Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The correct statement is that the Kllubbhaus and KIAN KAMAL KIAN are hoping and begging to intervene, butt despite the passage of many months since the motion to intervene there are zero signs that such a wish is likely to be granted, and several signs indicating that it will nott succeed.
In this matter both Chanboned and UOIP have separate, independent legal counsel repping them. Their is no ripe claim for UOIP shareholder-victims to bring. Shareholders cannot show that they have suffered any injury or have any right to any portion of the dwindling pot - at this time. Fingerling and his funders have no standing to intervene. As you have pointed ~OUTT previously, DEIRDRE is the one with a shareholder derivative suit pending in NC, so the Federal District court in Delaware has no basis to join Das Klubbhaus and KIAN KAMAL KIAN to the CBV case as derivative representatives standing in for UOIP.
And, DaCourt has had this intervention motion since it was first raised by Radar and the Realtor - and all Judge Norieka does is basically ignore it. Everything just moves forward and the motion to intervene is ignored. This is nott an impleader situation - none of the parties to the action support the Fingering/Klubbhaus motion nor have any of them brought such an impleading motion.
The fact that she has ignored the Radar/FInger motions and letters while she lets discovery, motions practice, and a potential scheduling order to proceed with~OUTT indicates that if she were somehow forced to rule now, she would deny the motion. However, she has no reason to do this now when she can always do it later - in case something unforeseen happens whereby circumstances change and Klubbhaus/KIAN KAMAL KIAN do in the future develop standing to intervene. AND with the DEIRDRE derivative suit pending in NC, IF there was or became a basis for shareholder-victims to intervene in the CBV case via a shareholder derivative claim vs UOIP, the judge in DE would be unlikely to recognize Fingering and the KIAN/Klubbhaus gang as the appropriate representatives in view of DEIRDRE’s already-pending derivative claim in NC.
At some point, she will rule, and unless something unforeseeable occurs whereby UOIP shareholders have a ripe claim to a direct financial interest they have (and remember, there is no duty on UOIP to just hand over the residual shekels to all the common stock shareholders - UOIP can spend the munny (if ANY) any way it chooses - and Billy has majority share votes), then I strongly expect that she will deny the motion to intervene.
Butt, as you korreckly stated, the fun never stops here. At least from my standpoint.
This is not our case, other than an inventors win frees up about 11% of the settlement for the shares. So we root for them while we intervene to become a defendant in the case. The fun never stops in this case.
It warms our heart to know the inventors will get a fair shake either way! And if and when they do hopefully the facts in their case will also make sure all parties involved will also equally receive a fair shake! Let the truth be told and all parties be made to do the right thing for every one of us!
Yeah, trial schedules never slippp.
BTW, there is no provision for FIingerling to CONduct any discovery as he reps no party to this case. Where is there time for him?
Hell, they did nott even bother to axe Fingerling is he is available for May 2023! Poor Fingerling - everyone is just ignoring him. He sends motions and a letter to DaJudge and nobuddy notices him or responds to him. Poor guy gottsa feel left~OUTT.
LOLOL!!
The Lawyer’s Billing Anthem
I remember when we used paper timesheets. For trivial matters you could bill in 0.1 hour increments, including just using 0.1 hrs for an entry.
Then, sometime in the early 90s we switched to a computer-based timekeeping system on the network and the minimum time for any entry became 0.2 hours. The bullshit reason given was that no billable task really takes 6 minutes or less - even if it is a 30 second phone call. The real reason was that it was a way to squeeze more $$$ from clients by doubling the minimum billing entry for any billable work (lawyers, paralegals, specialists, etc.).
I still have a few pads of the old paper timesheets kept just for posterity. They are in some box in storage. New kidds like Akiva prolly have never seen a pad of timesheets. Just as I never saw inkwells and quill pens and just gott in at the tail-end of Dictaphones and needing to spend time in the law lieberry for research. Newbies like Akiva prolly have no idea about such thangs (DaLieberry is still used for certain thangs, butt way less than it used to be).
Yett despite all the huge efficiencies that computerization has brought to DaLawBizz, oddly the total hours per project has gone uppp - even accounting for the general rate of inflation.
Weird, huh?
Oh well, these various lawyuhs re: Chanboned/UOIP will bill until the bucket of munny is drained dry.
Why?
Because they can.
