Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    My understanding (or misunderstanding) from the ICCF discussions in the hallways was that IH had to cut back on some funding due to the Rossi legal expenses for a while but have now started more funding since then. It also seems that Letts and possibly Hagelstein were funded during that period but that is just conjecture by some of the ICCF attendees. I wonder if they could be the two groups funded prior to the later payments to Rossi.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    What I say is not the issue here.


    Exactly. More precisely, we are discussing whether the money coming from IH and used for funding some LENR initiatives presented at ICCF21 have been collected thanks to Rossi, as I said at the beginning of our exchange of views (1). You later replied (2) that in "other speeches and announcements, [IH] said they were supporting a broad range of initiatives other than Rossi."


    I have no objection to this interpretation of the facts, which was also confirmed at the opening speech of ICCF19 in Padua: "I’m the founder of Cherokee, and I’ve been asked to tell you we are the body that created Industrial Heat as a funding source for LENR inventors."


    So, even if Rossi was the only inventor to be mentioned in that speech, it is evident that the true purpose of IH was to became the main source of funding for LENR inventors. That makes sense, because keeping the LENR field alive in the next few years is the only goal that can realistically be achieved.


    But this admission does not deny the fact that the money that "Industrial Heat" is using for this scope were essentially "Ecat money", that is, money collected in the presumption that the company were in possession of the Ecat's IP, i.e. of a LENR technology already capable to provide clean, cheap, safe, and nearly inexhaustible nuclear heat on an industrial scale, and nearly ready for the market.


    In fact, for what I saw on the web, the only money raised by the company have been:


    (a) 11.55 M$ collected from 14 private investors in 2012-13, and spent entirely to acquire the IP and License of the Ecat, and


    (b) 50 M$ invested by Woodford in 2015 in the middle of the Doral test, and when the only assets in the IH portfolio were the Ecat's IP and its License.


    Are you, or someone else here on L-F, aware of any other fund raised by IH?


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Ascoli65

    But this admission does not deny the fact that the money that "Industrial Heat" is using for this scope were essentially "Ecat money", that is, money collected in the presumption that the company were in possession of the Ecat's IP, i.e. of a LENR technology already capable to provide clean, cheap, safe, and nearly inexhaustible nuclear heat on an industrial scale, and nearly ready for the market.

    How do you know this? Did you attend meetings when the money was collected? Have you read the contracts or e-mail? I have not, and I do not know what the basis of the investments were. All I know is what I.H. has said publicly, and what they have actually done. What they have said and done conflicts with your version of the story, so I suppose you are wrong.



    Quote from Ascoli65

    (b) 50 M$ invested by Woodford in 2015 in the middle of the Doral test, and when the only assets in the IH portfolio were the Ecat's IP and its License.

    How do you know this? Did they discuss their portfolio with you? Was that in a lawsuit document?


    This is a rather silly discussion. You keep making assertions without evidence. Or you cite the name of the company, or some fact that has no bearing on the situation. If you have information, show it.

    Woodford was quite reluctant to discuss their investment in IH. Yet several people commenting on an annual report warned them and especially about Rossi.


    Quote

    I share John’s scepticism and am appalled to learn that ventures such as this have found their way into the fund. More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…post_10010_b_8052326.html

    Further digging reveals that the scientist mentioned in the article is a convicted fraudster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)

    While this does not appear to be directly connected to the LENR research, and quite apart from the previously stated doubts about the viability of this “technology”, it does not bode well for the character of the individuals to which our funds are being entrusted in this case.


    This is not an investment, it is a gamble pure and simple – if I wanted that I’d go to Ladbrokes, not a reputable investment manager. It’s not hard to see why such technological quackery might attract such individuals but as an investor I wouldn’t lend this guy a fiver, nor any company that would be associated with him.

    https://woodfordfunds.com/words/blog/focus-on-long-term/

    Quote from Ascoli65

    So, even if Rossi was the only inventor to be mentioned in that speech,

    not exactly so, he said: "One day I received a random call about cold fusion. I didn’t give it much credence because I remembered in detail the disclosure about Fleischmann and Pons years before, and I believed the subject was dead. Then thirty days later I received another related inquiry from a different group, so we began to do some research, and then thirty days later, I received a call from another group. We had invested in 100 startup companies and I had never gotten an inquiry about fusion or about LENR: three in 30 day intervals. We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology.….We started Industrial Heat because we thought that LENR technology was worth pursuing, even if we were unsuccessful. We were willing to be wrong,....We’re collaborating with and investing alongside fellow researchers and developers...."


    He may not have mentioned their names but he did acknowledge them. If you were at the meeting you would have noticed him spending time with D. Letts as well. And even going on tourism trips with him along with Dewey.


    and you said "50 M$ invested by Woodford in 2015 in the middle of the Doral test, and when the only assets in the IH portfolio were the Ecat's IP and its License."


