UPDATE: Extension here.
Text file has ACCEPTANCE-DATETIME of 1409 on 31 March.
*************
Expect to see a NT 10-K in the next 5 hours (by 5pm EST). NT 10-K is the 15 day extension for the Annual (10-K) report. The best place to watch is here: SEC GreenShift. Other sites update after it is posted there.
We could be surprised and actually see the annual today, but the SkunK expects the extension.
SkunK
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Top 5 Penny Stock Gainers
Top 5 Penny Stock Gainers (GERS, MBTG, AGEL, GETA, PPJE)
Penny Stock Gainers .
(EMAILWIRE.COM, March 31, 2010 ) Dallas, Tx - Following were among the penny stocks whose shares were actively traded in Tuesday's session.
GreenShift Corporation (OTC: GERS) added 50% to $0.0003 on 108.09 million shares. The stock has a 52-week high of $0.01. In the last six months of trading sessions, the stock is down over 85%.
REST HERE:
SkunK
Penny Stock Gainers .
(EMAILWIRE.COM, March 31, 2010 ) Dallas, Tx - Following were among the penny stocks whose shares were actively traded in Tuesday's session.
GreenShift Corporation (OTC: GERS) added 50% to $0.0003 on 108.09 million shares. The stock has a 52-week high of $0.01. In the last six months of trading sessions, the stock is down over 85%.
REST HERE:
SkunK
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Things we have coming up in April
Cardinal shall file on or before 24 March. (The best I can tell, They did not file against GreenShift's motion to shut down the Cardinal non-patented COES. Instead Cardinal filed a motion to move this case to such jurisdiction where ICM, Inc. is a party. New York? Did they really say? Did they miss the deadline? Do they get a Mulligan from a definitive court order since they filed a delay motion to move the case somewhere else? Big River apparently did the same thing. - and GreenShift also filed against it - the judge there decided to wait and see what happens at Cardinal. Does Cardinal get to wait to file until the judge rules on the change of venue request? If so - what is to stop Cardinal from filing more delays motions to change venue or laywers or judges or whatever? Need a lawyer to step up here and let me know what is cricket here. The SkunK has been called all sorts of names (some spot on) - but never a lawyer. In any case the judge could rule on this change of venue at any time.
Here GreenShift filed in opposition to delaying and moving the Cardinal case.
GERS will file Cardinal reply brief on or before 5 April. Since they have nothing from Cardinal to argue against, it will be interesting if GreenShift steps up and files to meet their deadline asking for an immediate injunction to shut down Cardinal COES - since Cardinal did not appear to have filed anything in opposition to the injunction before the March 24th deadline.
Hearing for Cardinal Motion of Preliminary Injunction is set for 15 April
2009 Annual Report is due 31 March 2010. An automatic 15 day extension is normally used. The dates of release from earliest to oldest over the previous three years were: April 16th, 7th, 17th. The way the weekends fall, the SkunK believes COB April 15th is the absolute deadline.
Big Rivers case is stayed through April 20, 2010.
SkunK
Here GreenShift filed in opposition to delaying and moving the Cardinal case.
GERS will file Cardinal reply brief on or before 5 April. Since they have nothing from Cardinal to argue against, it will be interesting if GreenShift steps up and files to meet their deadline asking for an immediate injunction to shut down Cardinal COES - since Cardinal did not appear to have filed anything in opposition to the injunction before the March 24th deadline.
Hearing for Cardinal Motion of Preliminary Injunction is set for 15 April
2009 Annual Report is due 31 March 2010. An automatic 15 day extension is normally used. The dates of release from earliest to oldest over the previous three years were: April 16th, 7th, 17th. The way the weekends fall, the SkunK believes COB April 15th is the absolute deadline.
Big Rivers case is stayed through April 20, 2010.
SkunK
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Big River Correspondence and a long PS.
When you view this ICM defense, you read about the "July GreenShift Letter(s)" and the "October GreenShift Letter(s)" that GERS sent out to notify potential patent infringers. ICM claims the letters ". . .interfered with ICM's sales of centrifuge equipment."p.7 The SkunK has found and brought to you the letters GreenShift sent to Big River Resources so you can read and decide for yourself:
17 July 2009 Letter to Big River Resources
7 October 2009 Letter to Big River Resources
******************
SkunK
ps. Still do not think COES are a big deal? Go and look at the "Home Page of Cardinal Ethanol". You will see that a link to the Feb 2010 Cardinal PR on the GreenShift Lawsuit is front and center on the home page. Obviously Cardinal Ethanol Stakeholders have 'questions' concerning how they got to where they are today.
Jeff Painter stated, “ICM will be defending Cardinal in the Indiana litigation; the litigation involves our operation of ICM equipment and we are directing all further inquiries to ICM. In the interim period, Cardinal expects to continue to operate its oil recovery system.”
With GreenShift standing by these Corn Oil Extraction System Patents issued by the United States Patent Office; and Cardinal Ethanol [and Big River(s)] Management deciding to stand with ICM, the SkunK would have these specific questions if he were a Cardinal [or Big River(s)or unnamed Doe] Stakeholder:
1. Is the ICM defense "free"?
2. In order to get this defense, did Plant Management sign away their ability to counter sue ICM if things go sour?
3. Who makes the payments on the non-patented Corn Oil Extraction System if the preliminary injunction shuts it down in April or May and it no longer generates cash?
4. Who pays the patent infringement damages if it comes to that? Are there limits? What if damages awarded are in the multi-million dollar range? Are contingencies being developed?
5. Does your Ethanol Plant have Liability Insurance that covers Patent Infringement? Does it cover infringement after the notification letters above?
The SkunK is interested in the answer to these questions for a couple reasons. He grew up hand milking and drinking the raw milk from a gentle Guernsey named 'Lucky'. He has family and friends that are farmers. Some of those have investments in Ethanol Plants. Most of us invested in GreenShift are aware of the many risks involved in our investment. I do not think that most stakeholders in Ethanol Plants were made aware of the potential liability risks to their capital - when their management chose a non-patented COES.
As too many Ethanol Industry stakeholders learned during the recent downturn, when many Ethanol Plant Managements made a huge mistake [locking in high corn prices - only to see corn prices collapse], management can always move on - with stakeholders left to foot the bill . . .
17 July 2009 Letter to Big River Resources
7 October 2009 Letter to Big River Resources
******************
SkunK
ps. Still do not think COES are a big deal? Go and look at the "Home Page of Cardinal Ethanol". You will see that a link to the Feb 2010 Cardinal PR on the GreenShift Lawsuit is front and center on the home page. Obviously Cardinal Ethanol Stakeholders have 'questions' concerning how they got to where they are today.
Jeff Painter stated, “ICM will be defending Cardinal in the Indiana litigation; the litigation involves our operation of ICM equipment and we are directing all further inquiries to ICM. In the interim period, Cardinal expects to continue to operate its oil recovery system.”
With GreenShift standing by these Corn Oil Extraction System Patents issued by the United States Patent Office; and Cardinal Ethanol [and Big River(s)] Management deciding to stand with ICM, the SkunK would have these specific questions if he were a Cardinal [or Big River(s)or unnamed Doe] Stakeholder:
1. Is the ICM defense "free"?
2. In order to get this defense, did Plant Management sign away their ability to counter sue ICM if things go sour?
3. Who makes the payments on the non-patented Corn Oil Extraction System if the preliminary injunction shuts it down in April or May and it no longer generates cash?
4. Who pays the patent infringement damages if it comes to that? Are there limits? What if damages awarded are in the multi-million dollar range? Are contingencies being developed?
5. Does your Ethanol Plant have Liability Insurance that covers Patent Infringement? Does it cover infringement after the notification letters above?
The SkunK is interested in the answer to these questions for a couple reasons. He grew up hand milking and drinking the raw milk from a gentle Guernsey named 'Lucky'. He has family and friends that are farmers. Some of those have investments in Ethanol Plants. Most of us invested in GreenShift are aware of the many risks involved in our investment. I do not think that most stakeholders in Ethanol Plants were made aware of the potential liability risks to their capital - when their management chose a non-patented COES.
As too many Ethanol Industry stakeholders learned during the recent downturn, when many Ethanol Plant Managements made a huge mistake [locking in high corn prices - only to see corn prices collapse], management can always move on - with stakeholders left to foot the bill . . .
Thursday, March 25, 2010
United Ethanol - In the Market for a COES
The SkunK has spent some time following Milton - United Ethanol - in its pursuit of a Corn Oil Extraction System (COES). In the last confirmed report - in December of 2008 - Milton was listed as the 10th potential GreenShift COES. Today we learn that Milton is once again in the market for a COES. Will it be (hopefully) as a valued customer? . . . or as a potential litigant?
"Cramer [United Ethanol President David Cramer] said plant officials are considering plans to extract corn oil . . ."
"Chesmore said the city receives monthly reports from United Ethanol. The mayor said he was unaware of plans for corn oil extraction at the ethanol plant." "As long as they're within their general operating permits, I don't have a problem with it," Chesmore said.
25 March 2010 Dateline Janesville, WI
United Ethanol Home Page
SkunK
"Cramer [United Ethanol President David Cramer] said plant officials are considering plans to extract corn oil . . ."