4.2 might be an underestimate for GRIVNER. Butt for Radar The Magnificent, he might bill 30 hours because he might never have had to draft a scheduling order and may nott even have the boilerplate text on his computer. Radar never made it to Bigg Law so he never had the opportunity to download and archive all the forms, filings, boilerplate, legal research, and cases that are available on Bigg Law servers - just to download and use or archive on a removable drive - take it with you when you leave just don’t mention it. Radar does nott have this, so he rightly wood knead more heures to accomplish a task that a Bigg Law dude like Akiva (and mebbe GRIVNER) can do quickly because they have both experience at doing it AND oodles of boilerplate he can use from other draft or final scheduling orders he has in computer files available to him at a keystroke.
So what might take GRIVNER 4.2 heures could legitimately take Radar 10x as long (he will need to spend time locating examples and studying what is needed and how such a scheduling order is composed and presented). And GRIVNER’s draft will still be significantly superior to Radar’s.
And that is ONE reason why it is foolish to think one saves munny by using a lawyer with a cheaper billing rate. The Radars will actually wind up costing substantially more for the same matter than a higher rate Bigg Law lawyer (or alumnus like Akiva) would.
NEVER cheap~OUTT on doctors, lawyers, accountants - it will usually wind up costing more (and often a LOTT more - potentially costing your life, freedom, business, or worse) than if you simply buy the best available service provider right from the start. In general, a low billing rate lawyer will have to bill you for the time it takes them to LEARN what the higher billing rate lawyer already knows and thus is much, much more efficient (and better at).
KIAN KAMAL KIAN (or whatever his/her name is) screwed uppp by selecting Radar and the Realtor.
At least the trial will be in May instead of December. No soccer moms on this one, will be heard by the judge. And that judge takes no prisoners, the inventors will get a fair shake either way.
I wunner how much GRIVNER billed (bilt/bilked) CBV for drafting and filing that proposed order.
I put the over/under at 4.2 hours.
Most is boilerplate butt he did have to noodle up the section about sealed documents and a few other special tweaks.
So a few grand for that charged to CBV (for now).
Drip, drip, drip goes the remaining $$$ in DaPott
Gee, where’d it all go?</>
Fingerling is still waiting for any recognition by DaCourt - dead silence - DaJudge rightly has Fingering on Ignore
ABB - Always Bee Billing!
Thanks for continuing to keep up with the proceedings.....much appreciated.
142 PROPOSED ORDER Scheduling Order [Non-Patent] by CBV, Inc.. (Grivner, Geoffrey)
Aug 19, 2022
Main Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
Defendant
and
DIERDRE LEANE and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-MN
SCHEDULING ORDER [NON-PATENT]
This _______ day of _________________, 2022, the Court having conducted an initial
Rule 16(b) scheduling conference pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(b), and the parties having
determined after discussion that the matter cannot be resolved at this juncture by settlement,
voluntary mediation, or binding arbitration;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures and E-Discovery Default Standard. The parties
shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) within
five (5) days from the date the Court enters this Order. If they have not already done so, the
parties are to review the Court's Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of
Electronically Stored Information ("ESI"), which is posted at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov (see
Other Resources, Default Standard for Discovery) and is incorporated herein by reference.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6625
2
2. Application to Court for Protective Order. Should counsel find it will be necessary
to apply to the Court for a protective order specifying terms and conditions for the disclosure of
confidential information, counsel should confer and attempt to reach an agreement on a proposed
form of order and submit it to the Court within five (5) days from the date the Court enters this
Order. Should counsel be unable to reach an agreement on a proposed form of order, counsel
must follow the provisions of Paragraph 7(g) below.
[color=blue]Any proposed protective order must include the following paragraph:
Other Proceedings. By entering this order and limiting the
disclosure of information in this case, the Court does not intend to
preclude another court from finding that information may be
relevant and subject to disclosure in another case. Any person or
party subject to this order who becomes subject to a motion to
disclose another party's information designated "confidential" [the
parties should list any other level of designation, such as "highly
confidential," which may be provided for in the protective order]
pursuant to this order shall promptly notify that party of the motion
so that the party may have an opportunity to appear and be heard on
whether that information should be disclosed.[/color]
3. Papers Filed Under Seal. In accordance with section G of the Revised
Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by Electronic Means, a redacted version
of any sealed document shall be filed electronically within seven (7) days of the filing of the sealed
document.
4. Courtesy Copies. The parties shall provide to the Court two (2) courtesy copies of
all briefs and any other document filed in support of any briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits,
declarations, affidavits etc.). This provision also applies to papers filed under seal. All courtesy
copies shall be double-sided.