    How do you know that? Paul and Henry visited several of IH's investment sites during that visits. IH was the last one on their "tour". You seem to think that the initial offering and the investment of Woodford into IH Holdings International. You seem to be confusing IH with IHHI and ignoring all the other investors and the possibility of IH investing in others by debt instruments. It seems that they just might have financed some of the others via debt instruments while the Woodford deals were being struck.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    What they have said and done conflicts with your version of the story, so I suppose you are wrong.


    Maybe, I am wrong, why not. But I did ask you, or anyone else here, if you are aware of any fund raised by IH other than (a) and (b) above. Evidently your implicit answer is no, and since you said you were in touch with them, this is probably the right answer. In such a case, the money used by IH to fund the LENR initiatives presented at ICCF21 can be considered as "Ecat money".


    Quote

    How do you know this? Did they discuss their portfolio with you? Was that in a lawsuit document?


    It was also in the lawsuit document:

    From the Rossi complaint, dated May 4, 2015

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…6/11/0001.0_Complaint.pdf


    70. Upon information and belief, IH, DARDEN and VAUGHN were able to raise substantial sums of money from numerous investors including, but not limited to, approximately Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00) from the Woodford Funds (including Woodford Patienr Capital Trust, PLC and CF Woodford Equity Income Fund), predicated upon their claims that IH andlor IPH had "acquired Rossi's intellectual property."



    IH confirmed the Woodford substantial investment, but denied part of the other allegations:

    From the IH answer, dated August 6, 2015

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…2016/11/0029.0_Answer.pdf


    70. In light of the Court’s dismissal of Count VIII of the Complaint (see [D.E. 24]), no response from Defendants is required to Paragraph 70. To the extent that any response is required, Defendants admit that Industrial Heat raised substantial sums of money from numerous investors, including entities affiliated with the Woodford Funds. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 70.


    However, on the IH side, it is more significant the interview published by Fortune in September 2015:

    http://fortune.com/2015/09/27/…-energy-nuclear-reaction/

    […]

    Q: So you’re optimistic?


    A: Yes, In fact, Rossi was awarded an important U.S. patent recently, which is part of what we licensed, covering the use of nickel, platinum or palladium powders, as well as other components, in his heat-producing device. This is one of very few LENR-related patents to date.


    But let me make one thing very clear. We don’t know for sure yet whether it will be commercially feasible. We’ve invested more than $10 million so far in Rossi’s and other LENAR technology and we’ll spend substantially more than that before we know for certain because we want to crush all the tests. (Recently, we have been joined by Woodford Investment Management in the U.K., which has made a much larger investment into our international LENR activities—so we are well funded.)

    […]


    It's clear that the interview is centered on Rossi. Although "other LENR technology" are briefly mentioned, these are not specifically named. Considering also the Rossi's patent cited in the first paragraph, I think that every reader of the magazine will associate Woodford's involvement with Rossi and "his heat-producing device".


    Anyway, you are more informed than me. So, please, can you tell us which other valuable asset was in the IH portfolio at that time?

    Quote from Ascoli65

    Anyway, you are more informed than me. So, please, can you tell us which other valuable asset was in the IH portfolio at that time?

    I have no idea. I am not informed at all. I have not discussed business with I.H., and I did not read the business-related documents in the lawsuit docket. All I know is what they said in public statements, such as the one quoted above.


    You are the one claiming to be a fly on the wall who saw these arrangements go down. So far you have not pointed to any evidence for this, other than statements from the lawsuit saying Rossi was an important part of the I.H. portfolio. Yes, we know that. However, they said that from the start they invested in others. So, either you are wrong when you say it was only an investment in Rossi, or they are lying.


    That's all there is to it. There is nothing more to be said, and I will say no more.

    It seems to me that the documents show that IH raised capital, but I don't see that, as you claim, that money was due solely on the grounds of Rossi's work. I do see where Rossi claims such things but not where IH says it is so.


    In fact the link you gave to IH's answer agrees they raised the money


    but denies the rest of paragraph 70 from Rossi's attack that Rossi's claim of " predicated upon their claims that IH and or IPH had "predicated upon their claims that IH and or IPH had acquired Rossi's intellectual property."


    So as I read it, yes they raised funds from Woodford, but they did not do so predicated on the acquiring of Rossi's IP. They denied that part of paragraph 70 "Defendants deny the remaining

    allegations in Paragraph 70. "


    You seem to be falling in the "Rossi says" pitfall, confusing what Rossi says and ignoring what IH denies in their court filings.


    Try re-reading IH's answers about paragraph 70.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    We’ve invested more than $10 million so far in Rossi’s and other LENAR technology

    "other LENAR technology"


    and from the same article:

    "Rossi’s was one of the first investments we made"


    and from the previously mentioned ICCF 19 talk:

    We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology.


    I do not know why you ignore the other investments and research support and the fact that Rossi was not the first item (at least 2 others) and try to push Rossi only investments and that they must have initially invested in LENR before Rossi or raising the rest of the money..

    I have greater trust in what IH says and is documented that what you claim.




