Here are some new litigation links - at first blush they all appear administrative in nature?
*********************
Blue Flint Change of Ownership Public company sells its 51% share of Blue Flint to non-profit cooperative Great River Energy for $18.5 million in cash. As reported HERE
BlueFlint Certification
Al-Corn Clean Fuel Attorney Withdrawals
SkunK
Withdrawal from representation, in United States law, occurs where an attorney terminates a relationship of representing a client. There are two types of withdrawal: mandatory and voluntary. Mandatory withdrawal occurs where a circumstance arises under which an attorney must terminate the representation, while voluntary withdrawal occurs where circumstances permit the attorney to terminate the representation at the attorney's election. Where litigation has been filed and an attorney is representing the client in court, permission of the court must usually be sought in support of an attorney's withdrawal.
ReplyDelete[edit] Mandatory withdrawal
There are many circumstances which require that an attorney must withdraw from a case:
1.The client fires the attorney.
2.The attorney determines that he is not competent to continue representing the client in a matter.
3.A conflict of interest arises under which the attorney's continued representation of multiple clients impairs the attorney's obligations to the individuals.
4.The client insists upon advancing a frivolous claim.
5.Continued representation would violate the rules of professional responsibility.
6.The attorney is in a physical or emotional state that seriously impairs the attorney's ability to continue the representation.
7.It is likely that the attorney will be called as a necessary witness as to a contested issue in the proceeding, and that testimony can not be obtained elsewhere.
8.The attorney discovers that the client is using the attorney's services to further a criminal act.
[edit] Voluntary withdrawal
An attorney may voluntarily terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time and without reason, if this will not have a material adverse effect on the interests of the client. Even if the withdrawal will be adverse to the client the attorney may still withdraw for a number of reasons:
1.The client is engaged in illegal or fraudulent activity.
2.The client fails to pay fees as agreed.
3.The financial burden on the attorney of continuing the representation is too great.
4.The client refuses to follow the advice of counsel, or engages in acts relating to the representation without informing the attorney or seeking the attorney's advice.
5.The attorney is engaged with co-counsel of the client's choosing, and is unable to work with that co-counsel.
Skunk,
ReplyDeleteHave you cganed your email address? I've not had a response to a message I sent on Thursday. I've updated my cash flow forecast if you want to publish it. Let me know - my email address is the same.
Neil
Let us use our cerebrum instead of our limbic system for a while to look closely at the 30% mystery.
ReplyDeleteThis is the January 11th statement in the press release:
Over 30% of the industry is currently using GreenShift’s patented and patent-pending extraction technologies.
The following are statements from the Q3 released on November 21st:
More than 15% of the ethanol industry has licensed our patented and patent-pending corn oil extraction technologies.
Our business continues to improve. We won significant new business during 2011, increasing licensed penetration to more than 15% of the industry and more than doubling the amount of production licensed to use our extraction technologies from 1.0 billion gallons per year (“BGY”) at the end of 2010 to more than 2.0 BGY of ethanol production today.
Our goals for the balance of 2011 are to work with our licensees to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of recovering corn oil; increase our licensed penetration to facilities producing a total of 2.3 BGY of ethanol
Note two things: 1) The Q3 ALWAYS uses the qualifier “licensed” when referencing the percentage of market, the PR “using”, and 2) If GERS accomplished its goal of 2.3 BGY by year’s end that would only translate into 17.3% (you can do the algebra).
The 30% cannot be referencing the portion of the market that is licensing with GERS at this time. What the 30% figure references (if not a typographical error) is not clear. Skribe (I-Hub post # 23738) may have the best assessment, 30% is the portion of the market using GERS technology, licensed and not licensed.
Therefore, do not expect an announcement of a number of major new signings soon UNLESS there has been a settlement that we do not know about that includes a licensing agreement.
Hopefully, the recent run of the PPS is not based on this assumption.
"Over 30% of the industry is currently using GreenShift’s patented and patent-pending extraction technologies."
ReplyDelete"More than 15% of the ethanol industry has licensed our patented and patent-pending corn oil extraction technologies."
Over 30% are users, over 15% are licensed. A bunch of those users with no license are under litigation. No in-depth analysis required.
Hi all. Interesting story here. Discovered it on cable. I need help with research. The blog names a billion in installations but there's twice that? What's the names of the other billion. TY
ReplyDeleteLiebert
100% buy!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tradingday.com/tbs.html?http://quotes.barchart.com/texpert.asp?sym=GERS&code=BTDY
Liebert,
ReplyDeleteThe general consensus is the positive Markman hearingand rejected infringers patents led to some sort of settlement. The ongoing negotiations are sensitive and thats why the names haven't been released.