5. ADR Process. This matter is referred to a magistrate judge to explore the possibility
of alternative dispute resolution.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 6626
6. Discovery.
(a) Discovery Cut Off. All discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it
will be completed on or before November 21, 2022.
(b) Cross-Use of Discovery. The parties hereby agree that any discovery taken
in the arbitration referenced in the Complaint shall be deemed to have been taken in this action,
and Defendants shall expeditiously provide Plaintiff with copies of any discovery requests, written
discovery responses, documents, and deposition transcripts exchanged or taken in that arbitration.
(c) Document Production. Document production shall be substantially
complete by October 3, 2022.
(d) Requests for Admission. Absent good cause, a maximum of Twenty (20)
requests for admission are permitted for each side.
(e) Interrogatories.
i. Absent good cause, a maximum of Twenty (20) interrogatories,
including contention interrogatories, are permitted for each side.
ii. The Court encourages the parties to serve and respond to contention
interrogatories early in the case. In the absence of agreement among the parties, contention
interrogatories, if filed, shall first be addressed by the party with the burden of proof. The adequacy
of all interrogatory answers shall be judged by the level of detail each party provides (i.e., the more
detail a party provides, the more detail a party shall receive).
(f) Depositions.
i. Limitation on Hours for Deposition Discovery. Each side is limited
to a total of Thirty-Five (35) hours of taking testimony by deposition upon oral examination.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 6627
4
ii. Location of Depositions. Any party or representative (officer,
director, or managing agent) of a party filing a civil action in this district court must ordinarily be
required, upon request, to submit to a deposition at a place designated within this district.
Exceptions to this general rule may be made by order of the Court. A defendant who becomes a
counterclaimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff shall be considered as having filed an
action in this Court for the purpose of this provision.
(g) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
i. Identification of Experts. The Parties shall disclose the identity of
any proposed affirmative expert they intend to use on a given subject matter, regardless of which
party has the initial burden of proof on that subject matter, on October 21, 2022. The disclosure
shall include the identity and CV of the expert, for conflicts purposes, and a general description of
the intended subject matter of the expert’s report. The identity and CV of any rebuttal expert shall
be disclosed on November 20, 2022.
ii. Expert Reports. For the party who has the initial burden of proof on
the subject matter, the initial Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosure of expert
testimony is due on or before December 21, 2022. The supplemental disclosure to contradict or
rebut evidence on the same matter identified by another party is due on or before January 20,
2023. Reply expert reports from the party with the initial burden of proof are due on or before
February 3, 2023. No other expert reports will be permitted without either the consent of all
parties or leave of the Court. Along with the submissions of the expert reports, the parties shall
advise of the dates and times of their experts’ availability for deposition.
iii. Objections to Expert Testimony. To the extent any objection to
expert testimony is made pursuant to the principles announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 6628
5
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), as incorporated in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, it
shall be made by motion no later than fourteen (14) days after the close of expert discovery,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the Court’s Local
Rules.
iv. Expert Discovery Cut Off. All expert discovery in this case shall be
initiated so that it will be completed on or before March 20, 2023.
(h) Discovery Matters and Disputes Relating to Protective Orders.
i. Any discovery motion filed without first complying with the
following procedures will be denied without prejudice to renew pursuant to these procedures.
ii. Should counsel find, after a reasonable effort pursuant to Local
Rule 7.1.1 that they are unable to resolve a discovery matter or a dispute relating to a protective
order, the parties involved in the discovery matter or protective order dispute shall contact the
Court's Judicial Administrator to schedule an argument.
iii. On a date to be set by separate order, generally not less than four (4)
days prior to the conference, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed
three (3) pages, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues. On a date to be set
by separate order, but generally not less than three (3) days prior to the conference, any party
opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three (3) pages, outlining that
party's reasons for its opposition.
iv. The parties shall provide to the Court two (2) courtesy copies of its
discovery letter and any other document filed in support of any letter (i.e., appendices, exhibits,
declarations, affidavits etc.). This provision also applies to papers filed under seal. All courtesy
copies shall be double-sided.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 6629
6
v. Should the Court find further briefing necessary upon conclusion of
the conference, the Court will order it. Alternatively, the Court may choose to resolve the dispute
prior to the conference and will, in that event, cancel the conference.
7. Motions to Amend / Motions to Strike.
(a) Any motion to amend (including a motion for leave to amend) a pleading
or any motion to strike any pleading or other document shall be made pursuant to the discovery
dispute procedure set forth in Paragraph 7(g) above.
