buyer beware: I have researched CLIR and as a consequence have taken a short position. Here’s why.
CLIR has patents pending. These are formal expressions of its technology. That expression was used to help the company go public and continues to help promote the stock price. However, today’s expression was actually put together in April 2009. Was it sincere? The “inventors” on the patent application are ….
Chief Science Officer and CLIR inventor, largest shareholder and director, Goodson ‒ CLIR’s SEC filed documents claim he collaborated with Nobel Prize winners Crick and Watson when in high school. That story is highly improbable. They had not yet won the prize and were still obscure when Goodson was in high school. Also, Crick lived in England at the time, and Watson, in America. CLIR claims two patents for him ‒ on one he is not listed as the inventor; the other is an abandoned application -- not a patent. He also started up a company and solicited for investors based upon a “patent pending” idea which would apply electric fields to the fermentation process. This sounds too familiar. This patent application was also abandoned. Credibility is at stake here: this is the Chief Science Officer. (And what degree does he have? I can’t find it. A disclosure from the company would be nice.) See his other science projects, search “The Alternative Energy Resource Alliance”. Why isn’t there a disclosure in SEC documents declaring his relationships with his other companies?
Tech Advisor: Hartwick. Involved with SSTP, which was closely related to USSE and John Rivera. Search for SSTP Thomas Hartwick and Search for USSE, SSTP, John Rivera, fraud.
Rutkowski and Osler are businessmen, not combustion scientists.
Wiklof is a patent agent.
These are the five inventors listed on CLIR’s first expression of its technology. Where are the scientists responsible for the original formulation and expression of CLIR’s technology?
Sentiment: Strong Sell
CLIR's website and whitepaper seems to be designed to cast a wide net and trap the fools. The white paper is nothing but hype combined with information that is found on wikipedia. The company claims to have state of the art measurement devices, but good luck finding any real numbers of ppm reductions or effieciency improvements. Just some overly dramatic science project videos. The tech is not new, and is easily duplicated if it is even useful.
I am with you this is a clear pump and dump, which may be followed by litigation to pump and dump again a la VHC. But the real evil appears to be MDB Capital. I bet a closer look at the companies from their "Disruptive Tech Conference," which Mr. Basenese is proud to mention he attended in many articles, will result in many similar similar disturbing companies like CLIR. I look forward to anything else you might uncover.
I typed a long message with information for you matt, unfortunately it did not go through, so I will try to summarize.
Great article, you uncovered a lot of really concerning stuff.
MDB Capital seems like the centerpiece of this and other scams. VHC (a patent troll comp) is linked to them. They go on trial in a few weeks against apple. Many are of the belief they will win and win huge. I am much more skeptical. Their IP seems like copied old tech, and I believe USPTO has recently rejected many of its claims. They had sued and settled successfully with two smaller companies but for amountsthat were immaterial to them (as if for nothing just to get a good pump to mislead investors that their suit against apple will be successful). Google Louis Basenese and MDB Capital and you will find many articles of him pump them or companies they have stake in. He had a recent rescue defensive article on SA of PAMT, (another company MDB has stake in) after a short article appeared.
A lot of agreement here. MDB Capital itself was a red flag for me. When I cut my list of short projects down to two, I ended with PAMT and CLIR as finalists. I finally decided on CLIR, only to see PAMT go down first! Oh well.
“Operating expenses, consisting of research and development and general and administrative expenses, increased by $2,583,873 during 2011 from $395,587 in 2010 to $2,979,460. The increase resulted primarily from the payment of a $1,000,000 consulting fee in the form of common stock issued at $2.20 per share to MDB Capital Group LLC for services including assistance with building an intellectual property development strategy, retaining appropriate executive personnel, and advising with respect to the development of our business.” ~ Prospectus
Was that $1,000,000 well spent? What's MDB Capital doing with CLIR's IP strategy? Why not have this go to consultations with Scientists and Engineers?
Here is an excerpt from the Bio of MDB Capital’s CEO and Co-founder, Christopher Marlett:
“….he began studying the impact of intellectual property as a method of gaining and retaining market leadership.”
“He also developed a process for creation an execution of a dominant IP position for the companies he finances as a method to gain market leadership.” ~ MDB Capital Website
If I had a sincere discovery company, I would want my IP strategy driven mostly by scientists and engineers, not investment bankers.
Sentiment: Strong Sell