    Quote from JedRothwell

    I have no idea. I am not informed at all. I have not discussed business with I.H., and I did not read the business-related documents in the lawsuit docket. All I know is what they said in public statements, such as the one quoted above.


    So, after several years from the first press release in January 2014 in which IH announced of having acquired the Ecat's IP, you are not able to mention any other valuable asset in the IH portfolio!


    Quote

    That's all there is to it. There is nothing more to be said, and I will say no more.


    I agree. There is nothing more to be said.

    Quote from oldguy

    I do not know why you ignore the other investments and research support and the fact that Rossi was not the first item


    Let me once again use the words that Shane D. used in 2016:

    From a Shane D. comment, https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…i/?postID=24042#post24042 :

    "Your part about Woodford is interesting, because based on Deweysays (just picking on you Dewey J) it does not sound like the rest of IH's portfolio would justify $50 million investment. That seems to indicate their main purpose for investing in IH, was because of Rossi. And we know they jumped on board this past summer...well into the GPT."


    I already left him the burden of explaining their meaning to you (1).

    I really hope he will intervene and be more effective than me.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    I don't interpret the language to reach the same conclusion that you did. But then I have only drafted a few prospectuses, offering circulars, etc. (well over a hundred). I doubt that a judge would interpret it the way you did if push ever came to shove in a shareholders' class action suit.


    For anyone that is interested, below is a link to a Form D filed by IH with the SEC on 8-23-2013 and relating to their offering of $20,000,000 in exempt securities, of which approximately $11,555,050 had already been sold. I look forward to someone claiming that this exempt filing is clear evidence of fraud by IH. (sarcasm in case not clear).


    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e…lFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

    Would someone please explain to me, in simple language, why Rossi's repeated claims of Sigma 5 or 5 Sigma should be considered meaningful by anyone. And just a brief followup on my prior post, if Rossi is banging the drum to investors about his Sigma 5 and, as I suspect that claim is meaningless, that could be considered a material misrepresentation made in the course of attempting to sell a security. I would truly love to get a copy of Rossi's offering documents and see who his legal counsel is. If anyone has a copy of the offering materials, I would greatly appreciate a copy. My email is [email protected] and my PO Box is 1100 Broadway, Suite 5752, Redwood City, CA 94063 (I believe Alan Smith may have already verified my identity).


    Thanks in advance.

    Moar, moar:


    Further to my post about securities issues, I noticed that Rossi said, on June 8, that clients would be guaranteed a "substantial profit." I really hope that he has good securities counsel.


    Andrea Rossi


    June 8, 2018 at 7:38 AM

    Robert Curto:

    Thank you for your suggestions.

    Our offers to the Clients will guarantee a substantial profit to them. The price will depend on the specific situations.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    a65

    absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Because you or Shane do not know what the other research is, does not mean it does not exist.

    You are only speculating that the other research is not worth much.

    I believe the $50M was held by IHHI not IH and money was transferred later to cover legal costs as needed. That is one reason Rossi's suit was doomed to fail, IH did not have the money, only receiving some as needed, and positioned to even declare bankruptcy if needed.


    I would think the situation is the reverse as you have painted it. Woodford did not invest the larger dollar (pound) amounts until after they had visited all of the researchers IH was supporting at the time and not prior to that just based on Rossi's claims of 1MW. Also they realized it may take years to be ready for commercialization and thus put it in the holding company and not IH itself and now waits for the farther development of that research before turning it over. That is "keeping their powder dry" for those development by the other groups IH has and is funding.


    Firstly, complaints are allegations, they are not evidence, so citing a complaint as evidence of something doesn't prove squat.


    Secondly, whomever were the driving people back in 2012 may have been considering many investment (IDK and I doubt you do either) and, on the advise of counsel, realized that it was appropriate to create a single-purpose entity to handle all of their investments in LENR. I am NOT claiming that is the case, I don't know. But it is just as plausible an explanation as yours.

    • Official Post


    Ascoli,


    The facts show that Rossi was not IH's first LENR investment, and Woodford told Darden in an email that the *main*, not only, reason for their investing was Rossi.

    Quote from woodworker

    I doubt that a judge would interpret it the way you did if push ever came to shove in a shareholders' class action suit.


    Why do you say this to me? This is out of my interest.


    Quote

    I don't interpret the language to reach the same conclusion that you did.


    Which conclusion? Could you be more specific?


    Quote from woodworker

    Firstly, complaints are allegations, they are not evidence, so citing a complaint as evidence of something doesn't prove squat.


    I know. This is why I also quoted the corresponding answer from IH.


    Quote

    Secondly, whomever were the driving people back in 2012 may have been considering many investment (IDK and I doubt you do either) and, on the advise of counsel, realized that it was appropriate to create a single-purpose entity to handle all of their investments in LENR. I am NOT claiming that is the case, I don't know. But it is just as plausible an explanation as yours.


    Again, which specific explanation of mine do you refer to?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.