(b) Any such motion shall attach the proposed amended pleading as well as a
"redline" comparison to the prior pleading or attach the document to be stricken.
8. Case Dispositive Motions.
(a) Case dispositive motions, an opening brief, and affidavits, if any, in support
of the motion shall be served and filed on or before December 20, 2022. Briefing will be presented
pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules. No case dispositive motion under Rule 56 with respect to
this Paragraph 9(b) may be filed more than ten (10) days before the above date without leave of
the Court.
(b) Concise Statement of Facts Requirement. Any motion for summary
judgment shall be accompanied by a separate concise statement, not to exceed six (6) pages, which
details each material fact which the moving party contends is essential for the Court’s resolution
of the summary judgment motion (not the entire case) and as to which the moving party contends
there is no genuine issue to be tried. Each fact shall be set forth in a separate numbered paragraph
and shall be supported by specific citation(s) to the record.
Any party opposing the motion shall include with its opposing papers a response to the
moving party’s concise statement, not to exceed six (6) pages, which admits or disputes the facts
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6630
7
set forth in the moving party’s concise statement on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. To the extent
a fact is disputed, the basis of the dispute shall be supported by specific citation(s) to the record.
Failure to respond to a fact presented in the moving party’s concise statement of facts shall indicate
that fact is not in dispute for purposes of summary judgment. The party opposing the motion may
also include with its opposing papers a separate concise statement, not to exceed four (4) pages,
which sets forth material facts as to which the opposing party contends there is a genuine issue to
be tried. Each fact asserted by the opposing party shall also be set forth in a separate numbered
paragraph and shall be supported by specific citation(s) to the record.
The moving party shall include with its reply papers a response to the opposing party's
concise statement of facts, not to exceed four (4) pages, on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Failure
to respond to a fact presented in the opposing party’s concise statement of facts shall indicate that
fact remains in dispute for purposes of summary judgment.
9. Applications by Motion. Except as otherwise specified herein, any application to
the Court shall be by written motion. Any non-dispositive motion should contain the statement
required by Local Rule 7.1.1.
10. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine shall not be separately filed. All in limine
requests and responses thereto shall be set forth in the proposed pretrial order. Each party shall be
limited to three (3) in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted by the Court. The in limine
request and any response shall contain the authorities relied upon; each in limine request may be
supported by a maximum of three (3) pages of argument, may be opposed by a maximum of three
(3) pages of argument, and the party making the in limine request may add a maximum of one (1)
additional page in reply in support of its request. If more than one party is supporting or opposing
an in limine request, such support or opposition shall be combined in a single three (3) page
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 6631
8
submission (and, if the moving party, a single one (1) page reply), unless otherwise ordered by the
Court. No separate briefing shall be submitted on in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted
by the Court.
11. Pretrial Conference. On April ___, 2023, the Court will hold a pretrial conference
in Court with counsel beginning at _____. The parties shall file with the Court the joint proposed
final pretrial order in compliance with Local Rule 16.3(c) and the Court's Preferences and
Procedures for Civil Cases not later than seven (7) days before the pretrial conference. Unless
otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties shall comply with the timeframes set forth in Local
Rule 16.3(d)(1)-(3) for the preparation of the joint proposed final pretrial order. The Court will
advise the parties at or before the above-scheduled pretrial conference whether an additional
pretrial conference will be necessary.
The parties shall provide the Court two (2) double-sided courtesy copies of the joint
proposed final pretrial order and all attachments. The proposed final pretrial order shall contain a
table of contents.
12. Trial. This matter is scheduled for a 3 day bench trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on
May ___, 2023, with the subsequent trial days beginning at 9:00 a.m. The trial will be timed, as
counsel will be allocated a total number of hours in which to present their respective cases.
