I understand your concern, but let me be clear: until now, no other shareholder was willing to step forward as plaintiff or fund counsel. I took that role not for personal gain, but because without action the patents would already be lost and shareholders would have had no recourse.
You’ve said that my lack of legal knowledge has been a problem. Yet consider this: if my filings were as deficient as you suggest, would a Delaware Chancery judge have gone out of his way, after dismissing the case on a procedural ground, to invite me to retain counsel and even suggest that counsel consider seeking the appointment of a receiver? Judges do not make such comments unless the claims have substance. The only way they conclude the claims have substance is how they are presented, which was by me. In fact, none of my claims were dismissed on the merits. The action will continue with counsel, and the only barrier was that Delaware law does not allow a derivative plaintiff to appear pro se.
And for anyone questioning my motives, the facts speak loudly. My only request to the Court was that it issue an order declaring the patents belong to NanoLogix, and that a receiver — not me — be appointed to control the affairs of the Company. My goal has always been to restore value to shareholders, not to enrich myself or gain control. Let me be very clear...if I want to enrich myself I'd wait for a receiver to be appointed and negotiate an agreement to acquire the patents. But stay tuned! You will soon see that I am in the process of negotiating a settlement whereby the patents will be assigned to a new company owned by the Nanologix shareholders.
So the record speaks for itself: what began as my individual effort has now positioned all shareholders to benefit from a case the Court itself views as serious. Once counsel is retained which I will initially fund this will no longer be about me alone — it is a proper action moving forward on behalf of all shareholders.
This isn’t about me being the “signatory by design.” It’s about someone having to act when no one else would. Every shareholder now stands to gain if we succeed in restoring rights in the patents or reaching a favorable resolution. If you or others want more direct involvement, I welcome it. But until now, the alternative was silence — and total loss.
You’ve said that my lack of legal knowledge has been a problem. Yet consider this: if my filings were as deficient as you suggest, would a Delaware Chancery judge have gone out of his way, after dismissing the case on a procedural ground, to invite me to retain counsel and even suggest that counsel consider seeking the appointment of a receiver? Judges do not make such comments unless the claims have substance. The only way they conclude the claims have substance is how they are presented, which was by me. In fact, none of my claims were dismissed on the merits. The action will continue with counsel, and the only barrier was that Delaware law does not allow a derivative plaintiff to appear pro se.
And for anyone questioning my motives, the facts speak loudly. My only request to the Court was that it issue an order declaring the patents belong to NanoLogix, and that a receiver — not me — be appointed to control the affairs of the Company. My goal has always been to restore value to shareholders, not to enrich myself or gain control. Let me be very clear...if I want to enrich myself I'd wait for a receiver to be appointed and negotiate an agreement to acquire the patents. But stay tuned! You will soon see that I am in the process of negotiating a settlement whereby the patents will be assigned to a new company owned by the Nanologix shareholders.
So the record speaks for itself: what began as my individual effort has now positioned all shareholders to benefit from a case the Court itself views as serious. Once counsel is retained which I will initially fund this will no longer be about me alone — it is a proper action moving forward on behalf of all shareholders.
This isn’t about me being the “signatory by design.” It’s about someone having to act when no one else would. Every shareholder now stands to gain if we succeed in restoring rights in the patents or reaching a favorable resolution. If you or others want more direct involvement, I welcome it. But until now, the alternative was silence — and total loss.
2
