Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ DESIGNATION OF CONSULTANT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7.4 OF THE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to Section 7.4(b) of the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this Action (Dkt. No. 142) Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation and Gateway, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) HEREBY OBJECT to Defendants’ request to disclose Plaintiffs’ “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information and items to Vojin Oklobdzija and use of Dr. Oklobdzija as an expert/consultant. As disclosed by his resume, Dr. Oklobdzija was retained in 2007 and 2008 by Dechert LLP, counsel for Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation (collectively “the Acer entities”) in a prior patent infringement litigation, Acer Inc. and Acer America Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 07 C 0620 C (W.D. Wis.), that involved accused computer products substantially similar to those accused products that are at issue in the present case. As part of his work on behalf of the Acer entities and their counsel, Dr. Oklobdzija was privy to and had access to the Acer entities’ confidential and proprietary information, as well as information and communications subject to the attorney-client privileged information and/or attorney work product doctrine. There is far too great of a risk that Dr. Oklobdzija will be influenced by or may use (inadvertently or otherwise) the Acer entities’ confidential and privileged information as a consultant/expert for Defendants and that Defendants will gain an unfair advantage in the present action. Consequently, Dr. Oklobdzija has a direct conflict of interest in being retained by Defendants and being directly adverse to the Acer entities and should be disqualified. See In re Data General Corporation Antitrust Litigation, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 510 (N.D.Cal. 1986) (disqualification is appropriate when a party retains expert witnesses who previously worked for an adversary and who was privy to confidential information, attorney-client privileged information and/or work product during the course of their employment); Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 762 F.Supp. 1246, 1248 (E.D.Va. 1991) (defendants’ expert was disqualified where expert had been previously engaged by plaintiff and was privy to confidential information and work product and where it was objectively reasonable in assuming that plaintiff had retained expert and that confidential relationship existed); see also Plumley v. Doug Mockett & Co., Inc., 2008 WL 5382269 (C.D.Cal. Dec 22, 2008); Eastman Kodak Co. v. AGFA-Gevaert N.V., 2003 WL 23101783 at * 1 (W.D.N.Y. Dec 4, 2003); Koch Refining Co. v. Jennifer L. Boudreau M/V, 85 F.3d 1178 (5th Cir. 1996); Nike, Inc. v. Adidas America Inc., 2006 WL 5111106 (E.D.Tex. Sept 29, 2006). Accordingly, pursuant to Section 7.4(c) of the Stipulated Protective Order, Plaintiffs request that Defendants immediately participate in a live meet and confer with Plaintiffs and agree to an extension of time for Plaintiffs to file a motion for protective order so that the parties may make a good faith effort to resolve the matter informally and fulfill the meet and confer requirements under Section 7.4(c) of the Stipulated Protective Order.
Dated: August 2, 2010 K&L GATES LLP
By: Jeffrey M. Ratinoff
Timothy P. Walker
L. Howard Chen
Harold H. Davis, Jr.
Jeffrey M. Ratinoff
Jas Dhillon
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.
New Pacer - Kläger Einspruch gegen die Beklagten die Bezeichnung von CONSULTANT NACH Abschnitt 7.4 der vereinbarten Schutzanordnung
United States District Court Northern District of California
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC ACER America Corporation und Gateway, Inc.,
Kläger,
vs
TECHNOLOGY Properties Limited, Patriot Scientific Corporation, und
ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Beklagten.
