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.
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.
PROPOSAL 3 - ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
“say-on-pay,” a little more info on what the shareholders are voting on, or maybe not, i dont know anymore
http://research.wpcarey.asu.edu/management-entrepreneurship/ceo-compensation-whats-the-impact-of-say-on-pay/
The bottom line
Semadeni says his research holds these takeaways for the various stakeholders in “say-on-pay” issues:
For boards: be aware of how “say-on-pay” votes can be perceived and act accordingly. When the company is underperforming and compensation is high, reconsider the pay package or educate shareholders on the reasons for it. Be more transparent about goals and targets CEOs must reach to earn their compensation.
For CEOs: you know that compensation is often tied to performance, and there are many types of compensation. If you agree to excessively low compensation, be aware that the board might have difficulty raising your pay if future performance is poor.
For shareholders: hold the board accountable for the CEO’s compensation, even when a company is performing well. A company that pays its top managers too little risks losing superior performers.
For lawmakers: the notion of “say-on-pay” was catchy, but its value is questionable. Making the votes binding would only gut boards’ responsibility to represent shareholders and decide on compensation. “Say-on-pay” poses an additional burden on companies, and as more of them go private, oversight and shareholder control are lost.
Im paying for pacer.gov, 10 cents a page, I get billed every quarter, last quarter I downloaded 640 pages!
the last entry does not have a link to view or download
Im not subscribed to pacermonitor.
its not available to view or download.
I just checked on Pacer.gov and there is nothing new.
these are the last 5 entries for trustwave
25
Filed & Entered: 09/29/2016
Docket Text Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF
26
Filed & Entered: 09/29/2016
Docket Text Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF
27
Filed & Entered: 09/29/2016
Docket Text Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF
Filed & Entered: 09/30/2016
Docket Text Notice of Pro Hac Vice counsel added
28
Filed & Entered: 10/11/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance
29
Filed & Entered: 11/04/2016
Docket Text Joint Discovery Plan
Filed & Entered: 11/09/2016
Docket Text Scheduling Conference
what do you mean?
AWESOME!! LETS GET THE BALL ROLLING AGAIN!
Nice!
exactly!
That is absolutely fine with me, I have time.
of course its peanuts, we are in the pinks right now, what do you expect?
i can surely back my claim the First midwest bank settled, check my post
i can surely back my claim that revenue grew 66% from q over q
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
PHONEFACTOR, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1: 13-cv-00490 MPT
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the agreement of the
parties, Plaintiff StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. ("Plaintiff') and Defendant First Midwest
Bancorp, Inc. ("FMBI"), by and through their respective counsel ofrecord, hereby stipulate and
agree as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed the above captioned action asserting claims for patent infringement
against FMBI, which, in turn, asserted one or more counterclaims or affirmative
defenses against Plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff and FMBI have agreed to settle, adjust, and compromise all claims between
them in the above-captioned action. As a result, the claims between Plaintiff and
FMBI have been resolved with respect to products of PhoneFactor, Inc. for which
FMBI is accused of infringement in this action.
3. All claims asserted by StrikeForce against FMBI and all claims asserted by FMBI
Defendants against StrikeForce in the above-entitled cause are dismissed with
prejudice to the re-filing of same.
4. All costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff or FMBI relating to this litigation as
between them (including attorney and expert fees and expenses) shall be borne solely
by the party incurring the same.
5. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order of Dismissal shall affect StrikeForce's claims
against Defendant PhoneFactor, Inc., or against Microsoft Corporation, which claims
are expressly preserved.
Dated: December 4, 2014
BLANK ROME LLP
ls/Steven L. Caponi
Steven L. Caponi (l.D. No. 3484)
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 425-6400
Attorneys for StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.
MORRIS JAMES LLP
ls/Mary Matterer
Mary Matterer (Bar No. 2696)
500 Delaware A venue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19899-2306
(302) 888-6800 Phone
Attorneys for First Midwest Bancorp, Inc
SOORDERED~H~M~
Give me a bit
Yes next week
The whole point of replying to your post is that your statement is incorrect.
Did you see the revenue increase on the 3rd Q?
This is not a new company but it's barely taking off, give it sometime.
This is not Symantec, don't expect $1mill revenue increase each week
They got a customer out of it.
Dude, I just posted to you yesterday that First Midwest Bank settled with Strikeforce.
Do you have on ignore?
what was the success rate for SFOR's lawyers again?
my firewall at work blocks the videos but I'll check them out later on on my mobil!
Houston is my home, Blank Rome is hungry here in Houston, only Houston and D.C. have 2 offices, their other locations only have 1.
A total of 10 combined firms make up BLANK ROME! these guys are no joke.
And we have posters here saying that they have a 66% failure rate with Strikeforce, they haven't read the case documents to figure out what Blank Rome was going for when they chose FISERV, INC, FIMB and Phonefactor as their initial defendants for the "599" patent litigation, now the "599" patent is even stronger when they made the changes and 8,484,698 patent was granted.
In my opinion of course.
Randol you from Houston?
Haha, I guess now he can say blank room has a 66% success rate!! Lol
FISERV, INC had its purpose just like First Midwest Bank did. It was well executed in my opinion. There's was a reason why these 3 companies were chosen to start the current series of patent litigations.
