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.
As always, I am will be happy to read whatever is provided to the court as evidence. But so far, nothing has been provided by management that seems to substantiate their position.
I am not looking into the future. I am referring to the present litigation. Williams is currently working with attorneys. Seems to have no issues with it whatsoever. It seems to be management that can't keep an attorney.
It is not up to Williams to show that Turrini and Pierce were fired. Similar to Williams having to show that he is still on the Board, Turrini and Pierce need to sue to prove they were not fired.
Admittedly it will be better if the judge in the current case makes some statement in regards to that matter, although technically, it should only be dicta, but the court will have significant power and there is that catch-all included in the request for relief, so who knows.
It would be nice to get some closure on this chapter in Calypso's history on move on to the post-Turrini/Pierce/Diac period.
It seems like a lot of people here don't like it when the court pulls the curtain back on the Great and Powerful Turrini and Pierce and we see that there is nothing there.
Perhaps Turrini and Pierce should grow-up and move on.
Pierce can go back to her job at the bank and Turrini can go back to ... umm ... I don't think he has an other work
Oh, you mean he wanted to conduct discovery, like deposing Diac's wife.
Where do you get your information from?
Why does everyone think that Williams cannot work with attorneys? Clearly he can. He is successfully prosecuting this action against management. I can see no reason why, given the opportunity, he could not work with a contingency attorney on T-Mobile.
It is not like they would really even have to work with him. Most of the work would be discovery from T-Mobile demonstrating that they used our technology.
A number of posters here have claimed that the company could not move forward because Williams kept threatening to sue anyone we might make deals with, the insinuation being that there were deals in the works that Williams somehow killed. The response was management's opportunity to substantiate that claim. Management does not. The only people William's threatened (or initiated) legal action against was management and probably the SEC attorney for malpractice. The rest was smoke and mirrors. More "unsubstantiated allegations" made by Turrini and Pierce.
If they are not telling the truth about this what else are they fabricating? A future that involves developing software for the patent?
The response also makes clear their incompetence and total lack of the ability to take responsibility for anything. Management was fully aware that the ballots were fraudulent on their face by stating that the board recommended this action. They had the opportunity to fix this had they wished to. Instead, they let them stand. In effect, they perpetuated a fraud on every shareholder who used an electronic ballot. To be clear, they intentionally lied. Saying that the company they hired to conduct the vote was in charge of what the ballots said and they could not control it is ludicrous.
For those of you who are still hoping for a quick return based on Turrini and Pierces private statements that all they need to do is get rid of Williams and the company will make money, think about the lies you have already been told and decide whether either one of them can be trusted with the future of the company.
Thanks again.
Pretty thin for an answer. No documentation cited other than what was already produced. Some parts were funny, like "yeah, we are paying for the vote but we have no control over what the ballots say cause they are produced by someone else" and nothing on why they cannot work with Williams other than he is rude on occasion. Pretty thin. I don't see management coming out on top if this is all they have.
We have ... sorta. Follow the link and you will see there is a final motion for non-suit signed but, beyond that all we know is what is in the PRs and the 8K, which is pretty vague very misleading. For instance, the PR states that all prior agreements with Diac are void but it was clear from information put out at the forum that he is getting to keep the shares he received as part of a prior agreement. The shares are not mentioned in the PR, so it is hard to tell exactly what the statement that "all prior agreements are void" actually means. For all I know we still owe Diac hundreds of thousands of dollars and he still will keep a valid lien on our US patent. Who knows. No one really knows what we actually agreed to and management is not making the settlement public.
I interpret the events of that period differently. When Diac tried to sell the patent Turrini did not seem to be fighting. He did not even appear to be engaged. He looked like he was doing the same thing he did when Diac won the default in court that led to him receiving the $117M judgment.
You claim that:
which he gave back to Turrini after he thought he was going to lose to Drago
The link to the state case is at:
http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/edocs/public/CaseDetails.aspx?Get=qtK8hbJhs4hOHf5R68/+5lWEUjnITXhcK+satYZUUTSjSPwyjqth/3iyfgwpVw9u1ccO379nCKNFaWcGm2yb4ur+dRKYd1CCJHaxyCerOu8=
To look at the documents (which are under the images tab) you will need to create a login and password. It will ask for a credit card, but there is no fee as long as all you are doing is looking.
For what is is worth I spoke to him once a while back. He can really swear when he is pissed-off. It was when the settlement with Diac was first made public. He was pissed-off because the he felt the company was being held back ... it was once again being denied its day in court because some members of management did not really believe in the company.
