Replies to post #62359 on Quantum Materials Corp. (fka QTMM)

[Solar_Express]

Thanks for your opinion, we will let the court decide. Also Steve is protecting shareholders from dilution due to conversion under .12 in the terms. Steve stated he paid these people off, they are being greedy and taking advantage of QMC. The AS is 750M so even if QMC lost as you so stated in your post, this would be absorbed and the assets QMC is worth conservatively 3 times its current market cap. Don't underestimate QMC's legal team they have been there in the past. Lastly, not surprised with your outlook on this matter. I also liked the Dec PR, any ink with any vendor we're off to the races.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Another Opinion:

Michael Minns is on it..enough said. Biggest concern was the ratchet issue...if they converted at lower than .12 then it would mean QMC would have to pony up millions of shares to early debenture holders...that would affect all of us greatly...Steve is protecting our investment by going this route and I applaud him...we know he doesnt roll over easy.

[puravida19]

I guess you did not notice QMC already won the "case" and was granted an injunction against L2 plaintiff. Plaintiff wants that overturned, but what are they adding that is new?
L2 is in the hole.

[Jamis1]

First, let me address your last statement, if I thought QMC was crumbling, I would be selling and I’m not.

As for the appeal case, recall what this case is about, the injunction. QMC’s attorneys clearly pointed out that the L2 complaint wasn’t factual. It stated that Empire wasn’t given notice! QMC clearly provides electronic correspondence to prove otherwise. They also pointed out that L2 was a the court hearing. And why was that? Because Empire informed them. The injunction case was QMC vs Empire. L2 and SBI only got added because they were notified by Empire and came to court to contest on their own behalf.

Recall, this is just an appeal on the injunction. I think QMC will win and the injunction stays until the courts settle the pending cases in Kansas and Florida. The purpose of the injunction was to prevent L2 & SBI from claiming default without QMC being able to contest default.

[Jamis1]

Let me address what I your other 2 bullets:

1) Registration statement - I have read the contract. The only time a registration statement is required is when a "put" is placed. QMC never executed a "put." Therefore, what initial registration statement was required? There was no defined number of shares for any "put" in the contract, so what amount of share is QMC supposed to register? The "put" share amount is solely based on the maximum or minimum capital that QMC wished to place on a "put." I think L2 erred in how they worded this contract line item as it isn't clear what initial shares were to be registered for this undefined "put."

Again, I'm no lawyer and I might be reading the contract incorrectly, but that is my interpretation.

See quote from contract below. If I'm interpreting the contract correctly, L2's argument is invalid.

The Company shall also file with the SEC, within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date hereof, a new registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) covering the resale of the Put Shares and the Underlying Shares.

2) Restating financial statements - Again, I read the contract. Restating of the financial statements in and of itself does not constitute default. It's only if the restated statement has a material adverse effect on the rights of L2 (see quote below). If the amended statement injured L2, then it injured many more share holders, including myself, who have more shares and value invested in QMC then L2 does. I know the restated statement had no baring on the value of my investment since they still didn't have commercial contracts during that quarter. I argue that the amendment had no material adverse effect. None of QMC's filings have adversely affected the share price. The only thing that has adversely affected the share price is the lack on commercial contracts.

I would like to see how L2 argues it affected their investment. Can you provide an reason they were affected?

3.12 Financial Statement Restatement. The Borrower replaces its auditor, or any restatement of any financial statements filed by the Borrower with the SEC for any date or period from two years prior to the Issue Date of this Note and until this Note is no longer outstanding, if the result of such restatement would, by comparison to the unrestated financial statement, have constituted a material adverse effect on the rights of the Holder with respect to this Note.