The EESTor/theeestory Connection from Bloomberg Businessweeek

The EESTor/theeestory Connection from Bloomberg Businessweeek
The above is a screen capture from Bloomberg Businessweek July 10, 2010. The url was recently changed to to make people believe there is no connection between EESTor and, the #1 site of pumping EEStor on the internet. Update-EEStor's web site URL has been deleted.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Deception of Zenn Investors

Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Archival note concerning Zenn, EEStor, and the EESTORY blog.

          As a result of listening to the VP of manufacturing of Zenn give a recorded
interview to eestorblogger B, I realized that the whole thing will now be provably a
knowing deception of Zenn investors. If not at the outset (initial investment and
erroneously drafted milestones could have resulted from naivete and lack of diligence),
then certainly now. These arguments were posted on the thread discussing the interview
and need not be repeated. They were posted knowing this would kick the proverbial
hornets nest, which it did on the website. Two further long, detailed explanations of all
the logical dilemmas that lead to the unfortunate conclusion that fraudulent deception is
very likely were also posted. They are on the site.
          One hoped for result was that some Zenn shareholders would be alerted, and
indeed this was the case. One investor even asked for short answers (the blogger’s style)
to complex questions, which were given, and to which there was no riposte.
          Another hoped for result was that perhaps this allegation would force more clarity
into Zenn/EEStor pronouncements if they were well-intentioned. Or, in the alternative,
get them to provide further evidence that knowing deception is probably being practiced.
          The latter became true as a result of B’s posting a short follow up interview with
Tom Weir of EEStor, to which much exaltation has been recorded this date on the
website. Incredibly, Zenn emailed this “press announcement” to its shareholders this date.
It is actually a published report from the editor in chief of AllCarsElectric, who in turn
misreports B’s website interview of the EEStor VP. The ACE article is available this date
unaltered on the Zenn website under press releases. The headline touts, “EEStor VP Says
EESU’s to be delivered by end of 2009.” Which is not what the VP said. He said the
permittivity announcement (at low voltage) was “a step toward the second objective to
deliver production quality components and/or EESU’s by the end of 2009.”
          That is a significant qualification, since no working component has yet been
demonstrated (permittivity at voltage) to Zenn according to Bergeron himself, and an
EESU has many more issues than a single working component. Zenn knows this. The
interview with VP Engineering Bergeron proves it.
One must consider various possible sources of the inaccuracy.
           1. Naïve carelessness. Zenn is a licensee of EEStor, purportedly working closely
              with them. Zenn touts an inaccurate headline (proven in the text itself), which
              itself is hearsay (ACE quoting B quoting Weir). They could easily have
              double checked with Weir himself, and/or issued their own opine on B’s
              posting. The plainly misleading headline is to their advantage. Knew or
              should have known. Naivete is not a legal defense when this important.
          2. Effort to avoid liability by hiding behind “we are just repeating what he said B
             said W said.” But that violates the duty to know for oneself, reflects bad legal
             advice and/or legal naivete, and again provides little liability shelter.
          3. Zenn knows it is true despite the misquote. In which case, there is no liability
              issue if in fact a working EESU materializes by end of 2009.
          4. Deliberate perpetration of knowingly wrong information in order to fund
              Zenn. Which will be the only reasonable interpretation left if it does not.
Addendum Jan 14 2010. It did not. Given the Jacobs report, #4 is most likely.

(Source: NanoCarbons with permission)