negotiating a worldwide licensing agreement for its patents. Ali is quoted in the press releases as saying that the forecasted annual revenues from the deal is “in the $20 to $30 million range,” which was significant because REVO was not generating any revenue at the time. In February 2014, REVO announced that it had entered into a licensing agreement with an unidentified exclusive, worldwide licensee, and forecasted “$30 million in revenues and $12 million in earnings” from the deal. 7. REVO and Ali failed to inform investors that, among other ties, REVO owned 40% of the licensee and a trust established by Ali owned 19% of the licensee. Ali also had no legitimate basis for forecasting $20 to $30 million in revenues or $12 million in earnings from the license agreement.