_________________
The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
United States District Judge
Counsel Shall Provide a Chart of All Relevant Deadlines
EVENT DEADLINE
Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures Five (5) days after entry of Scheduling
Order
Application for Protective Order Five (5) days after entry of Scheduling
Order
Discovery Cutoff November 21, 2022
Document Production Substantial Completion October 3, 2022
Identification of Affirmative Experts October 21, 2022
Identification of Rebuttal Experts November 20, 2022
Plaintiff’s Expert Report December 21, 2022
Defendants’ Rebuttal Expert Report January 20, 2023
Plaintiff’s Reply Expert Report February 3, 2023
Expert Discovery Cut Off March 20, 2023
Objections to Expert Testimony Fourteen (14) days after the close of
expert discovery
Case Dispositive Motions December 20, 2022
Pretrial Order and Motions in Limine Seven (7) days before the Pretrial
Conference
Pretrial Conference April ___, 2023
Trial May ___, 2023
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.142.0.pdf
141 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Leane Defendants' First Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant ChanBond, LLC filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane.(Levine, James Harry)
Aug 17, 2022
Main Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC, DEIRDRE LEANE,
and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-MN
NOTICE OF SERVICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 17, 2022, Leane Defendants’ First Set Of
Interrogatories To Defendant ChanBond, LLC was served via electronic mail on:
Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esq.
Kody M. Sparks, Esq.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL
& ROONEY PC
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-3036
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
kody.sparks@bipc.com
Attorneys for CBV, Inc.
Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq.
Ronald P. Golden, III, Esq.
BAYARD, P.A.
600 N. King Street, Ste. 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
rgolden@bayardlaw.com
Attorneys for ChanBond, LLC
OF COUNSEL:
Akiva M. Cohen
Dylan M. Schmeyer
KAMERMAN, UNCYK,
SONIKER & KLEIN P.C,
1700 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019
212.400.4930
acohen@kusklaw.com
dschmeyer@kusklaw.com
Dated: August 17, 2022
/s/ James H. S. Levine
James H. S. Levine (DE No. 5355)
TROUTMAN PEPPER
HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
302.777.6500
james.levine@troutman.com
Attorneys for Deirdre Leane and IPNAV, LLC
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.141.0.pdf
___________________________________
140 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Leane Defendants' First Set Of Interrogatories To Plaintiff CBV, Inc. filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane.(Levine, James Harry)
Aug 17, 2022
Main Document
A reason is billing!!! Today was a heavy billables day. I could hear the roar of timesheet entries all day being billed to (bilt to) Chanboned, UnitedOnline, CBV, DEIRDRE, and possibly even a slight hum from non-party rep Finger billed to DaKlubbHaus.
And there sits DaKlubbhaus with Finger up their ... oopps-whoops!!!
I gottsa laff when thinking of KIAN KAMAL KIAN and Klubbhaus still cuttttting Czechs to lawyahs for this nonsense.
I wunder whut FInger bilt for the cheesy letter to DaJudge. Mebbe 1.2 hours? It is a very short letter. I will be overgenerous to him and say 1.2 hrs is nott ~OUTTside the bounds if he rolls in prep time, review & revise draft, etc. in the time description. It all depends on how you describe the billing entry as to whether or nott a particular client may question that item or nott.
OTOH, he could bill he same time this way:
0.5 Review file and pending party motions.
0.4 Draft letter to court re: outstanding motions and sealed case records
0.3 Review and revise draft letter and attachment.
Getts you the same 1.2 hours butt might be more palatable to KIAN or KAMAL and the Klubbhaus.
Law skools ought to have a course on the Art and Science of Timesheet Billing. You do learn this stuph from yer mentors once you graduate and gett into a Bigg Firm, butt a formal law skool class would be good for those who do nott make DaCutt and do nott gett BiggLaw mentors to teach then DaRopes of DaBizzz post-graduately (sic).
Today the roar of timesheet entries being made on this case from all DaLawyahs working onit required me to put on hearing protection.
Well, there is a reason. It is just not a "reasonable" reason.
Keep the pinky fantasyland alive with hopes and wishes of a Billion plus settlement.
Cox can't keep the settlement out of their financials because of a NDA - look at the cox financials - the settlement was for all defendants.
I have never seen a patent infringement case with a patent troll where retail shareholders receive anything - just like bankruptcy cases.
But a few will be posting several years from now about a huge payout that never happens - remember if Chanbond wins everyone wins.
IG
I mean, I don't disagree with this. There is no reason to keep the documents sealed at this point.
LOLOL!!! And CBVs lawyers just totally forgot that, eh? Did not even plead it on an information and beleef lotto ticket unfounded assertion? And DEIRDREs crack legal team missed this also when they went thru the arbitration (with discovery!)?
LOLOL!!! Ya, OK, shure.
And this is DaKlubbhaus bleef system???
Ahahahahhaa!!! This is almost as wacky as the shit that getts posted, for example, on the BIOAQ board - a liquidated company that was liquidated years ago and shareholder-victims cling on despite reality and ticker cancellation. Humans just cannot accept reality and are in denial about the total loss so they invent the most crazy implausible excuses for.why the munny is nott gone when indeed it is G-O-N-E.