He has always had the ability to force the company into receivership yet he has never exercised that option. I think he believes in the patent and the company. Based on that belief he hates anyone who place's their interests ahead of the company's.
Diac was on the verge of selling the patent. He used the fact that we had not paid him the monies due according to the 2008 settlement as the basis to foreclose on the patent and sell it. He would have sold it and the company would have owned nothing we not fought him.
Our case was that Diac had violated the terms of the 2008 agreement by interfering with our business operations by not allowing us to enter into deals. We won an TRO based in part of facts substantiating allegation. That TRO stopped him from selling the patent. That was what this state case was all about.
Despite what some have reported, the state case was never about getting rid of the 2008 agreement that voided the $117M court judgment, it was about enforcing the common law duties included in that agreement, like the duty not to interfere or obfuscate our ability to uphold our end of the agreement. If we would have won we would have kept Diac from interfering with our ability to monetize the patent and probably damages for lost business opportunities.
These are only guesses but here is the way I see it.
Management will bring on additional people and claim they are developing a market strategy that includes developing the software to operationalize and market the patent (hence, the CTO). They will either seek additional investors or issue additional shares to fund the operations saying that they will use the money to eventually make pitches to companies. They will probably move T-Mobile to the back burner or will open direct negotiations which will be disastrous (based on past experience with the Diac Settlement). Any money that might come in, including some of the money received in loans or in the sale of the newly issued shares, will go to pay management and the directors. The story about software development gives them time to make excuses for why they have not made any deals. Eventually the company will be so far in debt that the new investors (probably a consortium put together by DE Wine for a peice of the action ala the 2008 settlement) will seek repayment the same way Diac did, by foreclosing on the US patent and we will lose everything. Heck, the only reason we did not lose everything the last time is because Williams used his own money to fight Diac.
My guess is that Williams will concentrate on T-Mobile by hiring a contingency attorney. This is a slower but a less risky plan. Since he is a hard nose, he will only accept the best possible deal, not the first one placed on the table. Then, with the money from T-Mobile we can hire competent management to monetize the patent.
It is a difference between a promise of a quick return that never pans out or a slow, steady approach.
Again, this is only a guess.
3 million shares is about three times what Turrini owns ... and to the best of my knowledge Turrini has NEVER brought a share. Why is that?
no attorney will want to work with Dave Williams on any patent infringement cases
We already had a vote ... and Williams is not doing anything, the court is.
Funny how it is somehow always Williams fault when management does something illegal and gets caught. It is always Williams fault when management wastes money on frivolous litigation in California. It is always Williams fault when the company loses its SEC attorney because management apparently did not honestly represent the facts. It is always Williams fault when management holds a Forum that their own attorney advises against and the company shares fall 50%.
We already had a real vote. The problem is the management is refusing to honor that vote. Once again Turrini and Pierce are forcing the independent directors to litigate to get management to abide by the law.
It is farcical to claim that Williams threatens to sue everyone. Williams attempts to get the managers to due their duty to the Company and when they don't (largely because management believes they own the company, can appoint their friends and family to the board, and use company funds to pay for private attorneys), he takes them to court to force them to fulfill their fiduciary duty.
At least two of the allegations management made against Williams appear to be false; the first that the entire board could not work with Williams and the second that he threatens to sue everyone. Now management can show which companies Williams threatened to sue that cost us deals, an allegation that many on this board have bantered around as if it was fact. Management can produce the minutes of meeting to show what problems Williams (and, most likely Walsh) had with the actions of management. Or, they can simply fail to produce any evidence and let the current ruling stand.
Management had better start acting as if they have the company's best interest in mind and quit trying to steal control of the company away for themselves, their family and friends. Have no doubt, it was management that brought this action upon the company. They are wasting company money rather than working things out. They need to start acting like professionals instead of acting like this is a after school activity and they should be in charge because they look better.
I am not reading it that way. As I see it, it only deals with the issue of Williams being removed as a director
Sir H ... Thanks for all you did.
Guess we are not going to see the settlement via the state court.
Its funny though that since the hearing there have been no posts from the management insiders like Sosa. I guess they really don't like the fact that, by order of the court, Dave is once again a director.
I guess I don't blame them, but despite all of this the settlement still needs to be filed. I hope management will not hold it hostage.
The minutes did not indicate that there was another vote on the settlement by the now sidelined board, so there does not appear to be a reason why it cannot be filed. But I guess we will see.
No problem, just thought I would ask. I really do appreciate the documents.
I guess now we wait until the 2nd and see if two managers have anything to retort and what the final ruling will be from the court.
Until then, we wait to see if the settlement is ever produced.
Bacatcha, did you get the exhibits too, or just the base documents.
