I have never said that rumors moving through the financial community cannot impact a company's share price or commodity prices, although temporarily. In fact I have given an example, one I profited on, with GNBT where six years ago a rumor that GNBT developed a vaccine for avian flu caused the PPS to increase more than ten fold.
Please, please quote me correctly. What I have said is that statements on blogs, positive or negative, have little measurable effect. If you do not know the difference between the financial community and a blog, you may struggle here; or is it because you want to believe that all the energy that you spend on defending GERS is useful?
Jim,
Your belief that the amount of money required to obtain a bond for an injunction is quite large is not correct. Therefore, bond requirements do not explain the need for dilution to generate cash beyond the millions that GERS should now have rolling in.
Court bonds can and do vary in price. A general range depends upon the court that is requiring the bond, the judicial proceeding, and the a few other factors. A general range is 1% - 5%. The average is around 3%. Some bonds (Bankruptcy) are much lower. While others (Defendant) bonds are higher and require collateral
This bond is to cover legal fees and direct damages to the defendants IF the injunction is proven inappropriate. This is not a bond to cover all the damages that GERS is claiming which may well be in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. The direct damages and legal fees would have to be less than $10 million. Using the best estimate available (3%) that bond would cost GERS no more than $300,000 which is a wildly inflated estimate. In reality we are talking about less than a hundred grand which should be pocket change for GERS by now. No, the bond requirement cannot be claimed as the reason for the dilution.
I hope you are wrong and the O/S count doesn't triple by year's end, that will be a psychological shock to many potential investors.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
