The below is why "Investor Stem Cell" is a must for serious investors.
"rocky, would you mind sharing your opinions on the 3 lawsuits? Potential killers or not
worried? Anything you can share is appreciated and thanks for all the info you provide.
Can you post on the Corner? thank you"
Beth, I have been getting this question often so I will try to explain what I think at this time.
Let it be known that one court filing can change my outlook..
Make no mistake, A/G was taken to the cleaners not long ago on their 1st amended complaint.
Fraud(backdating) charges dismissed, Engstrom Warrant dismissed. The Woodward warrant survived the first
go around and is included in their 2nd amended claim. IMO, the Woodward warrant is weak as I stated
before. A/G is claiming this was issued at .10 in 2005. Unless all the SEC filings are wrong this seems
to be an item that will be dismissed when arguments begin. Woodward stands for now and ACT
did not ask to dismiss because they asked prior and it was ruled to stand. As ACT recently stated,
" The one surviving claim, for breach of contract respecting the Woodward Warrant, escaped dismissal
based on a dispute of fact".
As for the Colby warrant, ACT seems to have fact that warrant was issued PRIOR to pricing period.
Andwell/Burrows Warrants, Lock up period prevented any exercise until after plaintiffs pricing period
Stock Sales to Outboard, Ice Cap Holdings, and Tuxedo Holdings.(10 SEC transactions)
The meat and potatoes detail of whether these transactions are allowable really is not on the table, imo.
Rather as ACT stated, A/G is pointing to what is going on in another lawsuit and really brought no due
dilligence to the court. Piggybacking and parrot are the terms used. A/G references allegations in another
ongoing case, doesn't seem to cut it when reading pleading standards, jmo.
Current opinion: I would not be real shocked if 3 of the 4 claims are again dismissed leaving the Woodward warrant
which imo from what I have read doesn't fly either.
Really not sure how long this will go. I can't imagine not trying to settle once ACT obtains the discovery
facts they are looking for.
ACT has already, "expensed the $3.5 million as “fines and penalties” in the consolidated statement of operations and recorded the $3.5 million liability to “loss contingency accrual” in the consolidated balance sheet.
This signifies the above is probable, it could be more or less, but expected, imo.
Not much else to say at this time on the SEC case. When a settlement is reached cash is due the SEC
so drawing down on Lincoln or other available sources will be necessary.
I have no documents which say outright that CAM has included SEC transactions in their amended complaint.
I am assuming they have so everything is based on that assumption. Their amended complaint is 7 months along
now so one of two things have happened.
1) SEC transaction were allowed in amended claim
2) SEC transactions were not allowed and they continue on other fronts.
I tend to lean towards #1 because of the 27 e-mails recently required to be produced by ACT.
CAM filed their amended complaint about 60 days prior to the actual SEC lawsuit filing so no
"parrot or piggyback" was really possible as seems to be the case with A/G.
This case has always been one I have worried the most about and of course it's the only case
we are not privy to info like all the others...go figure Make no mistake, CAM is owed shares
just like the other 50, it's the adjustment price that is the concern. Based on what I don't know
and cannot see in filings I cannot give an opinion at this time where it's headed. Maybe Tuesday's
Status Conference will give us a direction or inkling, right now I don't know what to think and I am
being honest saying that.
Beth, you asked "Potential killers or not worried? I worry about them all until I see a settlement.
With 10 being a "potential killer" and 0 being "not worried at all" I rank them this way...
A/G: currently a 1(moves to 5 if SEC transactions are allowed)
SEC: currently a 2
CAMOFI: currently a 7-8 based on lack of info(drops considerably if SEC transactions fail or are not a part of amendment)
Hope some of this info helps Beth, remember, it's only an opinion..thanks