There is a very clear reason why they continue to keep everything sealed, but leak this $125 million settlement garbage to the public. You really think they are stupid enough to risk another lawsuit from the defendant for leaking settlement details when there was a NDA in place. Not to mention why keep everything sealed at this point if your willing to announce the most important detail... the value of the settlement. It's pretty amazing this is even a debate.
And again, you don't pursue a lawsuit for $130 million+ from the 1 infringer you are currently at court with (who happens to be a small amount of infringement amongst the group of 13) to then accept $125 million globally. If Carter wanted and needed money so bad that he was willing to accept $125 million, he would have got that a long time ago. The defendant had zero leverage giving up on the first day of trial realizing they were going to get their butts fried. There were other powers that be here and Carter had to make sure he got everything he could to pay off all of those he owes in his honorable lifestyle.
On the contrary, do you have any proof the settlement was with anyone outside of Cox? I guess you wouldn't as none of us would and that is why we are pursuing all information and details. But yet for some reason many here continue telling us it is absurd to continue pursuing.
Another note: Do you have any proof there was not a separate agreement in place with any of the defendants including but not limited too: Arris, Cisco, Comcast, etc. A purchase agreement contingent upon the settlement agreement with Cox (covered by their providers indemnification clauses). This is very standard information that is missing, but yet we are told to stop looking LOL!
Carter was negotiating with the defendants for himself - funders of legal expenses - the Attorneys.
Carter wanted/needed money so he accepted the offer of $125 Million.
Now the latest storyline is the settlement is in the Billions.
The retail shareholders are last in line to be paid. They are unsecured creditors
Do you have any proof that the settlement was only with Cox?
IG
139 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants Deirdre Leane And IPNAV, LLC's First Set Of Requests For Production To Plaintiff CBV, Inc. filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane.(Levine, James Harry)
Aug 12, 2022
Main Document
Notice of Service
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC, DEIRDRE LEANE,
and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-MN
NOTICE OF SERVICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 10, 2022, Defendants Deirdre Leane And
IPNAV, LLC’s First Set Of Requests For Production To Plaintiff CBV, Inc. were served via
electronic mail on:
Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esq.
Kody M. Sparks, Esq.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL
& ROONEY PC
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-3036
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
kody.sparks@bipc.com
Attorneys for CBV, Inc.
Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq.
Ronald P. Golden, III, Esq.
BAYARD, P.A.
600 N. King Street, Ste. 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
rgolden@bayardlaw.com
Attorneys for ChanBond, LLC
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 139 Filed 08/12/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6619
-2-
OF COUNSEL:
Akiva M. Cohen
Dylan M. Schmeyer
KAMERMAN, UNCYK,
SONIKER & KLEIN P.C,
1700 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019
212.400.4930
acohen@kusklaw.com
dschmeyer@kusklaw.com
Dated: August 12, 2022
/s/ James H. S. Levine
James H. S. Levine (DE No. 5355)
TROUTMAN PEPPER
HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
302.777.6500
james.levine@troutman.com
Attorneys for Deirdre Leane and IPNAV, LLC
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.139.0.pdf
NC case info from Pacer Monitor-There is life there. Sorry clubhouse.
Monday, August 08, 2022
28 notice Notice of Mailing Recommendation Mon 08/08 2:55 PM
Notice of Mailing Recommendation. Objections to R&R due by 8/22/2022. Objections to R&R for Pro Se due by 8/25/2022. (Bowers, Alexis)
27 motion Recommended Ruling - Magistrate Judge Mon 08/08 2:48 PM
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signed by MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE on 08/08/2022, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. #16 ] be DENIED, without prejudice to further consideration of statute of limitation issues after discovery. IT IS ORDERED that this case is set for an Initial Pretrial Conference on September 22,2022, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 3 of the Federal Courthouse in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. (Bowers, Alexis)
utility Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings Mon 08/08 3:03 PM
Set Hearings: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 9/22/2022 09:30 AM in Winston-Salem Courtroom #3 before MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE. (Bowers, Alexis)
As explained prior - $125 million settlement makes zero sense. The $125 million settlement was likely a settlement with only Cox and then there was a separate agreement in place with the settlement to buy the patents. This is why the patents were "sold". Otherwise there would be ongoing royalties attached to the settlement. They wouldn't just settle for $125 million and allow these companies to continue using the tech for free. Not to mention $125 million is less than they were pursuing just for Cox ALONE. Cox is a tiny fraction of the problem in reference to Comcast. This is why there is a search for more information.