Kläger Einspruch gegen die Beklagten die Bezeichnung von CONSULTANT NACH Abschnitt 7.4 der vereinbarten Schutzanordnung
An den Hof, und alle Parteien und ihre Anwälte OF RECORD:
Bitte beachten Sie, dass gemäß Abschnitt 7.4 (b) des vereinbarten Protective Order in diesem Action (Dkt. Nr. 142) Kläger und Beklagten Counter-Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation und Gateway, Inc. (zusammen "Kläger" eingetragen ) widersprechen hiermit Beklagten Antrag der Kläger "Highly Confidential offenlegen - Anwälte 'Eyes Only" Informationen und Produkte zum Vojin Oklobdzija und Nutzung von Dr. Oklobdzija als Experte / Berater. Wie von seinen Lebenslauf bekannt wurde Dr. Oklobdzija im Jahr 2007 beibehalten und 2008 von Dechert LLP, Berater für Acer Inc. und Acer America Corporation (zusammenfassend als "Acer entities") in einem Patentverletzungsverfahren vor, Acer Inc. und Acer America Corp . v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Fall Nr. 07 C 0620 C (WD Wisconsin), dass Computer-Produkte im Wesentlichen denen vorgeworfen Produkte, um die es im vorliegenden Fall vorgeworfen beteiligt. Als Teil seiner Arbeit im Namen der Acer Organisationen und ihre Anwälte, war Dr. Oklobdzija eingeweiht und hatte Zugang zu den Acer Organisationen "vertrauliche und firmeneigene Informationen, sowie Informationen und Mitteilungen, die Anwalt-Mandanten-privilegierte Informationen und / oder Rechtsanwalt Work Product Doctrine. Es ist viel zu groß für die Gefahr, dass durch Dr. Oklobdzija beeinflusst werden oder können (versehentlich oder nicht) das Acer Organisationen "vertrauliche und geschützte Informationen als Berater / Experte für die Angeklagten und die Angeklagten wird einen unfairen Vorteil zu gewinnen in die Gegenwart Aktion. Daher hat Dr. Oklobdzija einen direkten Interessenkonflikt in die von der Beklagten erhalten und wird direkt auf die negativen Acer Einrichtungen und sollten disqualifiziert werden. Vgl. In re Data General Corporation Antitrust Litigation, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 510 (NDCal. 1986) (Disqualifikation angebracht, wenn eine Partei sachverständige Zeugen, die zuvor für einen Gegner beschäftigt und behält eingeweiht war, vertrauliche Informationen, Rechtsanwalt Client privilegierte Informationen und / oder arbeiten Ware im Rahmen ihrer Beschäftigung); Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp, 762 F. Supp. 1246, 1248 (EDVa. 1991) (Beklagten Experte wurde disqualifiziert, wo Experten hatten zuvor vom Kläger engagiert und eingeweiht war, vertrauliche Informationen und Arbeitsergebnisse und wo war es objektiv in der Annahme, dass Kläger hatte Sachverständigen erhalten und dass vertrauliche Beziehung bestand angemessenen ), vgl. auch v. Plumley Doug Mockett & Co., Inc., 2008 WL 5382269 (CDCal. 22. Dezember 2008); Eastman Kodak Co. gegen Agfa-Gevaert NV, 2003 WL 23101783 bei * 1 (4. Dezember WDNY , 2003); Koch Refining Co. v. Jennifer L. Boudreau M / V, 85 F.3d 1178 (5. Cir. 1996); Nike, Inc. v. Adidas America Inc., 2006 WL 5111106 (EDTex. 29. September , 2006). Demnach wurden gemäß Abschnitt 7.4 (c) des vereinbarten Schutzanordnung beantragen, dass der Kläger der Beklagten sofort in einer Live-treffen und in Rücksprache mit Klägern und vereinbaren eine Verlängerung der Frist für den Kläger, einen Antrag auf Schutzanordnung Datei zu beteiligen, so dass die Parteien können einen guten Glaubens bemüht, die Angelegenheit informell zu lösen und erfüllen die Anforderungen erfüllen und verleiht unter Abschnitt 7.4 (c) des vereinbarten Protective Order.
Stand: 2. August 2010 K & L Gates LLP
Von: Jeffrey M. Ratinoff
Timothy P. Walker
Howard L. Chen
Harold H. Davis, Jr.
http://www.pdsg.com/index.html
hier sind einige die mit schon seit über 4 jahren mitfieber und teilweise noch länger.
wird schon ;-)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION AND GATEWAY, INC.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
AND ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS’ TO FILE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DESIGNATION OF CONSULTANT UNDER THE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. (Not Signed by Judge)
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Acer”) and Defendants Technology Properties Limited, Patriot Scientific
Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively, “TPL”) entered into a Stipulated Protective Order. Dkt. No. 142.
WHEREAS, per Section 7.4 of the Stipulated Protective Order, on August 2, 2010, Acer filed its timely objection to TPL’s request to disclose Plaintiffs’ “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information and items to Vojin Oklobdzija and their use of him as an expert/consultant. Dkt. No. 172.
WHEREAS, counsel for TPL was not available to meet and confer with Acer within three (3) court days as required by Section 7.4 of the Stipulated Protective Order.
WHEREAS, the parties agreed to meet and confer over the designation of Dr. Oklobdzija on the earliest mutually convenient date, August 6, 2010, and therefore also agreed to extend the time for Acer to file its motion for a protective order (if necessary) until August 16, 2010 after the parties complete their meet and confer as required by Section 7.4(c) of the Protective Order.
WHEREAS, the parties further agreed that if the Court is available and willing to hear the motion on shortened time, any motion for protective order filed by Acer should be briefed and heard on the following schedule:
· TPL shall have seven (7) court days to file any opposition to a motion for protective order;
· Acer shall have three (3) court days to file a reply brief; and
· The Motion for Protective Order shall be heard by the Court on September 7, 2010.