"Chesmore said the city receives monthly reports from United Ethanol. The mayor said he was unaware of plans for corn oil extraction at the ethanol plant." "As long as they're within their general operating permits, I don't have a problem with it," Chesmore said.
25 March 2010 Dateline Janesville, WI
United Ethanol Home Page
SkunK
The Christmas Truce
The Letter is Here
SkunK
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Cardinal Filing
Another GreenShift Filing in the Cardinal Case
Introduction
Cardinal asks this Court to effectively delay this case indefinitely, including CleanTech's motion for preliminary injunction. All the while, as it has already publicly touted, Cardinal will continue to willfully infringe CleanTech's patent, which is directed to the extraction of corn oil from the by-products formed during ethanol production. Cardinal's assertion that venue in Indiana is improper is baseless. Not only is venue proper in Indiana, Cardinal has already agreed that the motion for preliminary injunction should be heard by this Court in April. In the joint motion related to scheduling for the preliminary injunction, nowhere does Cardinal take issue with venue. That is because there is no basis whatsoever to claim or even suggest that venue is improper in Indiana. Looking behind the scenes, this motion is nothing more than a stalling tactic that is part of a larger war of attrition waged by ICM, Inc., the manufacturer of the equipment used by Cardinal and other direct infringers to infringe CleanTech’s patent. ICM and the direct infringers like Cardinal hope that CleanTech is put out of business long before its claims are heard on the merits. Putting aside the underlying reason for this motion, the sole basis for the motion - improper venue - is fatally flawed because venue in Indiana is undeniably proper.
***********
This motion is really geared toward supporting the war of attrition that has been waged against CleanTech. Staying this case pending completion of briefing, hearings and decisions on the Pending Kansas Motions will certainly be a battle victory because, at a minimum, the preliminary injunction hearing will be delayed indefinitely. During this delay, Cardinal will continue to willfully infringe the '858 patent. In fact, Cardinal's president, Jeff Painter, actually publicly touted in a recent press release that Cardinal will continue to infringe the '858 patent by stating that during the litigation in Indiana "Cardinal expects to continue to operate its oil recovery system." (Ex. C) Cardinal's continued infringement as well as the currently occurring industry-wide and seemingly uncontested infringement of the '858 patent that will continue during this delay may very well drive CleanTech out of business. This is the very result that ICM and its customers like Cardinal are hoping to achieve. As such, the granting of this stay would be an effective denial of the pending motion for preliminary injunction.
SEE IT and READ IT ALL HERE:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcY2IyMjE1MWYtYzg1OS00NjBhLWI5NGItY2E4NmQ1ODdjOWQz&hl=en
SkunK
Introduction
Cardinal asks this Court to effectively delay this case indefinitely, including CleanTech's motion for preliminary injunction. All the while, as it has already publicly touted, Cardinal will continue to willfully infringe CleanTech's patent, which is directed to the extraction of corn oil from the by-products formed during ethanol production. Cardinal's assertion that venue in Indiana is improper is baseless. Not only is venue proper in Indiana, Cardinal has already agreed that the motion for preliminary injunction should be heard by this Court in April. In the joint motion related to scheduling for the preliminary injunction, nowhere does Cardinal take issue with venue. That is because there is no basis whatsoever to claim or even suggest that venue is improper in Indiana. Looking behind the scenes, this motion is nothing more than a stalling tactic that is part of a larger war of attrition waged by ICM, Inc., the manufacturer of the equipment used by Cardinal and other direct infringers to infringe CleanTech’s patent. ICM and the direct infringers like Cardinal hope that CleanTech is put out of business long before its claims are heard on the merits. Putting aside the underlying reason for this motion, the sole basis for the motion - improper venue - is fatally flawed because venue in Indiana is undeniably proper.
***********
This motion is really geared toward supporting the war of attrition that has been waged against CleanTech. Staying this case pending completion of briefing, hearings and decisions on the Pending Kansas Motions will certainly be a battle victory because, at a minimum, the preliminary injunction hearing will be delayed indefinitely. During this delay, Cardinal will continue to willfully infringe the '858 patent. In fact, Cardinal's president, Jeff Painter, actually publicly touted in a recent press release that Cardinal will continue to infringe the '858 patent by stating that during the litigation in Indiana "Cardinal expects to continue to operate its oil recovery system." (Ex. C) Cardinal's continued infringement as well as the currently occurring industry-wide and seemingly uncontested infringement of the '858 patent that will continue during this delay may very well drive CleanTech out of business. This is the very result that ICM and its customers like Cardinal are hoping to achieve. As such, the granting of this stay would be an effective denial of the pending motion for preliminary injunction.
SEE IT and READ IT ALL HERE:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcY2IyMjE1MWYtYzg1OS00NjBhLWI5NGItY2E4NmQ1ODdjOWQz&hl=en
SkunK
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Common Sense Test
We have a new GreenShift filing in the ICM, INC., v. GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION case. Sometimes it takes a while to establish tone. Not in this case. Tone is well covered in the first sentence of the Introduction:
"ICM's claims fail the common sense test. ICM argues that GreenShift is liable under various Kansas state law causes of action for complying with the notification steps required to be taken under the Patent Act (35 U.S.c. § i 54(d)) to protect its right to seek pre-issuance royalties against infringers. However, at the same time, ICM continues to admit that it and the ethanol producers that use lCM equipment infringe the claims both as published and amended during prosecution and as issued in United States Patent No. 7,601,858 (the '''858 patent"). ICM does not expressly address this fundamental incongruity but rather attempts to tum 35 U.S.c. § 154(d) on its head to hold GreenShift liable for taking actions required under the Patent Act to secure the pre-issuance royalties."
Here GreenShift claims that ICM originally failed to Plead A Lanham Act Claim:
"Now for the first time, after GreenShift moved to dismiss, ICM argues that Count I states a Lanham Act claim against GreenShift for false advertising, despite the fact that neither the Lanham Act nor false advertising are even referenced in the First Amended Complaint."
ICM Lacks Standing To Plead A Lanham Act Claim:
"Notwithstanding the lack of any mention in its Complaint and the First Amended Complaint, ICM focuses the first three pages of its argument on its new claim. Although lCM's new direction telegraphs lCM's lack of confidence in the claims it actually did make in its Complaint and the First Amended Complaint (one of which it now voluntarily dismisses), a Lanham Act claim is not stated in the Complaint or First Amended Complaint, so it should not be considered."
Providing Notice Under § 154(d) Does Not Violate The Lanham Act.:
"ICM has failed to cite even a single case where a patentee was held liable under the Lanham Act for providing actual notice to actual infringers under § 154( d)."
Footnotes are always interesting:
2 ICM has repeatedly mischaracterized GreenShift's arguments and resorted to hurling insults at GreenShift ("those letters included statements beyond the scope of notice required by law which were in fact false"). (See Plaintiffs Response in Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss ("Opposition"), Docket Entry No. 35, p. 6). This conduct is unfortunate and strongly suggests that ICM realizes that its substantive arguments fail the common sense test.
6 GreenShift notes that ICM withdraws its claim for a violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"). (Opposition, p. 18). It is unfortunate that ICM forced GreenShift to brief an issue that on its face could not be asserted by ICM.
SEE ENTIRE FILING HERE
The SkunK encourages everyone to read through this and all the filings and make up your own mind. Information is a good thing.
SkunK
"ICM's claims fail the common sense test. ICM argues that GreenShift is liable under various Kansas state law causes of action for complying with the notification steps required to be taken under the Patent Act (35 U.S.c. § i 54(d)) to protect its right to seek pre-issuance royalties against infringers. However, at the same time, ICM continues to admit that it and the ethanol producers that use lCM equipment infringe the claims both as published and amended during prosecution and as issued in United States Patent No. 7,601,858 (the '''858 patent"). ICM does not expressly address this fundamental incongruity but rather attempts to tum 35 U.S.c. § 154(d) on its head to hold GreenShift liable for taking actions required under the Patent Act to secure the pre-issuance royalties."
Here GreenShift claims that ICM originally failed to Plead A Lanham Act Claim:
"Now for the first time, after GreenShift moved to dismiss, ICM argues that Count I states a Lanham Act claim against GreenShift for false advertising, despite the fact that neither the Lanham Act nor false advertising are even referenced in the First Amended Complaint."
ICM Lacks Standing To Plead A Lanham Act Claim:
"Notwithstanding the lack of any mention in its Complaint and the First Amended Complaint, ICM focuses the first three pages of its argument on its new claim. Although lCM's new direction telegraphs lCM's lack of confidence in the claims it actually did make in its Complaint and the First Amended Complaint (one of which it now voluntarily dismisses), a Lanham Act claim is not stated in the Complaint or First Amended Complaint, so it should not be considered."
Providing Notice Under § 154(d) Does Not Violate The Lanham Act.:
"ICM has failed to cite even a single case where a patentee was held liable under the Lanham Act for providing actual notice to actual infringers under § 154( d)."
