On Track Innovations Ltd.: erhält Folgeauftrag

Auch nicht tiefer gehen, sonst ist der Chart im Eimer und ich müsste raus  

was geht da ab???????????????  

 

Die selbsternannten Daytrader und Kleinanleger in US kapieren einfach nicht, dass man bei solch MiniFirmen nicht mit Stopp Loss arbeiten kann. Dafür ist das Handelsvolumen einfach viel, viel zu gering. Aber was solls: am Mittwoch kommen Zahlen, vlt. tausche ich nochmal ein paar NETE zurück in OTIV.  

ist richtig. Die Herde spielt auf neuem Level weiter!
;-(((  

den Kurs um 20% abschiessen und dann zig tausende auf niedrigem Level einsammeln,...Klasse!  

Da kennt schon jemand die Q-Ergebnisse.
Aber, weit gefehlt, dass gab es bei OTI noch NIE.
Absolut sicher!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Ihr arbeitet wohl auch mit StopLoss?
;-)  

 

Jetzt Frist der mir den Ballard Gewinn wieder auf. Aber StopLoss bei OTI niemals.
Wie oft in ich raus und etwas später stehen die Doppelt so hoch.  

die derzeitige Entwicklung des Ölpreises an. Da ist es auch kaum zu verstehen, warum der Kurs so abrupt nach unten rutscht. Hier haben wir eine ganz andere Liga. Die Lage und Informationen geben einen derartig steilen Abgang eigentlich nicht her. Was ich damit sagen will ist, dass gewisse Kräfte ihr Spielchen mit großem Erfolg durchziehen. Beim Öl ist es M.E. klar die USA, die ganze Länder wie Venezuela, Russland oder den Iran schädigen bzw. in die Knie zwingen wollen. Da ist es beim kleinen OTI doch viel einfacher, oder?

Sind es die Mitbewerber, die sich ja auch zu günstigsten Kursen eindecken konnten?  Sind es Spekulanten, Zocker, wie ich meine?

Wir sind bei diesem Spiel die nur die einfachen kleinen Bälle.  

dann wissen wir mehr.
Wichiger als das Ergebnis wäre ein deutlicher Umsatzanstieg. Nur so können zukünftig sichere Gewinne erzielt werden. Alleine durch Sparmaßnahmen pendeln wir nur weiter um die Nulllinie.
Bis dahin: Augen zu und durch!
GLTA  

von Gold ganz zu schweigen. Da ziehen die Zentralbanken die Fäden. Wir sind nur Spielbälle, wie du richtig sagst.

Aber wenn man sich etwas clever anlegt und Geduld mitbringt, dann könnne wir auch auf der Gewinnerseite sein.  ;-)

 

und dauert und am Schluß ist Rauchverbot auf Kuba und die ganze Geduld war umsonst ;-)))  

OTI - On Track Innovations
If you are attending Eu'vend in Cologne, please drop in and say Hi to our friends at Vendon LLC. and Microtronic. While you are there, grab a cup off coffee and check out our range of cashless payment readers and controllers (Hall 9.1 Stand: A108 B109).
 

Hier sollten sich die EU-Partner mal ein Beispiel nehmen:
In Australien spielen OTI-Produkte die Geige und stehen nich in der zweiten Reihe im Regal, wie bei uns in Europa!  

Hallo, ich sehe das ein bisschen anders und pragmatischer. M.m. Zieht da niemand, dafür ist das Volumen zu gering. Es weiß niemand etwas bezüglich der Zahlen , deshalb wenig Handel mit hoher vola. Uns viel Glück nächste Woche!  

Am Ende zählen nur die Unternehmensergebnisse. Wenn der Kurs dann bei $50 steht, fragt niemand mehr nach den kleinen Auf und Ab`s im Chartverlauf.  

