The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Just means cpx legal team has served papers to Locus informing the company that cpx has applied to the judge to ask for damages against Locus. Next step will be the reasons for the amount of damages cpx are applying for, eg legal fees etc.
there is no reason why the Judge would not award damages against loxus. From the press release below I would assume someone would be held accountable to pay the damages.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 10
Knoxville, TN: XS Power Batteries® announced today its acquisition of all of the assets of New York-based ultracapacitor manufacturer, Ioxus, Inc. Ioxus® will continue to manufacture the same great quality products through Systematic Power Manufacturing, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Systematic Power Solutions, LLC d/b/a XS Power Batteries®. Existing customer orders will continue to ship on schedule with no foreseeable delays in the manufacturing and delivery process. The company will continue to push the envelope with new product development and advancements in the ultracapacitor industry.
ORAL ORDER denying39 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Iuxus, Inc.'s 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Invalidity filed by CAP-XX, Ltd. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 3/2/2020. (nmf)
It looks to me , the judge denied cpx motion to file sur-reply. I don't believe it's anything important, just lawyer games in court.
I was also hoping a bid would come in, but sp and company value so low now and no good sales news materialising, I feel we just has well wait for the results of the court case, who knows It could then be turn around time for the company.
hayashi if you mean the above case, the date for the jury trial has been set for Dec this year, but I will be surprised if agreement is not reached by both sides a few weeks before this date.
06/05/2018COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against Ioxus, Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0311-2395322.) - filed by CAP-XX, Ltd.
Found the answer to my question. cpx demanded a jury to hear case.
Still waiting for an update on the statement below
From the chairman's statement
The Company has also recently acquired, at minimal cost, certain idle manufacturing assets that were located at a former contract manufacturer's site in Malaysia. These assets are being transferred to our current contract manufacturer's site and will be in operation in the second half of the current calendar year. The deployment of these assets and the acquisition of additional capacity will be critical to meet the expected increase in demand in the short to medium term.
Allenby is stating the proposed transaction cost is £360k and the total budget for this project is £3.1m. Cap-xx should also be eligible for increased R&D rebates but it will no longer have a licence with Mutara. Anyone know what happened to the equipment bought from Asia {not sure if that was the country} for about $1m and shipped to Australia supposedly to increase production a few years ago. At that time CPX raised money through a placing , similar to now. This transaction is win win for the company, they will have their yearly placing which keeps their bank account ticking over for another year. I still hold the shares because , like many I don't want to sell at a loss and am hoping positive news , like a takeover, will lift the sp.
It means Maxwell are saying Cap-XX have not added enough substance to their claim. At worst the judge will throw the case out (CAP-XX lose), at best the judge will allow Cap-XX to amend their claim.
Another option could be the judge will throw out the motion to dismiss as unfounded.