From recent Annual Report:
Financial Results and Trends
Revenue decreased by approximately 11.7% to $2,592,596 in the year ended March 31, 2014 as compared to $2,937,276 in the year ended March 31, 2013. In fiscal 2014, we experienced a decline in revenues as a result of an internal re-organization that took place in Europe and the longer than expected time needed to finalize the SmileMe Mirror. The launch was forecasted for the end of the calendar year 2013 but was postponed to June 2014.
Our net income/( loss) attributable to our stockholders was $0.03 for fiscal 2014 and ($0.05) for fiscal 2013. During the year ended March 31, 2014 we recognized $156,620 in equity income from our Asian investment compared to $349,054 at March 31, 2013. Our net income for fiscal 2014 was positively impacted by a gain of $1,582,597 on the sale of shares of our Glamsmile Asian Division (thereby reducing our participation from 29.4% to 21.5% at the end of January 31, 2014) compared to a net income for fiscal 2013 of a gain of $454,430 on the sale of our OTC division.
If CAFC affirms in full, as is 95% likely, shorts will use their air shares to tamp down a large pop in SP. They cannot just "dump" millions of shares on obviously good news for VHC without drawing unwanted SEC attention. That would appear to be just too flagrant manipulation even for our useless SEC porn surfers. So they will feed those air shares in judiciously to do whatever they can to keep the lid on the SP and try not to draw too much attention to their behavior.
If the CAFC remands for any reason, then they will dump massively and the stock will crater to sub $7.00 as impatient longs also bail and new shorters pile on. That scenario will make put holders a pile of money. But it's not gonna happen. The decision to AFFIRM, likely unanimous, was reached in early March, and nothing that has happened since has had the slightest impact on it. Stand tall longs as a new day is about to dawn.
Judge Rader cast his vote in the meeting immediately following the oral arguments. The decision, for better or worse, was made that day. Just a question of who gets to write the decision and when it will be revealed.
Yep, there is an "air" to the fudsters today. No, not the normal vile odors that geejo is so good at documenting but a certain desperation to their posts. They want to unwind their short so bad but just cannot figure out how to make that happen without getting hammered. Fun to watch.
Yeah, that's right Google "asked" Apple to subpoena them. Of course, Why didn't the rest of us figure that one out? Damn creative thinking there. And no doubt based on a whole passle of evidence. Because, you know, Google has top-secret info that is just going to blow VHC right out of the water. Of course they do. You might want to consider cutting back on the meds nemesis, your cognitive deficits are beginning to show more then usual.
Terp says " . . it's pretty clear what will happen in the VHC case . . . " How so?? Unless you've had a complete brain transplant recently you have shown over the past 2 years that you have NEVER ONCE correctly predicted what will happen in the VHC case. But now, having been publicly wrong for years, you suddenly know what will happen because of a deal between Apple and Google?? Dang it terp, you are the walking definition of lame. It never ceases to amaze how willing you are to continue embarrassing yourself.
Trax, I think folks are reading way too much into that Apple/Google truce. Management for both parties realized that the lawyers were the only party truly benefitting from waging war on so many different fronts. It was a smart economic move but since there was no cross-licensing deal included it obviously isn't a complete armistice. I seriously doubt if it has any consequences for VHC but that won't stop the shorts from spinning it as a negative.
Geejo is the Man! It ain't easy to fight the fudsters and he is doing magnificent work day after day. Easily deserves the IronButt Award!
According to recent IV posts, sumark is wired into all the right people, well-connected and thoroughly vetted. Cozy little bunch over there. Call me a skeptic.
Well said moish! Sumark aka Captain Obvious posts to remind us all that the stock is in the toilet because "mr market" feels it deserves to be there. As you say moish, he never seems to have the slightest problem with all the short posts, just the longs. I suspect you are right, Sumark stole an old identity and is using it to rather subtly spread FUD.
Sumark, your insistent desire to pour cold water on any VHC enthusiasm is duly noted. What would make your posts a bit more palatable would be to see you take on the shorts here. The longs, cockeyed optimists though they may be, at least look for data, news and real legal developments. You may disagree with their conclusions but tell me what the shorts contribute to this thread? Why don't you turn your cynical pen on the nimrods who post adolescent #$%$ every ten minutes under multiple fake ID's. One gets the impression that they don't trouble you in the least. Why is that?
Actually osprey, your reply kinda sounds like you're worried. This is an obvious hail mary desperation play by Apple. It is ridiculously overbroad and burdensome and will undoubtedly be forcefully resisted by Google and the objection upheld by HJD. Not much will come of it. Mere negotiations between parties that has not resulted in a firm deal are not discoverable, a fact I am sure you are aware of, but you lie about it nevertheless. Osprey you should be ashamed.
"Even if VHC wins agains AAPL" Well well, isn't that interesting. Your posting history Terp clearly shows you spent over a full year on this board assuring everyone that little 'ole VHC had no prayer in defeating VHC. Post after post, day after day, you were loudly and proudly telling the whole world that mighty Apple would pound VHC into a unidentifiable pulp. Without any equivocations you proclaimed this to be a lopsided battle where the outcome was never seriously in question. Now, here you are, rather timidly and lamely still proclaiming to any idiot willing to listen, that, yeah, VHC won at trial and probably will win on appeal, but these victories really are meaningless.
Given your amazingly inaccurate track record to date, please explain why a VHC long should pay the slightest attention to anything you type.
I believe Jack is referring to private litigation. Waiting for the SEC to give a damn is apparently like waiting for you to say something interesting.
A class-action against the shorties is pretty much a no-brainer. Unless they have figured out how to manipulate the market without revealing identities to anyone, they will be identified, served and held accountable. The $$$ involved are just too big. Of course, all bets are off if the shorting scheme originates offshore.
Good post Oechman. So what is the likelihood that HJD will be remanded on his opinion? Extremely low given his history. That history of rarely, if ever, being remanded should give one great confidence in the outcome. But even more than that, the CAFC, including Judge Rader, considers Judge Davis to be the gold standard on IP decisions. He is one of them, has a storied personal history and is a very popular personality to boot. The cite to his opinion in the Apple v. Motorola case was a very deliberate and unusual effort to send a signal on the outcome of Apple's appeal. The CAFC would never send such a message and then partially remand the opinion. Talk about sending mixed messages! In sum, all possible signs suggest Apple is toast. It's become little more than a waiting game - mostly just a formality.
geejo getting under your skin it would appear. FUDsters always lose in the end and you are upset because you, and the rest of us, can see the end coming.
Yes, the impending CAFC decision will fuel a serious rise in SP. We all know now that the decision will affirm HJD in toto and the foolish shorts here are rather pathetically just "whistling past the graveyard".
Hey geejo, you've been called out by foutjo21. Guess you better admit defeat and leave!! Hahaha, just so ridiculous. I thought your poll was a great idea. Keep it up.
Thanks for that interesting post Z. You feel confident that the "OVERALL DEAL" referenced in the document is referencing some kind of settlement? Could it not be read as a deal limited to the specifics of the Motion in question? Just wondering as to your take.