Again you don't get to the very end at trial where the defendant gave up on day 1 with valuation experts at trial showing at minimum $ billions in damages and then settle for $125 million. The defendant had zero leverage at that point and the defendant is loaded with cash troves. This is why there is a search for more information.
It is clear from multiple sources that the settlement was $125 million. It seems that Finger wants more than that info in the intervention. I can tell you that that settlement number has been confirmed by those that are inside this case. What he wants outside of that is unknown.
Have you seen that the attached complaint does NOTTT support Finger's claim that it disclosed the settlement amount?
One cannot calculate the gross or net settlement amount from that document that Finger claims discloses it.
If I am wronGGG on this, please 'splain how you or Finger calculate it from the document (attachment to Finger's letter to DaJudge) and run the numbers for me showing your work. For Finger's sake I hope I have just mist it and there is some basis in the doc to support Finger's claim, otherwise he will end up like Radar. Making factually incorrect statements to DaCourt is frowned upon. Since Finger often practices in the US District Court in Wilmington, it wood bee a badd career move if he claimed the attachment discloses something that it does nott. It is weird, butt most Federal judges do knott like lawyahs stating that a document shows (or stands for) something that it does knott.
Read it carefully.
Mebbe I just mist it - hepp me ~OUTT here. How does one compute the gross or net settlement amount from the cited complaint?
TIA.
shajtastique one
Let's be clear, their take was to finance Deidre and Billy's lifestyles as they awaited the bigger payout and screwing the inventors and shareholder's for everything.
I believe somewhere in the 20-25% range, on top of the 28% percent going to the Chanbond lawyers on contingency. Their take was to be for financing the legals. How do legals in a contingency case need financing at the same level? Why are we paying twice for the same legals?
How much went to Bentham?
BTW, FInger s letter is wronGGG. Read the attached complaint carefully.
It is NOTT there.
Read closely.
Enjoy reading the posts.
Just a reminder...inflation is running double-digit.
Stay well.
Their win would add approximately $13.75 million to the $54 million=$67.75 million/1.6B=.0423 per share maximum. This number would be reduced by costs, unknown at this point. I would not bet on their win in total, as I think they will settle the $27.5 million between them. Then there will be the legal costs in either derivative action as well. We would be be incredibly fortunate to get the .021 that was the share price before we got delisted, years from now.
Well everyone would have to be happy with the .0337, as that would be the maximum available, unless the inventors take their case to finality and win vs Deirdre. I have discussed the situation with them, so we will see what they will do.
re: "Carter isn't really involved in the CBV case".. .I hear you, I was insinuating re: his pending involvement down the line re: all the fraud/malfeasance kamal case highlighted in previous documents thus far and deirdre has been accused of misleading information via CBV lawyers' previous filings
I hope the 3 inventors get reimbursed for their tech before more health issues ensue
re: " $54 million divided by 1.6B shares=.0337 per share.. I am sure everyone would be happy with a return here in that range".. .NONE of the uoip shareholders I'm in contact with would be "per se" be happy with 0.03 per share, after all these years following this case
According to the recent revelation, the legals cost 28% of the settlement= $35 million. With the CBV case $27.5 million divided up between the inventors and Deirdre=$62.5 million of $125 million leaves about half, plus some extras. So let's cap that at a couple million= about $60 million left. The inventors got some last fall, let's assume a mil or two each= $54 million left over. That should be the amount we need to fight for as the amount for UOIP. Whether it's Deidre in NC, or a case at the Chancery Court in DE, that would seem to be what should happen. How Billy can create a separate distribution, or why excess financing was needed on a contingency case, needs to go in front of a judge. $54 million divided by 1.6B shares=.0337 per share. I am sure everyone would be happy with a return here in that range.
Carter isn't really involved in the CBV case, it is the inventors vs the agreement Deidre created as an advisory contract for 22% of the settlement. She would have nothing if it wasn't for their work. Neither side gets paid until it is worked out. There is $27.5 million at stake, you would think someone would figure out the fact that this goes on forever without a deal. IMO, 9 million for the inventors of the $27.5 million will get this done, and Deirdre gets about $17 million for doing nothing. Then we can get to work on Billy.
Why nott? They both went thru it in the arbitration (which is already part of the current US District Court in Delaware case).