Now Blank Rome has moved on to the next 3 companies that provide the service but do not use it. DUO, Trustwave and Centrify
Blank Rome firm is an extremely successful firm with some great talent
Like Zpaul said, the DD was done a while back and it's a matter of time.
Since you haven't answered my question I'm going to assume you do NOT know why First Midwest BankCorp Inc was not followed through.
Here is the answer
FMBI was a customer of Phonefcactor, they had a 3 year contract. Long story short....
2. Plaintiff and FMBI have agreed to settle, adjust, and compromise all claims between
them in the above-captioned action. As a result, the claims between Plaintiff and
FMBI have been resolved with respect to products of PhoneFactor, Inc. for which
FMBI is accused of infringement in this action.
Case 1:13-cv-00490-RGA-MPT Document 131 Filed 12/04/14
Do you know why the other two defendants were removed voluntarily?
Bingo! SFOR seems to be holding 5's, can it be driven down lower? I don't think so. IMO
Since the price held, ok down 2 ticks, that means someone is accumulating right? Someone had to buy those shares right? Or do I have it wrong?
How many have they had penny?
In my opinion of course
Most likely the judge will sign off on the timeline submitted last week. But if we compare to phonefactor's case, the case was sent to mediation and later settled and that proposed timeline was not even remotely followed. Not even close!!
Maybe a court update after 4pm et.
is this real life? or just for grins?
I have to say its very interesting!!
that's what we like to hear!!
Change of accounting firm was due to Li & Company, PC stopped providing services for public companies.
I don't think anything was set for Dec 5th.
The motion for set/reset is there but there is no mention of extension for centrify filed and there is no document to view. Maybe tomorrow? IDK
These are the last 5 entries on the docket.
30
Filed & Entered: 10/03/2016 Docket Text Answer to Counterclaim
31
Filed & Entered: 10/11/2016 Docket Text Notice of Appearance
32
Filed & Entered: 11/04/2016 Docket Text Joint Discovery Plan
33
Filed & Entered: 11/07/2016
Terminated: 11/08/2016 Docket Text Motion for Leave to Appear
Filed & Entered: 11/08/2016 Docket Text Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
34
Filed & Entered: 11/08/2016 Docket Text Order on Motion for Leave to Appear
otcqb i believe
No extension
I see the set/reset motion but no file
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 2:16-cv-03574 JMV-MF
v.
CENTRIFY CORPORATION,
Defendant.
CONSENT ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
This matter having been brought before the Court by Tyler E. Baker, Esq. of Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, attorneys for Defendant Centrify Corporation ("Defendant"),
on application to allow Darren M. Franklin, Esq., a Partner with the law firm of Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, to appear and participate pro hac vice; and the Court having
noted the consent of Plaintiff, Strike force Technologies, Inc., and considered the supporting
papers; and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this ~ day of ~f/. '2016,
ORDERED that the application of Defendant be and hereby is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Darren M. Franklin, Esq., a member in good standing of the Bar of the
State of California, be permitted to appear pro hac vice in the above-captioned matter pursuant to
L. Civ. R. 101.1 ( c ); and it is further
ORDERED that, all pleadings, briefs, and other papers filed with the Court shall be
signed by a partner or associate of the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP,
attorneys of record for Defendant, who is admitted to the Bar of this Court and shall be held
responsible for said papers and for the conduct of the case and who will be held responsible for
the conduct of the attorney admitted hereby; and it is further
Case 2:16-cv-03574-JMV-MF Document 34 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 192
Case 2:16-cv-03574-JMV-MF Document 33-2 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 2 PagelD: 191
ORDERED that Darren M. Franklin, Esq., shall pay the annual fee to the New Jersey
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in accordance with L. Civ. R. 101.l(c)(2) and New Jersey
Court Rule 1 :28-2 within twenty (20) days from the date of the entry of this Order; and it is
further
ORDERED that Darren M. Franklin, Esq., shall make payment of $150.00 to the Clerk of
the United States District Court in accordance with L. Civ. R. 101. l(c)(3), as amended, within
twenty (20) days from the date of the entry of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that Darren M. Franklin, Esq., shall be bound by the Rules of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, including, but not limited to the provisions of
L. Civ. R. 103.1, Judicial Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and L. Civ. R. 104.1,
Discipline of Attorneys; and it is further
ORDERED that Darren M. Franklin, Esq., notify this Court immediately of any
disciplinary charges brought against him in the Bar of any other court; and it is further
ORDERED that Darren M. Franklin, Esq., shall be deemed to have agreed to take no fee
in any tort case in excess of the New Jersey State Court Contingency Fee Rule, Rule 1 :21-7, as
amended; and it is further
ORDERED that Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, may file a request, the form
of which is available at the Court's website, with the Clerk of the Court for pro hac vice counsel
to receive electronic notifications in this matter.
U.S. Magistrate Judge
CONSENT ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE for centrify
I believe most of the people that were expecting settlement news have left since Kay's video, hence the drop in price.
Alright, its 2:24am in Singapore, the fly needs to get some sleep and be on alert in 6 hours or so!
Don't keep us waiting too long please!