3:17-cv-01103-VC - On Track Innovations Ltd. v. Masterwork Electronics, Inc.
Initial Case Mgmt Conference  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON TRACK INNOVATIONS LTD., an Israeli limited company, Plaintiff, v. MASTERWORK ELECTRONICS, INC., a California corporation Defendant. Case No. 4:17-cv-01103-KAW ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MASTERWORK ELECTRONICS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT  
Defendant MASTERWORK ELECTRONICS, INC. (hereinafter, “MASTERWORK”), by and through its undersigned counsel, answers Plaintiff ON TRACK INNOVATIONS LTD.’s (hereinafter, “OTI”) Complaint as follows: 1. In response to Paragraph 1, after reasonable investigation, MASTERWORK is unable to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and on that basis denies them. 2. In response to Paragraph 2, MASTERWORK admits these allegations.  3. In response to Paragraph 3, MASTERWORK denies these allegations as a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.  4. In response to Paragraph 4, MASTERWORK denies these allegations as a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.  5. In response to Paragraph 5, MASTERWORK admits in part and denies in part. MASTERWORK admits that MASTERWORK is a California corporation with its principal place of business in this judicial district. The remaining allegation is a conclusion of law, to which no response is required. 6. In response to Paragraph 6, MASTERWORK denies these allegations as a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.  7. In response to Paragraph 7, MASTERWORK admits in part and denies in part. MASTERWORK admits that it issued a Purchase Order to OTI for 40,000 card readers for a total of $2,518,000.00, and that MASTERWORK cancelled the order. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.  8. In response to Paragraph 8, MASTERWORK admits in part and denies in part. MASTERWORK admits that it issued the Purchase Order attached to the complaint and that MASTERWORK had previously purchased some card readers from OTI. The characterization of the Purchase Order is denied since the Purchase Order is a writing, the contents of which speak for themselves. MASTERWORK also denies that the Purchase Order included all specifications for the card readers. MASTERWORK also denies that the card readers were to include only features that had previously been supplied. 9. In response to Paragraph 9, MASTERWORK denies these allegations. To the extent this paragraph attempts to summarize the Purchase Order, the allegations are denied as the Purchase Order is a document, the contents of which speak for themselves. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law, to which no response is required.  10. In response to Paragraph 10, MASTERWORK denies. The complaint does not provide any specifics as to how or when this was communicated, and after reasonable investigation, MASTERWORK has no knowledge of said communication. After reasonable investigation, MASTERWORK cannot admit or deny whether OTI purchased the underlying components, and manufactured and assembled the 40,000 card readers, and on that basis denies these allegations.  11. In response to Paragraph 11, MASTERWORK denies. After reasonable investigation, MASTERWORK is unable to admit or deny when Plaintiff manufactured 10,020 card readers and whether the card readers are available for delivery, and on that basis denies these allegations. By way of further answer, OTI previously represented that the 10,020 card readers had already been shipped and were held in storage. 12. In response to Paragraph 12, MASTERWORK denies. After reasonable investigation, MASTERWORK is unable to admit or deny when OTI manufactured and placed 29,980 card readers with UPS. To the extent the remaining allegations of this paragraph are not conclusions of law, to which no response is required, they are denied.  13. In response to Paragraph 13, MASTERWORK admits in part and denies in part. After reasonable investigation, MASTERWORK is unable to admit or deny when OTI delivered the card readers to UPS, and on that basis denies these allegations. It is admitted OTI issued three invoices to MASTERWORK, however the invoices were not transmitted to MASTERWORK on the invoice dates. The characterization of the contents of the invoices is denied since the invoices are writings, the contents of which speak for themselves. 14. In response to Paragraph 14, MASTERWORK admits in part and denies in part. It is admitted that MASTERWORK sent emails on the dates alleged. It is denied that 40,000 card readers were made available to MASTERWORK or delivered to MASTERWORK by January 20 and 23, 2017. The characterization of the emails is denied as they are writings, the contents of which speak for themselves. It is admitted that the card readers should have included an Apple Pay value added service (hereinafter “the Apple Loyalty VAS”). To the extent the remaining allegations of this paragraph are not conclusions of law, to which no response is required, they are denied. 15. In response to Paragraph 15, MASTERWORK denies these allegations.  16. In response to Paragraph 16, MASTERWORK admits in part and denies in part. It is admitted that OTI and its attorneys sent letters on the dates alleged. The characterization of the letters is denied as they are writings, the contents of which speak for themselves. It is denied that MASTERWORK did not respond. To the extent the remaining allegations of this paragraph are not conclusions of law, to which no response is required, they are denied.  17. In response to Paragraph 17, MASTERWORK admits in part and denies in part. MASTERWORK admits that is issued a cancellation to OTI. The characterization of the cancellation and its effect is denied. It is admitted that demurrage charges were assessed.  MASTERWORK cannot admit or deny whether the 29,980 card readers were shipped or delivered in December, and on that basis denies these allegations. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.  FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF CONTRACT) 18.  MASTERWORK’s responses to Paragraphs 1-17 are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 19. In response to Paragraph 19, MASTERWORK denies these allegations as a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.  20. In response to Paragraph 20, MASTERWORK admits in part and denies in part. MASTERWORK admits that certain terms are set forth in the Purchase Order and the invoices. MASTERWORK denies that all terms and requirements were set forth in the Purchase Order and invoices. 21. In response to Paragraph 21, to the extent the allegations of this paragraph are not conclusions of law, to which no response is required, they are denied. 22. In response to Paragraph 22, to the extent the allegations of this paragraph are not conclusions of law, to which no response is required, they are denied..  23. In response to Paragraph 23, to the extent the allegations of this paragraph are not conclusions of law, to which no response is required, they are denied.. SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims may be barred by the Statute of Frauds. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred by the doctrine of failure of consideration.  
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s comparative fault, lack of diligence, negligence, and failure to conduct its business affairs reasonably and responsibly bars its claims for relief. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, estoppel and waiver. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims should be denied or diminished since OTI failed to mitigate its damages. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If OTI suffered any damages, which is denied by MASTERWORK, OTI’s damages are barred or diminished by the doctrines of setoff and/or recoupment. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims may be barred by accord and satisfaction. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims may be barred by assumption of the risk. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Venue is improper in the Northern District of California.  THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Venue is inconvenient in the Northern District of California. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred because of a prior pending action.   FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims may be barred by the doctrine of justification. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims may be barred by its breach of warranty. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred because the goods were properly rejected and/or acceptance was properly revoked.  
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred by the doctrine of mistake.   NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred since OTI prematurely shipped the goods. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred by reason of failure of conditions.   TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred by reason of prevention/excuse of performance.   TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OTI’s claims are barred by reason of OTI’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.   PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant MASTERWORK, INC. prays: (1) That Plaintiff On Track Innovations Ltd.’s Complaint be dismissed,  (2) That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant MASTERWORK, INC.; and (3) That Defendant MASTERWORK, INC. be awarded its costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by this court.  
Dated:   April 20, 2017  
RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
By:   /s/ Jeffrey R. Williams JEFFREY R. WILLIAMS Attorney for Defendant MASTERWORK ELECTRONICS, INC.  