I believe it was a businessman from Chicago with experience being a director, managing large companies, and held an MBA. Just look in the California filings. Turrini rejected him. Now we know what he thinks it takes to be a director... family ties. Experience not required
Thanks for posting this.
I had to laugh reading parts of it. Carlos, the now director in waiting, is allegedly a relative of Desmond, Kyle's "husband". Now it makes sense since he had no experience in the United States. Actually made more sense for Diac to hire him. I had no idea how right I was when I mused that Kyle and Cristian would implement a "Friends and Family Plan".
Getting them out of management is easy. In effect, it is already done. Getting them off the board is another matter.
Some form of settlement with Diac will have to be made. But then the real work starts of rebuilding. Still much to do before we are out of the woods.
Well I guess that means we have three, four, or five directors.
As things stand there are at least three directors; Walsh, Turrini, and Pierce, and likely a fourth. The action of the audit committee was against management not directors. I don't believe the committee has the power to remove a director, although I am sure the court would if the company brought the action before a judge.
If Williams won a temporary order of some sort he would be the fourth, if not it is Carlo di Colloredo-Mels would be unless the judge removed both of them until the hearing. I don't believe Lance LaBauve is a director, although I really don't know what an "Executive Director to the Board of Directors" actually is, but I have a suspicion that it is not really a director.
Is there any way to look at the documents without getting a LexisNexis account?
Could you tell if there was a hearing last wee, from what you can see?
We already know the settlement is not as represented. If it were, and all previous agreements were void as is represented in the press release, then Diac and Williamson would be required to return the shares given to them as part of the 2008 agreement. Per discussions at the forum they are not required to do so The question is, what else is in the document that is not as represented?
Wishing everyone a Happy and Prosperous New Year.
I am open to your interpretation of the documents filed with the court. I never said that mine was the only interpretation that could be gleaned from the filings.
We have to be careful though. These documents are only what the parties are bringing to the court asking it to accept. It is a proposed ruling. There is no guarantee that the court will accept any of it.
I looked at the documents and it does appear to be bilateral. By that I mean that both sides have released any claims against the other, at least those claims related to this litigation. By taking this tact, it appears that they will not need to file the settlement, but the court has to accept the document. My guess is that the court will not care as long as both parties agree to drop their suits.
Again, I am not a lawyer nor am I making a legal opinion, this is just what it looks like.
I cannot say for sure what is exactly agreed to be released, other than the specifics of this litigation. So if Drago has other claims based on failure to pay back other loans they may not be released. In any case, the settlement, which does not appear to be required to be filed with the court by using this method, is the only document that will clearly delineate rights and responsibilities.
Again, this is just my guess based on what I could see.
There is one phrase in the document that might mean that they still have to show the court the settlement It is in the first paragraph: " [the parties] in the above entitled number cause, and would show the court that they have resolved all matters in controversy ..." I am not sure that this will not require an actual hearing where the settlement is produced or that it be filed as part of the court record.
Of course, others may have a different opinion ...
Thanks. It would appear that Turrini never had to enter a plea. The "PTI" indicated Felony Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI).
"The Felony Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) program is a diversion program operated by the Florida Department of Corrections. The purpose of the PTI program is to afford first time felony offenders the opportunity to avoid the stigma of a criminal conviction by diverting their case from the trial court process. Defendants charged with a qualifying third degree felony and who have no prior felony convictions may be approved for this program. Effective August 1, 2009, some felony drug offenses may now be eligible for PTI (see below).
The felony PTI program is similar to being on probation. Upon successful completion of the year long PTI program, the charge will be dismissed. Successful completion of the program will require making full restitution to the victim, if applicable, in addition to other conditions. It is highly recommended that defendants speak with their attorney regarding the benefits of entering this program as opposed to continuing through the court process."
http://sao17.state.fl.us/PreTrialInterventionPTI/FELONY_PTI.htm
Sosa ... what happened in court. You must know by now.
I believe the court documents indicate that he was charged in Florida with Felony grand theft to which he plead no contest but the case was selected for pretrial diversion. He was not convicted but it is significant that the case was solid enough for a prosecutor to even pursue the case. I will have to find the documents for Hot.
Did you ask him if had ever been charged with a felony?
You clearly don't understand that the laws that management violated were designed to protect the shareholder.
Now, if management is willing to break these laws what make you think they will abide by the laws that keep them form giving themselves ridiculous bonuses or creating a preferred stock that does not dilute for themselves and then diluting everyone else's shares.
These laws are there for a reason. Williams is protecting the shareholders interests by enforcing them. If you do not see that then there is not much use discussing this with you.