Let's hope with all this that Deirdre and the inventors can settle this. There is $27.5 million at stake, and I cannot believe that those two camps can't divvy that up between themselves fairly. Once they do that, it clears the deck for a derivative case for shareholders for anything left.
DaJudge knows deaf people are witnesses all DaTime in litigation. The request by Earl's fourth-rate lawyer was nearly (butt knott kwite) as stoopid as Radar's request to appear at his own hearing because he was skert to fly to the Filly airport. Just a waste of court time - and DaJudge Shirley wasted no time in shutting it down.
Finger's doomed request is next for either continued ignoring by DaCourt and let him linger (and bill!!) until the case is CLOSED or just, if he getts to be too pestering, shuttt him down too.
Friday night is veal spezzato night at Mrs. Robino's
138 ORAL ORDER re 136 Letter - Having reviewed the parties' letter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will not bifurcate the issues. If the parties wish to depose Mr. Hennenfoefer to preserve his testimony, they shall meet and confer to come to an agreement regarding such. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court adopts Defendant's proposed dates in the scheduling order and, on or before 8/19/2022, the parties shall file a revised proposed scheduling order. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 8/5/2022. (dlw) (Entered: 08/05/2022)
Aug 5, 2022
Main Document
137 Letter to The Hon. Maryellen Norieka from David L. Finger regarding addressing new information relevant to the pending motions - re [34] MOTION to Intervene derivatively on behalf of UnifiedOnline, Inc., [100] MOTION to Intervene and Unseal Documents. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit Complaint in Mishcon De Reya New York LLP v. ChanBond, LLC, et al.)(Finger, David)
LINK > Letter to The Hon. Maryellen Norieka from David L. Finger
Aug 5, 2022
Main Document
Letter
Attachment 1
Exhibit Complaint in Mishcon De Reya New York LLP v. ChanBond, LLC, et al.
Good intentions and $5 will gett a small Americano house coffee at Bucks.
Most to all OTC Pink crap ought to re-register as non-profit organizations.
Well it was good intentions. And I feel for the folks who poured monies in. May good fortune return to All of US who lost.
No wait, if he intervenes in the case for absolutely no reason, he can bill at least up to the trial next year. Since we get NOTHING from an intervention, its all free money for him.
And Finger gott ripped. Since he does NOTT represent a party to the CBV litigation, he cannot submit his musing on the Deaf Earl Motion, and that sadly means a missed billing opportunity for Finger.
Heck, he cannot even SEE the UNREDACTED versions of the various filings by the parties. This restricts the amount of time he can credibly bill for reviewing court filings.
He is the Oddfellow ~OUTT when it comes to billables opportunities. At least in the Federal District Court in Dull-Aware. When the court is in session, DaBailiff prolly gives TheFinger tickets to sit in the balcony or DaBleachers, since he cannot sit at the adults table as he reps a current non-party. Mebbe he can wartch proceedings on a CCTV hookup in DaJohn or a broom closet in the court building.
Which of these two would you rather have represent you? Clearly Saul ... errr .... Slippin' Jimmy!
At least Saul can make Cinnabons.
The cabal has had zero effect on this case, other than really pissing off the judge in Delaware. Might as well take a nap, as the CBV case wont be heard until either May or December of next year, and a derivative case wont happen until years after that.
LOL! It was DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction - exactly as forecast here. Billy lacks even minimal contacts to California. Suing him there was beyond stupid. At least DEIRDRE has decent lawyers who know the appropriate venues in which to sue.
What a joke. IMO legal malpractice. Nuthin butt pure wasted munny. Every single penny spent by KIAN and Klubbhaus was totally and wholly wasted and accomplished nott one single thang other that paying a few mortgage and car payments for Radar and the Realtor.
Well, and we gott some ennertainment from Radar with his hilarious plea to nott have to fly to Philadelphia ... or Wilmington ... or Dulles ... or National ... or BWI ... or EWR ... or Acela train ... etc. COVID/monkeypox/anthrax/shigella/ThePlagueBlackDeath/hantavirus/Lactobacillus/infectious communicable hemorrhoids ~OUTTbreaks. That was some funny shit. DaCourt gott some laffs from his off-gassing. Making baldfaced, obvious LIES to a sitting Federal judge in their court is generally a poor choice. Nott calling in to his own scheduled hearing - well, that was just the cherry on topp.
Radar
How is the Kamal / Gregory suit ? Are there any results to this point ? And no derogatory remarks please.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |