Here is a Joint? Letter informing the Judge that this is a "Tag-Along". Interesting lingo. Seems to make the judge's actions below seem even more bold and decisive. Basically what I heard is: "If that is all you got, then you are not going to waste my time going through oral arguments. The detail found in nothing is still nothing. Stay Denied."
See Here
Here is the Guardian Energy, LLC Stay request DENIED
See Here
SkunK
Thanks to Slash for the heads up in a previous comment section about the stay denied.
ANDE: Focusing on Corn Oil, No Choice But to Squeeze More!$!$!$
ReplyDelete--The Andersons' ethanol-group president expects slow growth in ethanol consumption
--Focusing on improving profits through co-products, efficiency
--Near-term profit margins strong
--focusing on byproducts such as corn oil to supplement its profits from ethanol
"Firms are left with no choice but to squeeze more gallons out of the kernel," Mr. McKinstray said.
By Ian Berry
Limits to U.S. ethanol use are requiring ethanol companies to rely on byproducts and more efficient production to succeed, a senior executive at The Andersons Inc. (ANDE) said.
The Andersons and other ethanol producers are counting on increased use of E85, or motor fuel consisting of 85% ethanol, and E15 to boost demand over the long term, Neill McKinstray, president of The Andersons' ethanol division, said in an interview this week.
But for now, most consumers are forced to use E10, due to a lack of new fuel-pump infrastructure and opposition within the automotive industry to a 15% ethanol blend.
The company, whose operations including grain-processing and rail shipping, is focusing on byproducts such as corn oil to supplement its profits from ethanol.
"Firms are left with no choice but to squeeze more gallons out of the kernel," Mr. McKinstray said.
The Maumee, Ohio, company, which had $5 billion in sales in its latest fiscal year, is currently enjoying strong ethanol profit margins, Mr. McKinstray said. But company officials say that as ethanol producers ramp up production in the months ahead, increased use of E15 and E85 won't be able to absorb the supply, which will squeeze margins.
Although U.S. regulators have approved use of fuel blends containing 15% ethanol in vehicles made after 2001, few areas have pumps that serve the higher blend. This has limited growth in ethanol use, even as federal mandates requiring more ethanol use increase.
The adoption of E15 will only happen "slowly," Mr. McKinstray said. The higher ethanol blend is opposed by some in the automotive industry out of concern it harms engines.
Ethanol producers are also counting on growth in use of E85, which can be used in flex-fuel vehicles, but that growth will also be slow, Mr. McKinstray said. The company has said the growth won't be fast enough to overcome an expected increase in production over the next few months.
Mr. McKinstray, who is chairman of the board at the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry trade group, said the industry needs more clarity from the government on its energy policies. The Obama administration's emphasis has shifted away from ethanol, and toward electric cars in recent years, he said.
Renewed support for high-compression, turbo-charged engines that can use E85 blends would give automakers confidence to invest more in those vehicles. The good news for the industry, Mr. McKinstray said, is that E85 is currently at a large discount to regular gasoline at the pump.
"We need more flex-fuel vehicles, but we also need people driving flex-fuel to use E85," he said. "Until recently we haven't had the economic incentive to do so."
The company's ethanol division swung to a profit of $10.6 million from a loss of $2.1 million a year earlier. It operates four ethanol plants and is one of the larger publicly traded ethanol companies by volume. The company's shares have risen 55% this year.
While a recent heat wave across the U.S. corn belt has sparked concerns about the size of the crop and pushed up grain prices, Mr. McKinstray said the situation isn't nearly as dire as it was a year ago, when the worst drought in decades decimated the crop, leading to the smallest harvest in six years.
"After last year, I don't think anything can scare me," he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130828-710600.html
Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
buy bullets, just in case.
ReplyDeleteAnother GERS patent application is coming soon!
ReplyDeleteThat and 25 cents and we still can't buy a newspaper with 300 shares! Come on man, patents, patents, and not a drop of revenue to pay for more litigation.