Guter Beitrag! Danke dafür.
Lese ich es richtig: Sie bestreiten den Empfang der Reader und allgemein Alles und Jedes?
Aber, das wird wohl die normale Haltung eines Beklagten in US sein.

Da du in der Lage warst diese Info zu recherchieren (klasse), hast du ev. auch Gerichtstermine parat???
 

Komisches Thema....

Bin nicht so firm im amerikanischen Gerichtsgebaren....Na ja wird Cohen ja was zu sagen am Mittwoch.

Keine Termine ausser den von Dir  

- Zu laufenden Verfahren äussern wir uns nicht.
- Wir geben keinen Ausblick.
- Auch nicht zu verkauften Stückzahlen in der Vergangenheit.
- Unsere Kunden wünschen nicht, dass ihre Namen genannt werden.

Ich nehme mal den Google Übersetzer, geht schneller:
-MASTERWORK ist nicht in der Lage zuzugeben oder zu verweigern, wenn der Kläger 10.020 Kartenleser herstellt und ob die Kartenleser zur Auslieferung zur Verfügung stehen und auf dieser Grundlage diese Vorwürfe verweigert.
-MASTERWORK ist nicht in der Lage zuzugeben oder zu verweigern, wenn OTI hergestellt und platziert 29.980 Kartenleser mit UPS.
-Es wird abgelehnt, dass 40.000 Kartenleser dem MASTERWORK zur Verfügung gestellt oder an MASTERWORK bis zum 20. und 23. Januar 2017 ausgeliefert wurden.
-MASTERWORK kann nicht zugeben oder leugnen, ob die 29.980 Kartenleser im Dezember versandt oder ausgeliefert wurden  

USAT ist der Besteller der 65000Reader.
Also wird in den Q1-Zahlen ein Riesenbatzen fehlen und eine Berichtigung wie in den Q4-Zahlen erfolgen. Der Kursrücksetzer ist damit klar.  

Cohen braucht diese Umsätze ja noch nicht ausbuchen, da für OTI ja getätigt. Lediglich die cash-Bilanz ist verhagelt......

Vlt hat er ja noch ein As im Ärmel....wie so oft   ;-)

Bleibt wie immer spannend....aber davon habe ich auch bald die Nase voll