Replies to post #164817 on NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[cloud3]

Thanks, Claw, that's how it read to me at first and it really had me scratching my head. But I'd still like to know what that event/action was.

[beam11]

Unless damages are paid to the persons/entity which was damaged and funds are accepted and deposited for past action. But you are right there is always future action to consider by shareholders, as we have not signed anything.
Beam11

[Be Confident]

Claw, I do not recall the specific wording, however, could it be possible it meant "future" in relation to the past? This in my view is enforceable.

In other words, should an action occur in the future that is based upon past actions of YA, YA would not be sued.

Your input please..

Best,
BC

[bleedingedge]

Not to sound negative, but … Connecting the dots from the two most recent filings could point to some Machiavellian activities.
1. YA is released from all liabilities; past, present, future.
2. YA reduces their commitment to fund NEOM.
3. NEOM has enough cash for April and possibly May without any other indication of operational capital sources. There is no way to ramp revenues fast enough to exceed $500k/month cash in the door by June 1st (appears to be the monthly burn rate).
4. NEOM cuts staff, reduces positions to PT/contractors, and makes other cost adjustments (when the company should be investing in capturing the market).
5. “All of our assets are pledged to secure certain debt obligations, which if we fail to repay, could result in the foreclosure upon our assets.” (as stated in the Risk Factors section).

Maybe the CC will have some very exciting, positive news; I hope so!

[jonesieatl]

"No one in their right mind releases someone else from all liability that may arise from future acts. No one. No one. No one."

Isn't this company going by the same name as it was when supposedly sane managers issued floorless contracts to buy other companies? Didn't we think they were crazy? But they did it anyway.

Just sayin'

jonesie