ReplyDelete[GS Cleantech Corporation v. AEMETIS, INC. et al] 사건번호 1:13-cv-01287에 따르면 원고 GS Cleantech Corporation는 피고 AEMETIS, INC./ AEMETIS ADVANCED FUELS KEYES, INC. 를 상대로 에탄올 부산물을 처리하는 방법과 그 하위 시스템에 관한 특허 US7601858 을 침해하였다는 이유로 미국 캘리포니아 동부 지방법원에 소를 제기하였다.
ReplyDeleteSounds like they want to get into the big dance so ICM can protect them. How glorious.
ReplyDeleteSomeone please help me out here. In light of the August 26, 2013 legal filing which stated in part:
ReplyDelete"The continued infringement hinders CleanTech’s ability to license the technology to ethanol plant operators who consider using (or are currently using) the corn oil extraction technology. When CleanTech is able to successfully license the patents-insuit to a customer, it is at a substantially reduced rate than it would be but for the infringement. Worse still, the continued infringement may cause current licensees to reconsider their licenses."
why hasn't GERS filed the required SEC Form 8-K?
The legal filing was an acknowledgement of what many suspected that there had been changes in the definitive agreement relative to royalties. But this acknowledgement never occurred as required by the SEC to its common shareholders (the last public statement on this figure was 20%, correct?). Has GERS opened itself up to SEC sanctions and common shareholder law suits? Note -- "The company’s business is substantially
dependent on the agreement"
"Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
An 8-K Is Required If:
• The company has entered into a “material
definitive agreement” that is “not made in the
ordinary course of business”
• The company has entered into any
amendment of a material definitive agreement
not made in the ordinary course of business
and such amendment is material to the
company
• The company succeeds as a party to a material
definitive agreement not made in the ordinary
course of business by assumption or
assignment, other than in connection with a
merger, acquisition or similar transaction
A “material definitive agreement” means an
agreement that provides for obligations that are
material to and enforceable against the company,
or rights that are material to the company and
enforceable by the company against one or more
other parties to the agreement, even if subject to
conditions.
Pursuant to the instructions to this item, the
determination of whether an agreement is “not
made in the ordinary course of business”
generally makes use of the Regulation S-K Item
601(b)(10) definition of a material contract, which
is used to determine which agreements must be
filed as exhibits to the company’s periodic reports
and registration statements. However,
compensatory plans, contracts and arrangements
covering directors and executive officers under
Item 601(b)(10)(iii)(A), and equity plans,
contracts and arrangements adopted without
stockholder approval as described in Item
601(b)(10)(iii)(B), are not considered “material
definitive agreements” for purposes of Item 1.01,
even though they fall within the definition of
material contract for purposes of Regulation S-K
Item 601(b)(10).
Applying the standards in Item 601(b)(10) of
Regulation S-K, an agreement will be deemed to
be “not made in the ordinary course of business”
if, among other things:
• The company’s business is substantially
dependent on the agreement
• The agreement calls for the acquisition or sale
of any property, plant or equipment for a
consideration exceeding 15% of such fixed
assets of the company on a consolidated basis
• The agreement is a material lease of property
• A director or officer is a party to the
agreement, other than compensatory
arrangements and contracts involving a
purchase or sale of current assets having a
determinable market price at such market
price
While disclosure of compensatory plans, contracts
or arrangements covering executive officers is not
required under Item 1.01, such disclosure may be
required under Item 5.02(e)."
Who Is Lucky #7?
ReplyDelete"This case before Your Honor is one of seven such potential tag-along cases filed very recently..."
Seven?
1. Aemetis
2. Pacific Ethanol
3. Guardian Energy
4. Western New York Energy
5. Little Sioux Corn Processors
6. Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy
7. ?
Who is lucky #7?
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ch8gAs4lCcYTFRSHF2WjNkZTQ/edit?pli=1
Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$
The answer is Valero?