WHEREAS, the parties agree that should the Court set the hearing for a later date, the parties will agree to modify and extend the foregoing briefing scheduled accordingly.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:
1. The parties shall meet and confer on August 6, 2010 regarding their disputed over TPL’s designation of Dr. Oklobdzija as an expert/consultant under the Stipulated Protective Order;
2. If the parties are unable to informally resolve their dispute over the designation of Dr. Oklobdzija, Acer shall have up to and including August 16, 2010 file a motion for protective order;
3. TPL shall have up to and including seven (7) court days to file any opposition to a motion for protective order filed by Acer (filed no later than August 25, 2010);
4. Acer shall have up to and including three (3) court days to file any reply to TPL’s opposition (filed no later than August 30, 2010);
5. Acer’s motion shall be heard on September 7, 2010 during the Court’s normal civil discovery calendar, or at the earliest hearing date thereafter that is convenient for the Court; and
6. Should the Court set the hearing after September 7, 2010, the parties agree to modify and extend the briefing schedule for the opposition and reply accordingly.
Dated: August 5, 2010 K&L GATES
By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Ratinoff
Jeffrey M. Ratinoff
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and
GATEWAY, INC.
Dated: August 5, 2010 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ Eugene Y. Mar
Eugene Y. Mar
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: August 5, 2010 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE, LLP
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August ___, 2010
THE HONORABLE HOWARD LLOYD (Not Signed by Judge)
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Teile hätte ich auch wieder verkaufen können aber auch wieder verpasst.
Ich denke, dass erst nach Bekanntgabe von Zahlungen errechnet werden kann bzw. eine Hochrechnung erfolgen kann und bei fetten Zahlungen der Kurs nachhaltig explodiert.
Bspl. Urteil : Acer, Iiyama, Canon und Siemens zahlen 500 Mil. Dollar....
dann kannste erst mit nachhaltigen Steigerungen rechnen....
grundsätzlich ist der Weg bereitet und alles sehr positiv....
Aber, da gebe ich dir recht, dieses Spiel kostet Nerven.
.
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Gilbertus" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION AND GATEWAY, INC.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, AND ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS’ TO FILE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DESIGNATION OF CONSULTANT UNDER THE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. (Not Signed by Judge)
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Acer”) and Defendants Technology Properties Limited, Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively, “TPL”) entered into a Stipulated Protective Order. Dkt. No. 142.
WHEREAS, per Section 7.4 of the Stipulated Protective Order, on August 2, 2010, Acer filed its timely objection to TPL’s request to disclose Plaintiffs’ “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
Only” information and items to Vojin Oklobdzija and their use of him as an expert/consultant. Dkt. No. 172.
WHEREAS, counsel for TPL was not available to meet and confer with Acer within three (3) court days as required by Section 7.4 of the Stipulated Protective Order.
WHEREAS, the parties agreed to meet and confer over the designation of Dr. Oklobdzija on the earliest mutually convenient date, August 6, 2010, and therefore also agreed to extend the time for Acer to file its motion for a protective order (if necessary) until August 16, 2010 after the parties complete their meet and confer as required by Section 7.4(c) of the Protective Order.
WHEREAS, the parties further agreed that if the Court is available and willing to hear the motion on shortened time, any motion for protective order filed by Acer should be briefed and heard on the following schedule:
· TPL shall have seven (7) court days to file any opposition to a motion for protective order;
· Acer shall have three (3) court days to file a reply brief; and
· The Motion for Protective Order shall be heard by the Court on September 7, 2010.
WHEREAS, the parties agree that should the Court set the hearing for a later date, the parties will agree to modify and extend the foregoing briefing scheduled accordingly.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:
1. The parties shall meet and confer on August 6, 2010 regarding their disputed over TPL’s designation of Dr. Oklobdzija as an expert/consultant under the Stipulated Protective Order;
2. If the parties are unable to informally resolve their dispute over the designation of Dr. Oklobdzija, Acer shall have up to and including August 16, 2010 file a motion for protective order;
3. TPL shall have up to and including seven (7) court days to file any opposition to a motion for protective order filed by Acer (filed no later than August 25, 2010);
4. Acer shall have up to and including three (3) court days to file any reply to TPL’s opposition (filed no later than August 30, 2010);
5. Acer’s motion shall be heard on September 7, 2010 during the Court’s normal civil discovery calendar, or at the earliest hearing date thereafter that is convenient for the Court; and
6. Should the Court set the hearing after September 7, 2010, the parties agree to modify and extend the briefing schedule for the opposition and reply accordingly.