Footnotes are always interesting:
2 ICM has repeatedly mischaracterized GreenShift's arguments and resorted to hurling insults at GreenShift ("those letters included statements beyond the scope of notice required by law which were in fact false"). (See Plaintiffs Response in Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss ("Opposition"), Docket Entry No. 35, p. 6). This conduct is unfortunate and strongly suggests that ICM realizes that its substantive arguments fail the common sense test.
6 GreenShift notes that ICM withdraws its claim for a violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"). (Opposition, p. 18). It is unfortunate that ICM forced GreenShift to brief an issue that on its face could not be asserted by ICM.
SEE ENTIRE FILING HERE
The SkunK encourages everyone to read through this and all the filings and make up your own mind. Information is a good thing.
SkunK
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Reliability issues with Non-Patented COES?????
Here is an excerpt from Golden Grain LLC's most recent filing on 16 March:We are continuing to fine tune the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment. We continue to experience reliability issues with the corn oil extraction equipment. page.17
Hey SkunK - Who's design were they using? Not "200 proof" positive - since they do not say after it was built. But this is what they said in July of 2008:
“Golden Grain is going to put in the ICM-designed corn-oil-extraction system here,” confirmed Walt Wendland, president of Golden Grain Energy. “We will install back-end extraction equipment to take out the free oil in the solubles.” The ethanol plant expects to generate enough corn oil to produce 15 MMgy of biodiesel. http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2450
Not sure how much of 2009 they were running the COES, although here on page seven they expect it "will be operational during the first quarter of our 2009 fiscal year." Yet according to their shareholder power point presentation at the annual meeting they only sold 5.2 million lbs of corn oil in FY 2009 (Page 36) [at 7.6#/gallons that is 684,211 gallons - or .684MMgy] (SkunK note: A good biodiesel plant can get nearly 1:1 ratio of corn oil feedstock to biodiesel)
*********************
From the what its worth department. GreenShift shareholders may find it very interesting that ICM has a business model where they have certain technologies that are licensed. Another company, Fagen, installs the technology and pays ICM a license fee. I can imagine that if Fagen were to just go out and install ICM's technology without paying the license fee they could do it much cheaper and with higher margins? But Fagen does not. Fascinating. . ."We were granted a license by ICM to use certain ethanol production technology necessary to operate our ethanol plant. The cost of the license granted by ICM was included in the amount we paid to Fagen to design and built our ethanol plant and expansion."
p. 7
*********************
SkunK
OT-PS. If the SkunK was making home made wine (not that I ever had - I said "if") , and it was as cloudy as the corn oil above, I would let 'er set for awhile no matter how thirsty I was gettng. And if it had that much sediment - I would carefully siphon it into another bottle. I have been told by "others" that such impurities cause hangovers - can't imagine impurities help at the biodiesel plant either.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Big River Resources Galva, LLC, et al. "Waiting for Cardinal"
SkunK put on some 350+ miles on his trip and is back and ready to go.
First, the schedule for the hearing for the preliminary injunction stays the same for Cardinal:
Cardinal shall file on or before 24 March.
GERS will file reply brief on or before 5 April.
Hearing for Motion of Preliminary Injunction is set for 15 April
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcZThmYWY5YmUtOWZhZi00ZGFkLWI0ZTItZDVjYzQwYjY0ODdl
********************
*************
*************
Second, the preliminary injuction hearing for the Big Rivers is scheduled for 20 April. It looks like the Big Rivers case is waiting for the results of the Cardinal Case we were just talking about, on the 15th of April.
*************
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, March 17, 2010:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Motion hearing held 3/17/2010. Defendants' motion to stay [23] is granted in part and denied in part. This case is stayed through April 20, 2010, pending the hearing for preliminary injunction scheduled for 4/15/2010 in the related case before Judge McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana (case 10 CV 180). {Seems to refer to the Cardinal case above} Status hearing in this case is set for 4/20/2010 at 1:00p.m. at which time the parties shall provide this court with an update regarding the status of the case in the Southern District of Indiana. Mailed notice(slb,
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMzFiNzdmZDQtYjViYy00OWMwLWIwZTctMDNmMjE0YTJiODgz&hl=en
*************
SkunK
First, the schedule for the hearing for the preliminary injunction stays the same for Cardinal:
Cardinal shall file on or before 24 March.
GERS will file reply brief on or before 5 April.
Hearing for Motion of Preliminary Injunction is set for 15 April
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcZThmYWY5YmUtOWZhZi00ZGFkLWI0ZTItZDVjYzQwYjY0ODdl
********************
*************
*************
Second, the preliminary injuction hearing for the Big Rivers is scheduled for 20 April. It looks like the Big Rivers case is waiting for the results of the Cardinal Case we were just talking about, on the 15th of April.
*************
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, March 17, 2010:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Motion hearing held 3/17/2010. Defendants' motion to stay [23] is granted in part and denied in part. This case is stayed through April 20, 2010, pending the hearing for preliminary injunction scheduled for 4/15/2010 in the related case before Judge McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana (case 10 CV 180). {Seems to refer to the Cardinal case above} Status hearing in this case is set for 4/20/2010 at 1:00p.m. at which time the parties shall provide this court with an update regarding the status of the case in the Southern District of Indiana. Mailed notice(slb,
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMzFiNzdmZDQtYjViYy00OWMwLWIwZTctMDNmMjE0YTJiODgz&hl=en
*************
SkunK
Thursday, March 18, 2010
ROAD TRIP!
Expect news. Always happens when I am on the road and away from the computer . . .
Later,
SkunK
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - New Court Filing
Here is a new GreenShift filing on the Big River part of the now six fingered litigation.
"Big River's assertion that venue in Illinois is improper is baseless. Looking behind the scenes, this motion is nothing more than a stalling tactic that is part of a larger war of attrition waged by ICM, Inc., the manufacturer of the equipment used by Big River and other direct infringers to infringe CleanTech’s patent. ICM and the direct infringers like Big River hope that CleanTech is put out of business long before its claims are heard on the merits. Putting aside the underlying reason for this motion, the sole basis for the motion - improper venue - is fatally flawed because venue in Illinois is undeniably proper." p.2
". . . , Big River seems to argue that this action should be transferred to join the New York Action, although Big River makes no indication that it would consent to personal jurisdiction in New York. The door would then be open for Big River to dispute personal jurisdiction in New York - causing yet further delay.
Even if Big River did submit to personal jurisdiction in New York, the preliminary injunction hearing would inevitably be significantly further delayed, which again plays into Big River's and ICM's strategy." p.8Click to see all
SkunK
The SkunKs first glove was a six fingered hand me down. I think it was a spalding - that my brother earned picking stawberries for 10c a quart. Least that's the way I remember it.
1. GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION v. CARDINAL ETHANOL, LLC.
2. GS Cleantech Corporation v. Big River Resources Galva, LLC et al.
3. ICM, Inc. v. GS Cleantech Corporation et al.
4 GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc. v. GreenShift Corporation.
5. GS CleanTech Corporation v. GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc. et al.
6. ICM also believed named in litigation directly above on 10/23/2010.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
'Environmental protectionism'
Ukraine rapeseed exports may stumble over EU laws
— filed under: Black Sea News
Ukraine's rapeseed exports are set to decline for a second successive year of decline, and may fall "significantly" more if biofuels regulations in Europe prove as damaging as some critics fear.
Low temperatures, which have set back some winter-sown fields, have already left production on track for a small drop to 1.80m tonnes this years, with exports in 2010-11 expected to fall by 6%, a report by US officials said.
However, the drop in exports, for which Ukraine relies on the European Union buyers for some 80% of trade, could prove substantially more if a Brussels directive aimed at promoting renewable fuels puts some Ukrainian supplies out of bounds.
The country's crushers are expected to process only 150,000 tonnes of rapeseed in 2009-10, 8.0% of the nation's crop.
However, the country in January introduced biofuels subsidies which have helped attract many organisations into the sector, including Landkom, the London-listed farm operator, and Richard Spinks, the group's former chief executive, who has started a new venture, Alternativa.
See rest Here
SkunK
— filed under: Black Sea News
Ukraine's rapeseed exports are set to decline for a second successive year of decline, and may fall "significantly" more if biofuels regulations in Europe prove as damaging as some critics fear.
Low temperatures, which have set back some winter-sown fields, have already left production on track for a small drop to 1.80m tonnes this years, with exports in 2010-11 expected to fall by 6%, a report by US officials said.
However, the drop in exports, for which Ukraine relies on the European Union buyers for some 80% of trade, could prove substantially more if a Brussels directive aimed at promoting renewable fuels puts some Ukrainian supplies out of bounds.
The country's crushers are expected to process only 150,000 tonnes of rapeseed in 2009-10, 8.0% of the nation's crop.
However, the country in January introduced biofuels subsidies which have helped attract many organisations into the sector, including Landkom, the London-listed farm operator, and Richard Spinks, the group's former chief executive, who has started a new venture, Alternativa.
See rest Here
SkunK
Monday, March 15, 2010
Shsh! Investors Only. . .
Pushing aside the obvious danger in commenting on a trend - during the trading day, (Comment may be overrun by events by the end of the day!) the SkunK just wants to note that the volume through lunch is a VERY low 15M shares.
