Replies to post #11210 on FuelCell Energy Inc (FCEL)

[Trading4it]

Max & krays,
A bit a verifiable info for you to ponder.

In the NT-10Q it states OS as of 4/30 to be 11.1M shares (if you convert to pre split =133.2M)
See top of pg 4 for ref. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886128/000114420419030604/tv523435_nt10q.htm

In the 8K it states OS as of May 8 to be (pre split amount) 183.4M shares. A difference of ~50M shares (pre split).
See top of pg 2 for ref.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886128/000156459019017009/fcel-8k_20190508.htm

Those 50M (or post split 4.2M) shares went towards something and it will undoubtedly be something favorable to FCEL's bottom line (but wont be reported until Q3).

[44centsAKAchoccake]

I think it's probably the case that FCEL did the Cs and Ds because they were the best available alternatives to them at the time in terms of raising cash by selling shares. It's probably not more mysterious than that.

[krays]

Max, as you know, I believe that Hercules and the preferred holders have been driving this down to their benefit. However, I don’t believe that they could control the volume we saw this week singlehandedly. There is terminology in the agreements which limits ownership to 4.99% of outstanding at any given time with provisions to increase that to 9.99% with notice I think. I believe there are at least two holders of the series C/D - Hudson Bay and Tech Opportunities (one and the same I believe)
They may have already had a large short position awaiting the next bi-monthly stipend. I’m not sure but someone was holding this down in a big way.
The Exxon news was way bigger than the pps reaction and the volume was appropriate.
I agree with tradingforit that the Series C are likely exhausted at this time.
I’ll get back to you with my best guess on the licensing agreements.

[krays]

Max, let’s start out by reviewing the POSCO, license agreement and exclusive rights to manufacture, install, and service MCFC’s for power generation in the Asian market.
We know which patents are included in the POSCO deal but not the Exxon deal just yet. We also know that there has been an ongoing dispute regarding technology transfer.
The Exxon license has specifically different application language regarding the carbon capture configurations and we know that patents have been issued regarding CCS since the POSCO agreement was signed. I would welcome a differentiation discussion from the board here.
I believe that the initial $10m is the tip of the iceberg, just like it was for POSCO. We know that Exxon has provided advanced technologies revenue on an ongoing basis since they entered into the collaboration agreement with FCEL.
Perhaps Exxon will need enough carbonate cells configured for carbon capture that they will need the capacity of both manufacturing facilities? Perhaps there is a resolution in the works where both parties will benefit from
ExxonMobil involvement?
Not really an opinion and mostly speculation on my part.


http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-29731-562.pdf

The Cell Technology Transfer and License Agreement gives POSCO Energy the rights to manufacture molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) components in South Korea based on DFC technology and grants commercial rights to Asian markets. The agreement harmonises two prior license agreements so that POSCO Energy has rights to manufacture the entire carbonate DFC power plant.

The initial payment of $10 million was received on November 1, 2012. (Sound familiar?)

http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000886128/68bb9e77-509d-4b44-8aeb-dbbcb9a1a5de.rtf