Dated: August 5, 2010 K&L GATES
By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Ratinoff
Jeffrey M. Ratinoff
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and
GATEWAY, INC.
Dated: August 5, 2010 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ Eugene Y. Mar
Eugene Y. Mar
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: August 5, 2010 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE, LLP
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August ___, 2010
THE HONORABLE HOWARD LLOYD (Signed by Judge)
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Mich wundert,dass Leute wie z.B. Alf dort noch schreiben.Den könnte man hier besser gebrauchen,denn hier bekommen wir die "Wunderlichen"in der Griff ( siehe WAMUQ ).
CARLSBAD, Calif., August 13, 2010--(PR Newswire)-Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC - News) today reported that it has withdrawn from discussions aimed at settling its outstanding actions against The Technology Properties Limited Group, LLC (TPL) and Alliacense, LLC, the Company's joint venture partner in the management of the MMP™ Portfolio of microprocessor patents, and its licensing division, respectively.
On April 12, 2010 the Company filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego against TPL alleging breach of a $1 million promissory note obligation for which repayment was due Patriot on February 28, 2010. On April 22, 2010 it filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against TPL and Alliacense which was placed under seal provisionally by the court at the defendants' request. On August 12, 2010, the Court considered defendants' request to seal the file indefinitely and to compel private arbitration of the dispute and denied both Motions. On August 13, 2010 the Court provisionally allowed some file redactions pursuant to a Motion filed by TPL and will decide the appropriateness of those redactions on September 30, 2010.
The Complaint makes several allegations against TPL and Alliacense, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, contract interference, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment, while also seeking declaratory relief over specific contractual disagreements. The Complaint further seeks an accounting of revenues and expenses charged to the PDS joint venture, while also engaging in licensing activities designed to profit TPL at the expense of the interests of PDS and Patriot.
"We had originally felt that discussions aimed at addressing a variety of issues, including the matter related to our April 22, 2010 action and the restructuring of the 2005 agreements that govern the management of the MMP™ Portfolio, represented the best approach to resolving the issues between the parties and for providing continuity to the licensing effort," said Carlton Johnson, Patriot Scientific Corporation's Executive Committee Chairman. "Our position is and remains one in which Patriot would have and maintain an equal or greater voice with all decisions relating to the MMP licensing. Up until now we had deferred making any announcement that a successful renegotiation of the relationship would occur. However, this process has taken far longer than we anticipated and where we were once hopeful that we were close to settling a number of differences, we now intend to vigorously resume the litigation process. We will provide details on the litigation as circumstances permit, however we ask our shareholders to appreciate that we remain under some contractual restrictions in regard to public disclosures pertaining to the MMP™ Portfolio, and we also wish to avoid any public sharing of information that could impair our litigation strategy. We regret having to take these measures, but we believe they are in the best long-term interests of Patriot, its shareholders, and our ownership in the MMP™ Portfolio."
About Patriot Scientific Corporation
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC) provides data sharing and secure data solutions for a connected world. These activities are funded with revenues generated, in a large part, from the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio licensing partnership with The TPL Group. For more information on Patriot Scientific Corporation, visit: www.ptsc.com. ;
CARLSBAD, Calif., Aug. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC) today issued an update on significant business matters.
To All Shareholders, Prospective Investors, and Stakeholders in Patriot Scientific Corporation,
As many of you may know, on Monday, August 16th, we will file our annual report on Form 10-K. There have been several significant developments over the past months which may be helpful for me to highlight and summarize.
First and foremost, I know everyone is interested in the status of our relationship with the TPL Group and matters affecting the MMP™ Portfolio. These issues have been amongst the most pressing in the Company's history and have occupied a significant portion of mine and our Board's time. Despite our attempts at resolving our differences through negotiations, at this point we are pressing forward with our litigation efforts against TPL and their licensing division Alliacense, as we believe this is the best way we can preserve our interests in the important MMP Portfolio asset.
As you may also know, we have been historically challenged in what we can publicly disclose on topics involving MMP and our relationship with TPL. This has largely been attributable to contractual restrictions contained within the agreements that govern the MMP joint-venture. Further, and at the request of TPL, we have also had restrictions placed on our ability to make public announcements by the Santa Clara Superior court. Needless to say we are inordinately frustrated by the contractual disclosure restrictions, and we know you are as well. So while we work towards the objective of having greater transparency on these issues that are of paramount importance to our shareholders, for now I must refer you to the disclosures we will make in our 10-K and the separate litigation update press release filed by us today, even though I know this will leave many of you with a desire to know more. Before leaving the MMP topic there are two other points I wanted to address. The first is to remind everyone about the USPTO's issuance of a Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) for the US'336 patent. This represents a significant victory for us as it again validates the MMP Portfolio as essential technology for virtually all microprocessor-based products used today. For additional information on this important event please see our July 27th press release which can be found on our web-site at http://patriotscientific.com/...p;task=view&id=261&Itemid=29.
