$NSTGQ June 22, 2026 deadline to resolve/object to claims is approaching. What are the hidden claims remaining because the claims register last updated shows none? I think another deadline extension would be approved taking the delay strategy to the end of the year. This dragging is unbelievable, they had all the cash in hand in May 2024. More than two years passed in negotiating/settling? What?
$NSTGQ It was very painful to lose so much on this stock last year, and not so much as a "thank-you" note in return from the company. I have forgotten now how much it was, and I'm not planning to remind myself. I have started to make it up in other ways, and have learned a useful lesson for the future - steer clear of biotech stocks.
$NSTGQ New Quarterly Claims Register is posted on the docket showing no outstanding claims. Braidwell's and Deerfield's (the noteholders) Warrant claims in the amount
of $1,643,279.78 and $792,776.43 have been fully satisfied. What are the "hidden claims" they are still negotiating? Soon we know if get zero or some cents. Noteholders have been paid to the hilt perhaps including post confirmation interest. Clock never stopped for them.
$NSTGQ Omnibus hearing set for Feb 5, 2026. Motion for extending deadline for claims objection to June 22,2026 is on the docket. If there would be no objection to deadline extension, perhaps like the last time the Omnibus Hearing on Feb 5 will be cancelled. What we have then a long dreary winter except meaningless quarterly report. No objection from trustee either? It might be long torturous no soup for legacy shareholders. Never seen anything like that in Bk world...
$NSTGQ Report ending September 30, 2025. One extra line has been added which indicates 0 to equity. I think remaining subordinated claims of Noteholders (warrant claims) along with interest were paid. 415,000 claims of Glaxo Smith Cline and 2.8 million to Veracyte. Total paid under GUC heading was $9,158,759 . In addition, $573,769 were paid for admin claims.
The highlighted feature of this report is big zero to equity. Noteholders were paid the very last cent of claims plus interest; perhaps post effective date interest too. I think any millions left in escrows would be reserved for wind down as per Delaware corporate law requirement and chapter closed. This hurts bad.....
$NSTGQ I don't care what they do with it at this point take my money long as I don't have to look at this piece of crap anymore I'm just stuck with it sitting on my stock report
$NSTGQ Settlement with Veracyte is stipulated in the new docket filing. $2.8 million as the settlement amount is a bit high. I was thinking 1.5 million as Veracyte might have easily spent 1 million on its legal representation over 1.5 years. But this obstacle is removed as soon as judge signs.
$NSTGQ This is some major Robbery.
The lawyer will extend the closure date by another 6 months until they suck off all the potential leftover funds for shareholders and the judge will allow them. So unfair and disappointing . https://cases.ra.kroll.com/NanoString/Home-DocketInfo
"RELIEF REQUESTED
12. By this Motion, the Post-Effective Date Debtors seek entry of the Proposed Order, extending the Current Claim Objection Deadline by 180 days, through and including December 22, 2025"
$NSTGQ Does anyone think this will come to a closure by the end of this month or stay in limbo longer?
"The Claims Objection Deadline under the Plan is hereby extended by one hundred and eighty (180) days, through and including June 23, 2025, without prejudice to the Post-Effective Date Debtors’ right to seek further extensions thereof"
https://cases.ra.kroll.com/NanoString/Home-DocketInfo
$NSTGQ
Veracyte wants their range of settlement money. Now the discovery of Veracyte's assigned professionals would start. Perhaps, this is the juncture where they would see a
point in settling rather than dragging. Full litigation means more risk unless they think they have a very strong case. Never thought this will take so long after Judge's hints and attitude to control long drawn litigation, although he allowed Veracyte to pursue litigation which is understandable. He couldn't have awarded summary judgement based merely on initial objections to claims by debtors.