ReplyDeleteis it mistake slash? I count 6http://www.rfcexpress.com/search.asp
ReplyDeleten0b0dy still crying losng money long time not good trader. time to move out of basemint and learn trade
ReplyDeleteWrong again Mr. Kalashnikov dealer. I am making a fortune with each down-tick. My 4 million shares from June are now worth 14 million shares, and increasing!
ReplyDelete0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
ReplyDeleteWe won't make it that far -- the R/S will be announced before that occurs.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ch8gAs4lCcb0c3TFI1TEhRak83ZDF1Z1FNWnBTUQ/edit?pli=1
ReplyDeleteDid you know that filing was more than 18 months ago? Did you notice that nothing substantive has occurred in the time since the successful execution of the delay, delay, followed by more delay tactic? It is called "litigating the margin"; it is frequently employed; but seldom as successfully as we have witnessed here. Now, who is the " FREAKEN DUMBASS"?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reedleyexponent.com/articles/2013/08/29/news/doc521f6e1694a57971995383.txt
ReplyDeleteIT is happening right now!. I said that IT would happen Friday or this week -- absolutely predictable.
ReplyDeleteOne of the statements that you will read when the R/S is announced is that they cannot understand why the market so undervalues their stock. That is, if we have another R/S and not a BK filing. It is going to be very hard for folks to bluff (pump) this stock back to life.
ReplyDeleteWe need a purge, a coup de grace, to end our misery so we can plan and start over. This death by decimal points is tiresome.
Does anyone know what would happen to the patents that are assigned to YAGI as collateral in the case of a BK filing? Would they be awarded to YAGI by the BK Court?
By the way my 4 million shares form June can now get me more 16 million shares.
New all-time low. More to come I am afraid.
ReplyDeleteprice continues accelerating collapse...
ReplyDeleteF nobody is right!
price continues accelerating collapse...
ReplyDeleteF nobody is right!
We are staring a 1000:1 R/S with major price declines after that or BK in the face. We must accept this reality; any one holding the stock now is out of luck or out of equity.
ReplyDeleten0b0dy still crying losng money long time not good trader. time to move out of basemint and learn trade suker
ReplyDeleteICM's Non-Infringement "Defense" Rejected by the USPTO
ReplyDeleteICM's "defenses" have already been rejected by the courts as "baseless" and "completely without merit" (Prevost/95%) after having been first rejected by the USPTO. Their last defense has already been rejected by the USPTO and the court's will soon agree. In fact, another patent has been allowed even after considering their "sale bar" letter. It's clear the testing was allowed, actually testing didn't end until 2004. The USPTO was not concerned with what I consider ICM's weakest defense yet.
ICM's Non-Infringement "Defense" Rejected by the USPTO
The USPTO has taken ICM's last "defense" into consideration. The USPTO has rejected ICM's argument for non-infringement.
GERS sent a copy of the alleged sale bar letter to the USPTO. This is the letter ICM claimed would make GERS' patents invalid. The USPTO rejected the letter as proof of a sale bar. The letter was within the permitted rights of testing.
In fact, the USPTO just issued GERS another patent after considering the letter, effectively rejecting ICM's only remaining excuse for infringing.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/12Z1D2IO0bwmor5NO8PY5qG01l1X_4yWU19QvGcph3BGGyLD7nRgACO8AHKsL/edit?pli=1
Injunctions are coming for the infringers. There's simply no more excuses.
1st, ICM claimed corn oil extraction was not patentable.
It's been proven that's simply not true. Both the USPTO and the court's have confirmed this.
2nd, ICM claimed Prevost was prior art.
It's been proven that's simply not true. Both the USPTO and the court's have confirmed this.
3rd, ICM claimed non infringement by the "95%" example.
It's been proven that's simply not true. Both the USPTO and the court's have confirmed this.
4th, ICM claimed the alleged offer to sell letter invalidated the patents.
It's been proven that's simply not true. The USPTO has confirmed this, and when the court agrees, Summary Judgment will be granted.