A very plausible board theory has us pushed up against the OS - and we will stay there until at least 29 March. The SkunK doesn't have a good theroy #2. Like always, call it the way YOU see it.
sts I-Hub post/German time?
GERS DEF14C
********************
The roads having just been cleared of ice and snow up here north of Hooterville, the SkunK dug out his bike yesterday. (Sold the motor bike, this is a pedal bike). I surprised myself with my youth and vigor as I pedaled out of the hilly wooded area where I live and raced down the nearby flat farm roads. That is until I turned around. It was only then that I discovered the youth and vigor was really a 15mph wind (previously) at my back - and now in my face.
Hopefully this is the season our headwinds in GreenShift land becomes a pleasent breeze to our backs.
SkunK
A very plausible board theory has us pushed up against the OS - and we will stay there until at least 29 March. The SkunK doesn't have a good theroy #2. Like always, call it the way YOU see it.
sts I-Hub post/German time?
GERS DEF14C
********************
The roads having just been cleared of ice and snow up here north of Hooterville, the SkunK dug out his bike yesterday. (Sold the motor bike, this is a pedal bike). I surprised myself with my youth and vigor as I pedaled out of the hilly wooded area where I live and raced down the nearby flat farm roads. That is until I turned around. It was only then that I discovered the youth and vigor was really a 15mph wind (previously) at my back - and now in my face.
Hopefully this is the season our headwinds in GreenShift land becomes a pleasent breeze to our backs.
SkunK
US-UKRAINE Business Council
The Article is not new - but the source is. Get a look at this site, the US-Ukraine Business Council. Go to the link below and look at the 5th article in the top ten list of business events here. There you will see GreenShift featured. Look around this site and get a feel for the opportunities and the challenges in Ukraine.
USUBC
SkunK
Sunday, March 14, 2010
When is the next Filing Due?
The next required filing is the 2009 Annual Report. That filing is due 31 March 2010. An automatic 15 day extension is available. The dates of release from earliest to oldest over the previous three years were: April 16th, 7th, 17th.
We then get a quick turnaround with the 1Q due Monday, May 17, 2010. An automatic 5 day extension is available. The dates of release from earliest to oldest - over the previous three years were: May 20th, 20th, 21st
Some notes to remember:
1. If a filing due date falls on a weekend or SEC holiday, the filing is due on the following business day.
2. The EDGAR system hours of operation for submitting files are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time, weekdays, excluding Federal Holidays. Files submitted after 5:30 p.m. Eastern (with the exception of Section 16 filings) will receive the next business day's filing date.
3. Companies may request a filing extension for their Form 10-Q's and 10-K's by submitting Form 12b-25 via the EDGAR system. By filing this form, a filer may gain up to 5 additional days to file Form 10-Q or 15 days to file Form 10-K. Companies have up to 24 hours after the original filing deadline to file Form 12b-25.
SEC filing Calender
GreenShift SEC filings
SkunK
We then get a quick turnaround with the 1Q due Monday, May 17, 2010. An automatic 5 day extension is available. The dates of release from earliest to oldest - over the previous three years were: May 20th, 20th, 21st
Some notes to remember:
1. If a filing due date falls on a weekend or SEC holiday, the filing is due on the following business day.
2. The EDGAR system hours of operation for submitting files are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time, weekdays, excluding Federal Holidays. Files submitted after 5:30 p.m. Eastern (with the exception of Section 16 filings) will receive the next business day's filing date.
3. Companies may request a filing extension for their Form 10-Q's and 10-K's by submitting Form 12b-25 via the EDGAR system. By filing this form, a filer may gain up to 5 additional days to file Form 10-Q or 15 days to file Form 10-K. Companies have up to 24 hours after the original filing deadline to file Form 12b-25.
SEC filing Calender
GreenShift SEC filings
SkunK
Saturday, March 13, 2010
COES are a BIG DEAL (continued)
Is Corn Oil Extraction a big Deal to ICM?
After the "End is Near" advance leading up to the "ICM, Inc. Guarantees Food AND Fuel Production in 2010" (July 2008 promotion) - ICM does not list another Press release until four PR's in 2010.
http://www.icminc.com/news/#press-releases
Two of these 2010 releases involve ICM defending customers who purchased non-patented COES from ICM.
One other release is about the new position of Vice President - who's duties include:
"Gibson will be working closely with ICM’s research scientists, lab technicians, and engineers to investigate high-value feed ingredients that can be produced when new technologies are integrated with the current ethanol production process. He will also focus efforts to derive additional value from feed ingredients produced during the traditional dry-mill ethanol manufacturing process."
Sound a bit like this may involve Corn Oil Extraction?
After the "End is Near" advance leading up to the "ICM, Inc. Guarantees Food AND Fuel Production in 2010" (July 2008 promotion) - ICM does not list another Press release until four PR's in 2010.
http://www.icminc.com/news/#press-releases
Two of these 2010 releases involve ICM defending customers who purchased non-patented COES from ICM.
One other release is about the new position of Vice President - who's duties include:
"Gibson will be working closely with ICM’s research scientists, lab technicians, and engineers to investigate high-value feed ingredients that can be produced when new technologies are integrated with the current ethanol production process. He will also focus efforts to derive additional value from feed ingredients produced during the traditional dry-mill ethanol manufacturing process."
Sound a bit like this may involve Corn Oil Extraction?
That forth PR is "to retrofit an existing, but idled ethanol plant in Fulton, NY". This is the plant the GreenShift originally had a contract to put in two patented GreenShift COES. Do you wonder who ICM will recommend?
In any case it seems that since mid 2008 ICM's press releases have centered on Corn Oil Extraction.
Is Corn Oil Extraction a big deal to ICM?
SkunK
Friday, March 12, 2010
END is NEAR?
Scroll down a page here: http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f78/icm-makes-food-ethanol-18638/
andhttp://endisnear.com/
If you don't go straight through on the second link - click the "endisnear" link at top left corner of the page.
Its worth it. Seldom do we see an advertiser tie a product line to vivid images of the apocalypse/end times. SkunK
Thursday, March 11, 2010
GERS COES are a BIG DEAL. . .
I have always said - I am here because of the GreenShift Corn Oil Extraction Systems (COES). They are HUGE!
Well SkunK - How about some evidence?
I know, a few investors would prefer to stay in bed when their neighbor wakes them up shouting that the house is on fire. I can hear 'em say, "I'll wait for the firemen to show up - when the pros are here I'll know its a real fire." If you're the type that only listens to the 'experts' - lets take a look at what they are saying - and more importantly - what the ethanol industry pros are doing!
WESTFELIA
GreenShift was awarded its '858 patent at noon on 13 October 2009. TWO minutes later - at 12:02 PM Westfelia amended its complaint to include non-infringement and invalidity. When you got that kind of focus - you know the GreenShift COES are a big deal.
(PDF p. 7 at this link- this is GreenShifts newest filing in the ICM case)
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYzBmMjUxZjYtMjg3ZS00ZDYyLTg5ZjMtZjJmYzAyNjYyZDE1&hl=en
Internet users
The Skunk had a blog last January - telling you a little bit about yourselves - the reader. http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/2009/01/skunk-gers-world-tour.html
Well - I want to show you where we are now - and at the same time show you what the Ethanol Producer professionals are doing. And a bunch seem to be reading this Blog!
This is where we are today:
For a bigger graphic go to this link and click on image http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYjQxOTgwNjAtNzRjMC00ODQ0LWE0NzItYzc4NjNkNjY4MDFi&hl=en
Well SkunK - How about some evidence?
I know, a few investors would prefer to stay in bed when their neighbor wakes them up shouting that the house is on fire. I can hear 'em say, "I'll wait for the firemen to show up - when the pros are here I'll know its a real fire." If you're the type that only listens to the 'experts' - lets take a look at what they are saying - and more importantly - what the ethanol industry pros are doing!
WESTFELIA
GreenShift was awarded its '858 patent at noon on 13 October 2009. TWO minutes later - at 12:02 PM Westfelia amended its complaint to include non-infringement and invalidity. When you got that kind of focus - you know the GreenShift COES are a big deal.
(PDF p. 7 at this link- this is GreenShifts newest filing in the ICM case)
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYzBmMjUxZjYtMjg3ZS00ZDYyLTg5ZjMtZjJmYzAyNjYyZDE1&hl=en
Internet users
The Skunk had a blog last January - telling you a little bit about yourselves - the reader. http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/2009/01/skunk-gers-world-tour.html
Well - I want to show you where we are now - and at the same time show you what the Ethanol Producer professionals are doing. And a bunch seem to be reading this Blog!
This is where we are today:
For a bigger graphic go to this link and click on image http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYjQxOTgwNjAtNzRjMC00ODQ0LWE0NzItYzc4NjNkNjY4MDFi&hl=enNotice the HUGE uptake in general interest at the first White Arrow! This is the day the GreenShift COES patents were issued! As the second right arrow shows - Interest has continued to grow. The regular low points are generally Sunday - the day few people are at the office. But what the SkunK finds really interesting is "Who" may be coming to the blog. Lets start with the fifty biggest visitor cities in the last 30 days.