Secondly, we have had some questions about the Independent Manager role as it relates to the Management Committee of PDS (the joint venture entity through which MMP Portfolio results flow). The previous Independent Manager's contract ended on May 31, 2010, and as such this role has not been filled. At this time, Carlton Johnson, Patriot Board member and our representative on the PDS Management Committee, has been granted oversight of PDS' banking activities.
Switching topics, we have had several inquiries regarding our wholly owned data sharing subsidiary, Patriot Data Solutions Group (PDSG) and the efforts to redirect this business. Since the early part of this calendar year we, with the assistance of Attain LLC, have been engaging and working with go-to-market partners in an effort to increase the exposure and access to the potential buyers of the CDX solution set. At the onset of this exercise we were uncertain if this exercise would yield positive results, or if other decisions regarding the business would need to be implemented. At this time we remain cautiously optimistic about the prospects for PDSG and I'll share with you some of the more significant factors that influence our thinking. First and foremost, after meeting with several channel partners that service our market it is apparent we have a solution that resonates with this audience. This is in large part due to improvements and additions to CDX that were completed in March of this year, making it a truly enterprise level offering with broader appeal. Our recent press release announcing our reseller relationship with SRA is one of the tangible results in validation of CDX and the generation of partner interest. We are similarly engaged with other partners and in several instances are pursuing joint sales opportunities. While we are encouraged with the progress made over these past several months, we must temper our enthusiasm by realizing that PDSG is truly a very early stage business with respect to revenue growth. In light of this we have taken measures to rationalize our current level of investment, which include the aforementioned emphasizing of a channel development strategy over direct sales, as well as prioritizing CDX as the solution we will continue to develop and sell. As a result of these decisions we have divested of the Iameter and Vigilys product lines, in February and August of this year, respectively. This allows us to focus on what we believe to be PDSG's most valuable asset, CDX, with a leaner organization and reduced cost structure. We are committed to controlling PDSG's costs so that we do not find ourselves unnecessarily ahead of the rate at which revenues are growing.
Before closing there are two items we've received inquires about that I wanted to respond to. First and most importantly, let me say that there are no plans to acquire, merge, or otherwise take an interest in any new businesses, period. Effective with the beginning of my tenure as interim CEO all M&A activities have ceased. To the contrary, we have taken measures to divest ourselves of activities that were continuing to place a drain on our cash resources, and that did not present a clear timeframe and path to positive results. This includes Talis, Avot, and the aforementioned Iameter and Vigilys actions.
A second item that we've received some inquiries on is our disclosure of Wells Fargo's Cayman Island checking account sweep function, with an implication that it represents something that is less than above-board. I can only state that these concerns are unfounded. Nevertheless, because we had been maintaining minimal balances in our checking account causing the sweep functionality to in effect be non-operative, we have recently discontinued the sweep service. On a similar but broader note, I will say as a public company we are subjected to quarterly reviews and annual audits of our financial statements and internal controls by our independent public accountants. I occasionally hear from people on certain topics which leads me to believe they may not fully appreciate what these audits represent. I can only say that these audits are rigorous examinations and we work hard to ensure that the work we do is above reproach.
Finally and in closing, as you can see we have some significant issues to deal with before I can predict smooth sailing. Members of our Board have put in an inordinate amount of time over the past several months to assist me in clearing the obstacles that have impeded our progress. I wish to extend my appreciation to them and to all of Patriot's supporters who understand that the best that can be done for the business is being done. I and the Board will continue to pursue what we believe are realistic and practical measures for directing the business. Our challenges will not be overcome overnight, but I do believe they will be overcome and Patriot will come out of this a stronger and more valuable entity.
Sincerely,
Cliff Flowers
Interim CEO
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/...0PR_NEWS_USPRX____LA50484#ixzz0wWq2BJHG
die news gerade erschüttern mich kurzfristig schon, mal sehen was der 10q bringt.
langfristig erscheint mir hat ptsc chancen doch seinen anteil am mmp deutlich zu erhöhen. insbesondere die mehrheit im pds ist wichtig.
jedoch wer weiss, vielleicht haben ja cj und gloria einen plan b der chuck moore betrifft. allerdings sind die daten von alliacense sehr wichtig, wäre interessant, ob ptsc einen entsprechenden update dort im direkten zugriff hat oder nicht.