"On June 27, 2008, we entered into a Tricanter Purchase and Installation Agreement with ICM, Inc. for the construction and installation of a Tricanter Oil Separation System. On February 12, 2010, GS CleanTech Corporation filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, claiming that the Company’s operation of the oil recovery system manufactured and installed by ICM, Inc. infringes a patent claimed by GS CleanTech Corporation. GS CleanTech Corporation seeks a preliminary injunction, royalties, damages associated with the alleged infringement, as well as attorney’s fees from the Company. On February 16, 2010, ICM, Inc. agreed to indemnify, at ICM’s expense, the Company from and against all claims, demands, liabilities, actions, litigations, losses, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees arising out of any claim of infringement of patents, copyrights or other intellectual property rights by reason of the Company’s purchase and use of the oil recovery system.
GS CleanTech Corporation subsequently filed actions against at least fourteen other ethanol producing companies for infringement of its patent rights. Several of the other defendants also use equipment and processes provided by ICM, Inc. GS CleanTech Corporation then petitioned for the cases to be joined in a multi-district litigation (“MDL”). This petition was granted and the MDL was assigned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Case No. 1:10-ml-02181). The Company has since answered and counterclaimed that the patent claims at issue are invalid. The Company anticipates that once the issues common to all of the defendants have been determined in the MDL, the cases will proceed in the respective districts in which they were originally filed.
The Company is not currently able to predict the outcome of this litigation with any degree of certainty. ICM, Inc. has, and the Company expects it will continue, to vigorously defend itself and the Company in these lawsuits. The Company estimates that damages sought in this litigation would be based on a reasonable royalty to, or lost profits of, GS CleanTech Corporation. If the court deems the case exceptional, attorney’s fees may be awarded and are likely to be $1,000,0000 or more. ICM, Inc. has also agreed to indemnify the Company. However, in the event that damages are awarded, if ICM, Inc. is unable to fully indemnify the Company for any reason, the Company could be liable. In addition, the Company may need to cease use of its current oil separation process and seek out a replacement or cease oil production altogether."
*****************************************
"We are subject to litigation involving our corn oil extraction technology. We have been sued by GS CleanTech Corporation for asserting its intellectual property rights to certain corn oil extraction processes we obtained from ICM, Inc. in August 2008. GS CleanTech is seeking to enforce its patent rights against ICM and the Company. According to information available through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, certain patents have been issued and other patents will be issued to GS CleanTech. If GS CleanTech is successful in its infringement action against the Company, we may be force to pay damages to GS CleanTech as a result of our use of such technology." Bottom Page 16
See Cardinal Filing Here
Want More?
On page 5, they imply how it is working . . .
Corn Oil
"In November 2008, we began separating some of the corn oil contained in our distiller’s grains for sale. Corn oil sales represented less than 1% of our revenues for our 2010 fiscal year. We anticipate continuing to fine tune the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment and we expect that it will operate more efficiently in the future. The corn oil that we produce is not food grade corn oil and therefore cannot be used for human consumption without further refining. However, corn oil can be used as the feedstock to produce biodiesel and has other industrial uses." page 5
SkunK
In the third paragraph of the first quote above we have this admission.
"However, in the event that damages are awarded, if ICM, Inc. is unable to fully indemnify the Company for any reason, the Company could be liable."
Apparently Cardinal has now come to realize that they may be stuck with the bill if/when ICM cannot pay the massive liabilities that are being created for some in the industry. The negative potential only increases with time.
Do a
As usual, I added the underlines and the italics in the quotes above to show the parts I think are most relevant to the GreenShift story.
As an added bonus here is Cardianl's Flyer they just sent out to stakeholders. You might have to 'VIEW', 'ZOOM', '150%' or '200%'; to get a good view.
Posts
14 comments:
Merry Christmas Skunk - Thanks for all the GERS DD in 2010.
Point by point body blow>>>ICM knocked out!
And they're down for the count!
Look at how Greenshift just tore ICM's arguements apart! ICM doesn't even know what they're talking about, they really dropped the ball on this one. They used the wrong who, what, when, where, and how. Their lawyers don't understand the law or what? LMAO! Way Too Funny!
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_ch8gAs4lCcODEwOWM1MGEtZTI5OC00MWIwLThjOTAtYTRhOWJkZDc5MTI0&hl=en&authkey=CK64o-IB
Sounds like this will go in Greenshift's favor!
Thanks Skunk!
Greenshift could very well end up owning some of these companies if they can't pay the damages.
This is new today. USAA is now stating that it is GERS that is not accepting new buy orders and this is not the function of the DTCC:
"USAA has recently cancelled an order you placed on symbol GERS due to the security no longer accepting new buy orders. If you have any questions please contact USAA. The trade team can be reached at (800)830-8851 between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. central time."
That's what Ameritrade has been telling me from the begining. They've said all along that Greenshift is not allowing electronic trades of it's stock, that Greenshift was the reason for the restriction. Maybe something big is going on like pending news of a buyout or merger?
Yet I am able to buy through Scottrade. We are in muddied waters.
KK is very careful and precise in what he says and how he says it. When somebody says he knowingly lied, they are always wrong if you look at what he said and when he said it. An uncareful reading of what he says leads to bad assumptions. Look at what he said here:
"Further, there is no plan to take GreenShift private. As previously disclosed, we are single-mindedly focused on value creation for our shareholders by increasing sales, achieving profitability, and repaying all remaining debt on cost-effective terms. Our ambition is to achieve our debt repayment objective with as little dilution to GreenShift's shareholders as possible, and to thereafter fully convert all preferred shares at favorable rates to all of our shareholders."
No plan to take it private, granted. He makes no promise not to merge, sell or more likely form a new subsidary with new money coming in and a new share structure. Like the failed GE deal. Or a GPRE deal where ya gets cash; and officers, commons and preferred get GPRE stock. How else can you get what he promises and wants without doing something like that?
Just bought 512,437 shares to test SCottrade. It went through in a few sconds.
Anyone have thoughts on how the pref conversion will facilitate debt repayment? if they were going to be exchanged for financing through some private placement that would be one thing but the letter states they would be cancelled eventually - that implies they will not be transferred. ideas?
December 28, 2010 11:45 AM
Show Your Horns said...
Just a guess
YA is getting worried that the sale of shares by the MIF and others will cause the OS shares to hit the 20B share wall too soon. So they make GERS convert half - 10B shares to commons as a placeholder. When GERS hits the new share wall they can make GERS hand over any amount of the 10B shares to them to keep from falling in arrears to their main debtor. I think the last time GERS hit the share wall YAGI felt screwed during the long delay until the 10-1 RS freed up more shares. This is YAGI's way to make sure this does not happen again. Of course GERS plans on getting them paid off before they hit the share wall, so they plan on those 10B (or most) getting canceled. This is the only senario I can think of that fits the facts.
makes sense
Skunk,
When is the 4th quarter financial statement due out? Also, do you have any comment about the reverse split that everyone is seemingly very worried about? I for one am pissed off that my 36,500,000 were turned into 3,650,000 shares, but that's just the way it goes? How are you still staying so positive, when all is seemingly lost? I am going to hang in there and be positive too, but some upward movement in the PPS would be great. How many reverse splits have there been all together? How can a company keep doing that and ever be profitable?
I'm opening a Scottrade account today for the sole purpose of loading up on more Greenshift.
Hi nobody12378 said...
Why do you think that USAA has changed their story. Didn't they initially claim that it was DTCC, then they were concerned about people not getting their shares, etc. Any idea what is really happening?
None.
Post a Comment