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYWQzZjZhNjgtZmY5ZS00ZGNhLTg3YjgtMjdiOGRkM2JhNmVm&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYmQzNDg0MmMtYWM1NC00NDA3LTk4MGEtYjQwY2FlMzQ4Y2Zi&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYmZmMTNlNDAtYjEwZi00OTEwLTgwNjItYmZjMmUwMGY0OTJl&hl=en
I wonder how many of these smaller cities are Ethanol Industry towns?
In the meantime, here are how the states rank -
Top 15 States:
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcZGJlZThiYmMtMDgyNS00ZjhlLTk4MzctYWU1MzEyNTM5MzQ0
Next 16-33 states:
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcNjYyMjBhMDgtZDhhZC00M2U1LWI0YTEtYzQ4NDM4MTU1Nzhh
Also ran:
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMzkzZTgzYmQtNWQ2OS00MjA4LWFiNmQtNmNiYzAyZjU5MmNl&hl=en
More later,
SkunK
US Senate passes tax credit extension
Biodiesel revives!
With passage of H.R. 4213, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate must reconcile the differences between the two versions of the bill approved by the respective chambers. H.R. 4213 as approved by the U.S. House in December, 2009 also provides for a one year retroactive extension of the biodiesel tax incentive. Timing for presidential signature and tax credit reinstatement is uncertain.
Rest of Article Here:http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/03/11/biodiesel-revives-senate-passes-tax-credit-extension-imperium-restarts-production/
SkunK
With passage of H.R. 4213, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate must reconcile the differences between the two versions of the bill approved by the respective chambers. H.R. 4213 as approved by the U.S. House in December, 2009 also provides for a one year retroactive extension of the biodiesel tax incentive. Timing for presidential signature and tax credit reinstatement is uncertain.
Rest of Article Here:http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/03/11/biodiesel-revives-senate-passes-tax-credit-extension-imperium-restarts-production/
SkunK
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
ICM Position re-"Hashed"
Rehash
Here is the ICM position v. GreenShift filed on Monday in a 23 page PDF. I encourage everyone to read and draw your own conclusions. Detail and references are increased.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcNmZlYzcwMWQtOGVhYS00MGJhLTk3ZjEtMzMzYzZlMjhkMjM4&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcNmZlYzcwMWQtOGVhYS00MGJhLTk3ZjEtMzMzYzZlMjhkMjM4&hl=en
*********************
re - hash
re - hash
If you are eating in the ICM Cafiteria you might want to think twice about the HASH!
http://www.city-data.com/ks-restaurants/ICM-INC.html
http://www.city-data.com/ks-restaurants/ICM-INC.html
SkunK
No pun-sters were injured in the construction of the blog above.
Greenshift Seeks Quick Injunction Against Cardinal Ethanol
Here is a Green Patent blog with a 8 March entry:
In a previous post, I wrote about GreenShift Corporation’s (GreenShift) patent suit against GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc. (Westfalia), in which GreenShift accused the New Jersey-based separator and decanter maker of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858 (’858 Patent).
Last month GreenShift asserted the ‘858 Patent again, alleging that Indiana ethanol maker Cardinal Ethanol (”Cardinal”) is infringing the patent by using equipment that employs the patented ethanol processing methods. The suit was filed in federal court in Indianapolis.
Rest of article here
http://greenpatentblog.com/2010/03/08/greenshift-seeks-quick-injunction-against-cardinal-ethanol/
SkunK
In a previous post, I wrote about GreenShift Corporation’s (GreenShift) patent suit against GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc. (Westfalia), in which GreenShift accused the New Jersey-based separator and decanter maker of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858 (’858 Patent).
Last month GreenShift asserted the ‘858 Patent again, alleging that Indiana ethanol maker Cardinal Ethanol (”Cardinal”) is infringing the patent by using equipment that employs the patented ethanol processing methods. The suit was filed in federal court in Indianapolis.
Rest of article here
http://greenpatentblog.com/2010/03/08/greenshift-seeks-quick-injunction-against-cardinal-ethanol/
SkunK
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Patent Reform in the Works?
The Innovation Alliance, which has been critical of the bill, said the changes "appear to be a positive step in the right direction." The group's executive director, Brian Pomper, said in a statement "We have advocated for significant changes to the post-grant review provisions of the legislation that would prevent repeat legal challenges to patents because allowing repeat challenges would dampen U.S. job creation at the worst possible time."
Rest here:
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/02/leahy-patent-deal-is-close.php
Covered in this blog:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/1557268316.shtml
SkunK
Rest here:
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/02/leahy-patent-deal-is-close.php
Covered in this blog:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/1557268316.shtml
SkunK
Biodiesel, Ethanol may Work Together on Long-Term Tax Credits
Another excellent Blog by Todd Neeley
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=ethanol&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc268be2db01273e87a8d908a1&showCommentsOverride=false
Based on this article:
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1267996551719.xml
Interesting Insight:
"Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol said it may become more difficult to secure long-term credits as the oil industry continues to acquire ethanol assets."
SkunK
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=ethanol&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc268be2db01273e87a8d908a1&showCommentsOverride=false
Based on this article:
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1267996551719.xml
Interesting Insight:
"Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol said it may become more difficult to secure long-term credits as the oil industry continues to acquire ethanol assets."
SkunK
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Question for the SkunK
In reference to my recent classic blog "Thou Shall not Covet" I got the following request:
Anonymous said...
Skunk, I urge you to look for the resolution of this case and see how it turned out. Thank you.
March 7, 2010 3:57 PM.
OK, besides being a sucker for polite requests, it got me wondering - back to the computer for a little research - Until I found this:
************
Update on pending legal issues
Ms. Brown reported that the ICM vs. Abengoa and the City of Colwich lawsuit settled out of court and that she signed the settlement agreement on behalf the City without knowledge of the particular terms of the settlement between the two private companies. CITY OF COLWICH, KANSAS310 S. 2ND STREET REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING7:00 P.M.SEPTEMBER 8, 2008
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/towns/Colwich/minutes/m090808.html
***********
Is the lesson here: No matter how contentious these things seem - they can be settled by cooler heads out of court?
Is it just the SkunK - or did others have a little voice saying Anonymous already knew the answer to his question? Hmmmm.
SkunK
Anonymous said...
Skunk, I urge you to look for the resolution of this case and see how it turned out. Thank you.
March 7, 2010 3:57 PM.
OK, besides being a sucker for polite requests, it got me wondering - back to the computer for a little research - Until I found this:
************
Update on pending legal issues
Ms. Brown reported that the ICM vs. Abengoa and the City of Colwich lawsuit settled out of court and that she signed the settlement agreement on behalf the City without knowledge of the particular terms of the settlement between the two private companies. CITY OF COLWICH, KANSAS310 S. 2ND STREET REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING7:00 P.M.SEPTEMBER 8, 2008
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/towns/Colwich/minutes/m090808.html
***********
Is the lesson here: No matter how contentious these things seem - they can be settled by cooler heads out of court?
Is it just the SkunK - or did others have a little voice saying Anonymous already knew the answer to his question? Hmmmm.
SkunK
Empirical Analysis
The SkunK has searched for recent information on patents with NO joy. Thanks to a reader for finding this March 2010 scholarly work on patents. This is a 23 page PDF so I have only a small excerpt - and the SkunK is still working his way through it. . .
********
Investigating Patent Law’s Presumption of Validity—An Empirical Analysis
Patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) are presumed valid. The Patent Act places the burden of rebutting the presumption on the challenging party, but it does not set forth the evidentiary standard for rebutting it. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) requires clear and convincing evidence of the factual predicates of invalidity.
Rest Here:
http://www.patentlyo.com/files/chatlynne.presumptionofvalidity.final.pdf
SkunK
********
Investigating Patent Law’s Presumption of Validity—An Empirical Analysis
Patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) are presumed valid. The Patent Act places the burden of rebutting the presumption on the challenging party, but it does not set forth the evidentiary standard for rebutting it. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) requires clear and convincing evidence of the factual predicates of invalidity.
Rest Here:
http://www.patentlyo.com/files/chatlynne.presumptionofvalidity.final.pdf
SkunK
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Thou Shall not Covet (thy Neighbor's Road or his Corn Oil Extraction System)
I don't know where to start. Let me sum up recent events through a GreenShift Investor's eyes.First GreenShift says that ICM is selling their Intellectual property without permission. Second ICM sues GreenShift because they are telling ICM's customers that the property ICM is selling them belongs to GreenShift. Oh - and GreenShift does, like have three pesky patents to back up their claims. But to be fair to ICM - it does hurt business - when customers are told your business is selling someone else's property.
Do I know ICM is guilty of patent infringement? No - thats for a court to decide. But I am becoming more aware of how ICM does business - and how much they respect the property rights of other companies. . .
The quotes below, from the minutes of a puplic meeting, tell the story of how ICM wanted a road that was on a neighboring business's property. ICM wanted to use the road, but at some point the owner of the road said no and stopped taking their calls. ICM then went on to sue their hometown to demand that they condemn the private property so ICM could have access to it. Is this a fair assessment by the SkunK? Read the quotes below and make up your own mind. Go to the link and read the entire minutes from this meeting yourself.