The USPTO has considered the letter and allowed another patent. The USPTO simply isn't concerned with GERS' right to test and clearly does not consider the letter an offer to sell.
Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$
All that old news is correct and it has NOTHING to do with the PPS!
ReplyDelete0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
ReplyDelete0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
ReplyDeleteGERS' 2nd Largest Customer Upgraded to #1 Strong Buy!
ReplyDeleteThe Andersons Inc. (ANDE) Upgraded to a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy).
Why the Upgrade?
Share price and earnings estimates for Andersons have been trending upward on the back of strong second-quarter 2013 results reported on Aug 7. Moreover, shares of this diversified company, which operates in six different business segments ranging from buying, selling and storing grain to leasing railcars and running retail stores, attained its 52-week high of $67.66 on Aug 29. The long-term expected earnings growth rate for this stock is 12%.
Andersons reported second-quarter 2013 earnings of $1.57 per share, up 1% from $1.56 per share earned in the year-ago quarter and beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.52 by 3%. The upbeat results were driven by record operating profit at the Ethanol and Rail Groups, and increased profit in the Retail Group. Andersons delivered positive earnings surprises in two of its last four quarters with an average beat of 48.13%.
In July, Andersons, in association with Lansing Trade Group, finalized the acquisition of Blenheim, Ontario-based Thompsons Limited, a grain and food-grade bean handler and agronomy input provider. Thompsons operates through 12 Andersons’ grain and nutrient businesses and is expected to be accretive to earnings for full year 2014.
In August, Andersons announced the acquisition of Kansas City, Miss.-based railcar repair and cleaning provider Mile Rail, LLC. The acquisition, which is expected to be finalized in the third quarter, is a strategic fit with Andersons’ Rail Group and is projected to increase its railcar repair revenues by 25%. Going forward, the Rail Group is expected to continue to perform well based on proficiently managed railcar portfolio.
The Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2013 increased 1% to $4.13 per share over the last 30 days. For 2014, the Zacks Consensus Estimate moved north by 3% to $5.26 per share.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/andersons-upgraded-strong-buy-191002380.html
Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$
The Winner is... Homeland Energy Solutions!$!$!$!$
ReplyDeleteI was looking around the USPTO public PAIR website when I discovered the identity of lucky #7...
http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Enter patent # 7601858 be sure to check the "patent" box. Then click on image file wrapper. The 13 page PDF filed on 8/23 with the USPTO contains the complaint against Homeland Energy Solutions.
This is a big 120 MGY plant in Lawler, IA. The CEO, Walt Wendland, is also the CEO of Golden Grain.
Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
Slash,
ReplyDeleteI think that trumpeting success of our licensees is counterproductive. In fact, it is like "sleeping with the enemy".
These are the same cast of businesses that according to GERS:
"When CleanTech is able to successfully license the patents-insuit to a customer, it is at a substantially reduced rate than it would be but for the infringement. Worse still, the continued infringement may cause current licensees to reconsider their licenses".
In other words, they are aiding and abetting the infringers with their financial pressure that they are placing opportunistically (using GERS' weakened state due to the litigation and infringement) on GERS while profiting handsomely from GERS' technology as ICM and others successfully execute their strategy of "litigating around the margins".
Pretending that they are friends of GERS, is not accurate; they are part of the problem.
Tomorrow another low and the profits will keep rolling for the licensees.
REAL reason for short extension
ReplyDeletebuying time to load the boat
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
ReplyDelete0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$$0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
0.0001 ---> coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$
Does any one have an idea what would happen to public infringers stock if the SJ is rendered in GERS' favor? Does any one have an idea what many months of hoping and wishing for the Supreme Court to hear the case will do to their stock with judgment rendered against them? Does any one have an idea why the appeals court has not heard ICM's writ?
ReplyDeleten0b0dy still crying losng money long time not good trader. time to move out of basemint and learn trade suker
ReplyDelete