ICM wanted use of its neighbor's property - the owner objected - then ICM decided to move forward anyway. Those less charitable than the SkunK might say they see a pattern here. . . But please don't listen to the SkunK - first listen to the Alison McKenney Brown - the Colwich, KS City Attorney . . . .
**************
Ms. Brown
Ms. Brown reviewed for Councilman Pugh that ICM filed suit against the City of Colwich and Abengoa because ICM wanted what was currently a private roadway on Abengoa's property to be a public roadway or they wanted some type of private access agreement with Abengoa. She explained that if made a public roadway, anybody could use it and the concern was that if the City condemned it or acted to make it a roadway, not only could ICM's trucks go up and down that roadway so could all of Abengoa's. She stated that all the people who live in Colwich who were frustrated about truck traffic on 1st Street were going to have everybody's trucks going up and down that road. She stated the City could not say that ICM's trucks were special and they get to use the road and Abengoa's trucks weren't special and they couldn't, as there were some legal rulings on that scenario. She explained that the lawsuit had put the City adverse to both ICM and Abengoa.
**************
Now Listen to the Mayor of Colwich, KS:
Mayor Spexarth
Mayor Spexarth said he went to ICM's counsel eight months ago. ICM's counsel testified in court that Mayor Spexarth went to him and Joe Scheer was sitting there. Mayor Spexarth stated he told them the road was going to close and that the two companies needed to work out a solution. ///Mr. Vander Griend was before the Council now and questioned where was he eight months ago when Mayor Spexarth talked to his counsel.
Mayor Spexarth stated that it was not right to drag his name down, when he did nothing against ICM.
He never said anything bad under oath about ICM and stated both were good companies and that the City would like to work this out and stated that this was why he went to ICM eight months ago.
*****************
Listen to what Mr. Sanford, from the company who owned the road, had to say:
Mr. Darrell Sanford, Plant Manager, AbengoaHe stated that Abengoa objected to the unlawful taking of their private property for a non-public purpose. He stated it was not equitable and necessary for a private party to ask the City to obtain access for rights across another parties private property when they had alternate access available to public streets from their own property. He further stated it was inappropriate for the City to take any action regarding this road since ICM had filed litigation in which the City was a named defendant. He urged the Council to check with their Counsel before taking any action, which could effect the pending litigation, and asked the Council not to take action that could jeopardize the City's position in the pending litigation.
***********************
Well, ICM certainly has a side to this story and I would be remiss if I left that out.
Mr. Vander Griend
Mr. Vander Griend detailed the financial contributions ICM provided to the Community and Renwick School District totaling $1.3 million. He gave a history of the closing of the private drive, the attempts to contact Abengoa with no response, and the filing of a lawsuit against the City to exercise the contingent road dedication. He stated that removal of the contingent dedication occurred when Abengoa re-platted the complex, without informing ICM, as adjacent landowners.
T
he Great Table Sitting Scandle!(SkunK is exploring whether the following events just resemble - or were the actual basis for any "Saved by the Bell" episodes. In the SkunK's mind - the great question of "who sat at whos table?" is a question usually best left to adolescent situational comedies)Mr. Vander Griend detailed the events that took place at the District Court hearing. He stated he was disappointed that the City Attorney sat at the Abengoa table and did not remain neutral or that the City Attorney did not represent a business in Colwich that, in his view, had been very active in supporting the City, but was sitting at the table supporting Abengoa in their attempt to close the road. He stated that it was never the intent of the City, nor High Plains, to block in ICM and deny them access to 1st Street.
(Ms. Brown (City Attorney) addressed Mr. Vander Griend explaining that there were two tables in a courtroom, one for plaintiffs and one for defendants. She stated ICM sued the City making the City a defendant and she was bound to sit at the defendants' table. She stated that the other defendant was Abengoa. She stated she did not get to pick and choose, and the City as a defendant was required to sit at defendants' table. She said that she did not sit between them, she had a corner at the end of the table with enough room for her book, (Sorry but the SkunK has to ask: "Enough room for her book?") nobody bothered her, and she was not choosing sides. She stated that if the judge had suddenly changed the rules of court, maybe she could have had her own table, but that was not permitted.Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Hirsch, Abengoa's counsel, was willing to state to the Governing Body that the rules of court demanded City's counsel to sit at the defendants table that it was not her choice, and it was not an action in favor of Abengoa or against ICM.)
Mr. Vander Griend stated that the two witnesses for Abengoa were the Mayor and the City Clerk. He stated that ICM understood there was some sort of handshake agreement to close the road after the First Street project was complete. He stated that he wrote a letter to the City in 2006, but never sent it expressing his frustration over a number of citations received regarding equipment being six-inches too close to the road.
(Mr. Vander Griend asked if anyone had questions for him. Mayor Spexarth stated he had a few comments. Mayor Spexarth stated that Mr. Vander Griend brought up the fact that he had a handshake agreement to close the road, which was not true.)**********************
This is just a flavor the the happenings that took place at a public meeting
CITY OF COLWICH, KANSAS
310 S. 2ND STREET
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.FEBRUARY 11, 2008
http://www.skyways.org/towns/Colwich/minutes/m021108.html
Thanks again to a reader for the link!
SkunK
(and some thought soap opera was an exaggeration!)
aLL BOLD AND CAPS AND ITALICS AND COLORS ARE THE sKUNk'S! To make it more topical, the order of some of the minutes were rearrainged and excerpted. SEE link for full minutes.
Primafuel Awakens from its Slumber?
Primafuel - that advertizes a "SMAART™Oil Solution, an advanced corn oil extraction technology" appears to have issued a press release today. **
http://haoodnla.com/article/lxy09219345y9j01/393492
It is its first release since last August. A "careful" reading of that release sets their base at one customer for the year. ($2m/unit) (On their way to 2009 goal of $4M)
http://www.cleantech.com/news/4794/primafuel-puts-new-spin-biofuel-byp
Its only acknowledged customer is Amaizing Energy - From this July 2008 PR:
http://www.primafuel.com/press_smaart_oil_installed.htm
They had a single mention in the EPA release - the only other extraction company. GreenShift had extensive references.
This is its first release since the GreenShift patents were issued. Not sure how this non-public company fits into any possible litigation. Some may remember both companies were awarded the Biofuel Digest Achievment Award in Dec 2008.
http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/2008/12/biofuels-digest-achievement-award-in.html
SkunK
**Sometimes these press releases get rehashed with a current date. This is not on the company's web site yet - but that is not uncommon either.
http://haoodnla.com/article/lxy09219345y9j01/393492
It is its first release since last August. A "careful" reading of that release sets their base at one customer for the year. ($2m/unit) (On their way to 2009 goal of $4M)
http://www.cleantech.com/news/4794/primafuel-puts-new-spin-biofuel-byp
Its only acknowledged customer is Amaizing Energy - From this July 2008 PR:
http://www.primafuel.com/press_smaart_oil_installed.htm
They had a single mention in the EPA release - the only other extraction company. GreenShift had extensive references.
This is its first release since the GreenShift patents were issued. Not sure how this non-public company fits into any possible litigation. Some may remember both companies were awarded the Biofuel Digest Achievment Award in Dec 2008.
http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/2008/12/biofuels-digest-achievement-award-in.html
SkunK
**Sometimes these press releases get rehashed with a current date. This is not on the company's web site yet - but that is not uncommon either.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Def 14-C
The purpose of this Information Statement is to notify you that the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power of GreenShift Corporation have given their written consent to a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of GreenShift to amend the certificate of incorporation of GreenShift so as to increase the number of shares of authorized common stock from 10,000,000,000 shares to 20,000,000,000 shares. We anticipate that this Information Statement will be mailed on March 9, 2010 to shareholders of record. On or after March 29, 2010, the amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation will be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and become effective.
The Board of Directors approved the amendment in order to comply with GreenShift’s agreements with its senior creditor, YA Global Investments, L.P. (“YA Global”). The convertible debt instruments held by YA Global require that GreenShift maintain a sufficient number of shares of authorized common stock to enable conversion of the convertible debt issued by GreenShift to YA Global.
The Board of Directors anticipates that in the near future GreenShift will have no shares available for issuance upon conversion and will therefore be in default of those debt instruments. Although GreenShift’s ambition is to satisfy its debt to YA Global in cash deriving from one or more potential future financing transactions, it is necessary that this default be cured in the meantime.
SkunK
The Board of Directors approved the amendment in order to comply with GreenShift’s agreements with its senior creditor, YA Global Investments, L.P. (“YA Global”). The convertible debt instruments held by YA Global require that GreenShift maintain a sufficient number of shares of authorized common stock to enable conversion of the convertible debt issued by GreenShift to YA Global.
The Board of Directors anticipates that in the near future GreenShift will have no shares available for issuance upon conversion and will therefore be in default of those debt instruments. Although GreenShift’s ambition is to satisfy its debt to YA Global in cash deriving from one or more potential future financing transactions, it is necessary that this default be cured in the meantime.
SkunK
One Q and One A with the CEO
In the article featured in the previous blog, the SkunK came across this reference to GreenShift:
"In Newfoundland, Canada, GreenShift has equipped a plant to make energy from breaking down fish waste."
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/landkom-founder-emerges-at-head-of-biofuels-group--1430.html
******************************
Having never heard of this Newfoundland connection, the SkunK asked for clarification:
Mr. Kreisler wrote:
"GreenShift has a number of pending international sales prospects. Additional information will be disclosed as and when appropriate.'
********************
I'd like to thank Mr. Kreisler for his response.
SkunK
"In Newfoundland, Canada, GreenShift has equipped a plant to make energy from breaking down fish waste."
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/landkom-founder-emerges-at-head-of-biofuels-group--1430.html
******************************
Having never heard of this Newfoundland connection, the SkunK asked for clarification:
Mr. Kreisler wrote:
"GreenShift has a number of pending international sales prospects. Additional information will be disclosed as and when appropriate.'
********************
I'd like to thank Mr. Kreisler for his response.
SkunK
Ukraine Moving Fast
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/ukraine-land-market-offers-great-opportunity--1409.htmlLandkom founder emerges at head of biofuels group
Landkom founder Richard Spinks has emerged at the helm of a biofuels start-up, which is in the "advanced stages" of sealing a $100m project in Ukraine and is planning plants in Canada and Russia.
The move would appear to put him on course to compete with Landkom, the Ukraine farm operator, which earlier this week unveiled its own biofuel plans.
Mr Spinks, who quit as Landkom chief executive last year, said his new start-up, Alternativa, aimed to open four-to-five plants over the next four years producing biofuels, including potentially jet fuel, as well as edible oils and animal feed.
However, they will also be equipped with facilities to handle other feedstocks, using technology provided by GreenShift, a US biofuels specialist which is partnering Alternativa.
*********************
Rest Here:
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/landkom-founder-emerges-at-head-of-biofuels-group--1430.html
Thanks to a reader for sharing this link!
*********************
Here is a link about the Ukraine situation:
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/ukraine-land-market-offers-great-opportunity--1409.html
SkunK
Landkom founder Richard Spinks has emerged at the helm of a biofuels start-up, which is in the "advanced stages" of sealing a $100m project in Ukraine and is planning plants in Canada and Russia.
The move would appear to put him on course to compete with Landkom, the Ukraine farm operator, which earlier this week unveiled its own biofuel plans.
Mr Spinks, who quit as Landkom chief executive last year, said his new start-up, Alternativa, aimed to open four-to-five plants over the next four years producing biofuels, including potentially jet fuel, as well as edible oils and animal feed.
However, they will also be equipped with facilities to handle other feedstocks, using technology provided by GreenShift, a US biofuels specialist which is partnering Alternativa.
*********************
Rest Here:
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/landkom-founder-emerges-at-head-of-biofuels-group--1430.html
Thanks to a reader for sharing this link!
*********************
Here is a link about the Ukraine situation:
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/ukraine-land-market-offers-great-opportunity--1409.html
SkunK
Thursday, March 4, 2010
ICM: "We’re looking for work"
The SkunK has already laid waste to the myth on the boards that ICM and Westfelia developed the COES and GreenShift somehow then patented their idea. The real timeline given by GreenShift in the filings has NOT been challenged. The GreenShift patent goes back to a provisional application in 2004. http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/2010/02/confirmation.html
In fact, ICM did not start selling their COES until they had purchased two of the COES from the GreenShift Inventors. This does not seem to be in dispute. The SkunK even found a 2005 article where ICM officers talk of buying those particular COES and Westfelia talks of developing a system in the future. http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=4604
****************
2008 - Desperate Times in the Ethanol Industry!
Now - here is another lead that a reader led me to. Many investors (understandably) cannot understand why a legitimate company could possibly decide to ignore US Patent law as a business decision. In fact - this sophistry can lead to the conclusion that something must be wrong with the GreenShift position - since obviously if their patents were valid - those patents would be respected by a lawful company.
Although this article is not about "backend fractionation" and COES - it does paint a vivid picture of what ICM was thinking in the fall of 2008. They did not "want" new business in the ethanol by-product industry - they seemed desperate for it. They had just gone through "downsizing" and ICM was in the process of pushing out new products for the industry. It seems more than a coincidence to the SkunK that they were also seemed to be aggressively undercutting GreenShift in the corn oil extraction business at the same time with non-patetented COES.
Read for yourself in the Sept 2008 Ethanol Producer Magazine:
"If the notion of “fuel and feed-for-food production” isn’t clear enough ICM Inc., a leader in dry-grind U.S. ethanol plant process design, is doing its part to clarify any confusion. It’s not doing this as charity to the industry though.
Not long ago ICM downsized by 105 employees, a striking impact of the industry’s slowdown. At the May 2008 Distillers Grains Technology Council symposium in Kansas City, Mo., Dennis Vander Griend, the brother of ICM’s Chief Executive Officer Dave Vander Griend, said very clearly “We’re looking for work". He meant that the the building bubble of 2005-2006 had burst and ICM needed to roll out its next successful design—". . . http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=4604
SkunK
BIG RIVER Timeline
Meeting March 11th, 9:00a.m. 2010On motion to Exceed Page Limits . . .
Link below is GreenShift argument
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcZmQ0ZjcxMjYtZjdmNS00MmE3LTkwMzYtMWFhZmE3YjkzYjMw&hl=en
Summons
Must respond to Greenshift complaint within 21 days of signature on 22 Feb 2010. SkunK puts that at on or about close of business on 15 March.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYWVmOTUwMTgtMmM0NC00MmJjLWE0YTctZmNiYzU2ODQyNjgy&hl=en
Take a look,
SkunK
Link below is GreenShift argument
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcZmQ0ZjcxMjYtZjdmNS00MmE3LTkwMzYtMWFhZmE3YjkzYjMw&hl=en
Summons
Must respond to Greenshift complaint within 21 days of signature on 22 Feb 2010. SkunK puts that at on or about close of business on 15 March.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcYWVmOTUwMTgtMmM0NC00MmJjLWE0YTctZmNiYzU2ODQyNjgy&hl=en
Take a look,
SkunK
BIG RIVER
HERE are some excerpts from the GreenShift filing. Link below. . .
INTRODUCTION
"Galva is an ethanol manufacturing facility located in Galva, Illinois that began producing ethanol in 2009. Sometime after it began ethanol production, it implemented an infringing corn oil extraction system. West Burlington is also an ethanol manufacturing facility. It began ethanol production in or around early 2008 and began using an infringing corn oil extraction system shortly thereafter."
p.2
Big River's Infringing Corn Oil Extraction System
1. West Burlington and Galva are both extracting corn oil. Both West Burlington and Galva are large ethanol manufacturers. Both extract corn oil from the by-products of the ethanol using a corn oil extraction system. This has been confirmed in various ways. In its April 2008 newsletter, Big River Resources, LLC3 set out that in 2007 “oil extraction project began” in West Burlington. (Ex. C, "The Pipe Line", Vol. 2, Issue 2, April 2008, p. 2.) River Resources also set out that it intended to "implement [a] corn oil extraction system" at Galva in 2008. (Id.) Big River Resources further stated that the "oil extraction project continues to move forward as the equipment is installed and optimized for quantity and quality of nonfood grade corn oil. We anticipate full production as we move out of April and into May to provide corn oil to the bio-diesel industry." (Id. at p. 3). In October 2008, Big River Resources touted the success of the corn extraction process at West Burlington by disclosing that production through September 2008 included "476,465 gallons of non-food grade corn oil", that they "have been very pleased with our corn oil extraction process as we currently produce 5 gallons per minute for a daily production of 7,000 gallons of corn oil marketed for Bio Diesel production, and that the corn oil extraction system "provides additional economic efficiency for Big River Resources." (Ex. D, “The Pipe Line”, Vol. 2 Issue 4, October 2008, p. 3). Information from Galva demonstrates that it too is extracting corn oil from ethanol byproducts. Typically oil content in ethanol by-products is 10.5% to 12.5% or higher prior to corn oil extraction. (Winsness Decl. at ¶ 7.) In October 2006, before either West Burlington or 3 Big River Resources, LLC is believed to be the parent company of West Burlington and Galva. Galva was extracting corn oil, West Burlington provided a sample of its distiller grains with solubles ("DGS") to Iowa State University for purposes of evaluating the use of the DGS for breeding heifers. (Ex. E, “Modified Distillers Grain with Solubles Stored for an Extended Period used to Develop Breeding Heifers,” p. 1). The fat content of the 2006 West Burlington sample - before West Burlington was extracting corn oil - was 13.57 %. (Id, Table 1). Today, with corn oil extraction now occurring at West Burlington, the fat content of the DGS is 9-10.5% fat - obviously less than the 13.57 % fat content in 2006 prior to extracting corn oil. (Ex. F, West Burlington Feed Bids). The fat content of the DGS for Galva is identical to the that of West Burlington, that is 9-10.5%. (Ex. G, Galva Feed Bids). The fact that the fat content of the DGS produced by Galva is identical to the DGS produced by West Burlington shows that Galva is extracting corn oil. (Winsness Decl. at ¶ 8.) Lastly, just recently, Big River Resource's General Manager, Jim Leiting provided confirmation to CleanTech's Chief Technology Officer that both West Burlington and Galva are extracting corn oil. (Id., ¶ 9.)
p. 4-6
CONCLUSION
The facts set out above establish that Big River's use of CleanTech’s patented corn oil extraction technology is causing irreparable harm to CleanTech. Further, CleanTech is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims; the balance of hardships favors enjoining Big River's further infringing use of CleanTech’s patented technology; and granting such an injunction will serve the public interest and promote others to invent and utilize the patent system. For all the foregoing reasons, CleanTech respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for a preliminary injunction. p. 30
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMDQwMzMxODktMjJhNy00MThjLTg1MTctMWM5YzQ5MDBlNjE3&hl=en
SkunK
INTRODUCTION
"Galva is an ethanol manufacturing facility located in Galva, Illinois that began producing ethanol in 2009. Sometime after it began ethanol production, it implemented an infringing corn oil extraction system. West Burlington is also an ethanol manufacturing facility. It began ethanol production in or around early 2008 and began using an infringing corn oil extraction system shortly thereafter."
p.2
Big River's Infringing Corn Oil Extraction System
1. West Burlington and Galva are both extracting corn oil. Both West Burlington and Galva are large ethanol manufacturers. Both extract corn oil from the by-products of the ethanol using a corn oil extraction system. This has been confirmed in various ways. In its April 2008 newsletter, Big River Resources, LLC3 set out that in 2007 “oil extraction project began” in West Burlington. (Ex. C, "The Pipe Line", Vol. 2, Issue 2, April 2008, p. 2.) River Resources also set out that it intended to "implement [a] corn oil extraction system" at Galva in 2008. (Id.) Big River Resources further stated that the "oil extraction project continues to move forward as the equipment is installed and optimized for quantity and quality of nonfood grade corn oil. We anticipate full production as we move out of April and into May to provide corn oil to the bio-diesel industry." (Id. at p. 3). In October 2008, Big River Resources touted the success of the corn extraction process at West Burlington by disclosing that production through September 2008 included "476,465 gallons of non-food grade corn oil", that they "have been very pleased with our corn oil extraction process as we currently produce 5 gallons per minute for a daily production of 7,000 gallons of corn oil marketed for Bio Diesel production, and that the corn oil extraction system "provides additional economic efficiency for Big River Resources." (Ex. D, “The Pipe Line”, Vol. 2 Issue 4, October 2008, p. 3). Information from Galva demonstrates that it too is extracting corn oil from ethanol byproducts. Typically oil content in ethanol by-products is 10.5% to 12.5% or higher prior to corn oil extraction. (Winsness Decl. at ¶ 7.) In October 2006, before either West Burlington or 3 Big River Resources, LLC is believed to be the parent company of West Burlington and Galva. Galva was extracting corn oil, West Burlington provided a sample of its distiller grains with solubles ("DGS") to Iowa State University for purposes of evaluating the use of the DGS for breeding heifers. (Ex. E, “Modified Distillers Grain with Solubles Stored for an Extended Period used to Develop Breeding Heifers,” p. 1). The fat content of the 2006 West Burlington sample - before West Burlington was extracting corn oil - was 13.57 %. (Id, Table 1). Today, with corn oil extraction now occurring at West Burlington, the fat content of the DGS is 9-10.5% fat - obviously less than the 13.57 % fat content in 2006 prior to extracting corn oil. (Ex. F, West Burlington Feed Bids). The fat content of the DGS for Galva is identical to the that of West Burlington, that is 9-10.5%. (Ex. G, Galva Feed Bids). The fact that the fat content of the DGS produced by Galva is identical to the DGS produced by West Burlington shows that Galva is extracting corn oil. (Winsness Decl. at ¶ 8.) Lastly, just recently, Big River Resource's General Manager, Jim Leiting provided confirmation to CleanTech's Chief Technology Officer that both West Burlington and Galva are extracting corn oil. (Id., ¶ 9.)
p. 4-6
CONCLUSION
The facts set out above establish that Big River's use of CleanTech’s patented corn oil extraction technology is causing irreparable harm to CleanTech. Further, CleanTech is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims; the balance of hardships favors enjoining Big River's further infringing use of CleanTech’s patented technology; and granting such an injunction will serve the public interest and promote others to invent and utilize the patent system. For all the foregoing reasons, CleanTech respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for a preliminary injunction. p. 30
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMDQwMzMxODktMjJhNy00MThjLTg1MTctMWM5YzQ5MDBlNjE3&hl=en
SkunK
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
“Curiouser and Curiouser!”
Like a Spanish speaking soap opera this thing keeps building suspense. These legal briefs seem emotion filled , and like Spanish, the SkunK does not grasp it all - but he cannot look away!
**************
In mid Feb the Judge grants GERS motion and schedules Oral argument in FIVE DAYS!:
"The Court having considered plaintiff GS CleanTech's ("CleanTech") Motion for Oral Argument on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and having determined that good cause exists for granting the Motion, it is
Ordered
1. CleanTech's motion for Oral Argument on order for Preliminary Injunction
GRANTED:"
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMDg3YTMwZTgtOWI4OC00ZWFlLThjMGYtNGQ3ZDk4ZTljMmI4&hl=en
***********************
Now the SkunK is the FIRST to admit he does not understand all the nuances here in legal land. But he does have a BS meter. . .
First GERS proposes a schedule abbreviated here:
Plaintiffs motion 3 March;
Reply briefs by 10 March;
Hearing 17 March.
Second Cardinal proposes a schedule abbreviated as follows:
Briefs in opposition by 31 March;
Reply briefs by 12 April;
Hearing April 21.
So Cardinal asks for more time and then accuses GERS of "delay". They base? this on GreenShift filing numerous suits almost immediately after getting the patents in hand, but not filing on Cardinal for a few months. Giving them a chance to come clean is apparently now a fault? No good GreenShift deed goes unpunished? Next GreenShift is accused of "timing" the suit to match the National Ethanol Conference. I have no idea if that is true - or if it even matters if it was true. However I would take the bet that there is a "conference" or "workshop" in the biofuel industry at the state, national or international level every month of the year. GreenShift would have had to "time" the suit NOT to match up with a industry meeting.
**************
In mid Feb the Judge grants GERS motion and schedules Oral argument in FIVE DAYS!:
"The Court having considered plaintiff GS CleanTech's ("CleanTech") Motion for Oral Argument on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and having determined that good cause exists for granting the Motion, it is
Ordered
1. CleanTech's motion for Oral Argument on order for Preliminary Injunction
GRANTED:"
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMDg3YTMwZTgtOWI4OC00ZWFlLThjMGYtNGQ3ZDk4ZTljMmI4&hl=en
***********************
Now the SkunK is the FIRST to admit he does not understand all the nuances here in legal land. But he does have a BS meter. . .
First GERS proposes a schedule abbreviated here:
Plaintiffs motion 3 March;
Reply briefs by 10 March;
Hearing 17 March.
Second Cardinal proposes a schedule abbreviated as follows:
Briefs in opposition by 31 March;
Reply briefs by 12 April;
Hearing April 21.
So Cardinal asks for more time and then accuses GERS of "delay". They base? this on GreenShift filing numerous suits almost immediately after getting the patents in hand, but not filing on Cardinal for a few months. Giving them a chance to come clean is apparently now a fault? No good GreenShift deed goes unpunished? Next GreenShift is accused of "timing" the suit to match the National Ethanol Conference. I have no idea if that is true - or if it even matters if it was true. However I would take the bet that there is a "conference" or "workshop" in the biofuel industry at the state, national or international level every month of the year. GreenShift would have had to "time" the suit NOT to match up with a industry meeting.
GreenShift is ridiculed by the defense for putting out press releases on the law suits. As a shareholder here, I appreciate finding out what is going on with my investment. . . especially when I find out that the hard earned capital I entrusted with a small start up has created not only breakaway intellectual property, . . but patented property. Real property that seems to have been taken from this company and its small investors through patent infringement. Do I and other potential investors have the right to know the details about the legal attempts to recover our stolen property? Damn Straight! It is not just the "GreenShift Corporation" that has suffered apparent patent violation; it is the small GreenShift investors - who has suffered through thick and thin to keep this innovation alive - who are not about to allow it to be snuffed out through either ham-fisted thievery or illegal prestidigitation.
Communicating with shareholders and potential shareholders through company updates is essential for a public company. The SkunK noted the press releases were not accused of containing inaccuracies. . .
Remember ICM is doing the legal work here. Not sure at this point what recourse Cardinal has if this turns sour for them. . . did they sign away various recourse to get free representation?http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcOTIyNmYwMjEtMDZlMC00ZjJmLTk4MTUtZGI3MTQyYWJhNDdm
The good judge then went on to order this compromise time frame.
Briefs in Opposition:March 24th
Reply to Briefs: April 5th
Hearing: April 15th
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcNGMwMTVlM2QtZGNiMy00YzQ2LTkwZ
In any case - read it yourself and I would be interested in your opinions. . .
SkunK
The good judge then went on to order this compromise time frame.
Briefs in Opposition:March 24th
Reply to Briefs: April 5th
Hearing: April 15th
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcNGMwMTVlM2QtZGNiMy00YzQ2LTkwZ
In any case - read it yourself and I would be interested in your opinions. . .
SkunK
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.jpg){kind=link}