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.
The lawsuit is for breach of contract.
How can she sue for breach of contract if they're not in breach? And why would Chanbond's attorney have it removed to Federal Court instead of dismissed?
She's suing the 3 inventors. The suit names UOIP and Chanbond.
She owns 40 million shares now, but that's nowhere near what the value of the patents are. Ughhh.
Ugh. And our only course of action is against UOIP.
Well, Linda Stahl, whoever that is (must be a local attorney in Texas), has filed for a Notice of Removal to Federal Court. IPNav is a UK company, and Plaintiffs Leanne and Lemoine are not U.S. Citizens. Hopefully, that will stall this case long enough for Carter to get the suit against the 13 settled. Or come up with the $5 million. I guess there might have been a good reason to keep UOIP a going concern. Unless, of course, Carter's in on the scheme.
But, in that case, the patent creators would be screwed as well. Unless she's just filing a lien for the $5m plus $20k per month penalty to ensure payment when the suit is settled. I don't believe Carter has any interest in this other than the 900 million shares he owns of UOIP.
And who is Linda Stahl? She is the one who signed off on the Notice of Removal filing on behalf of UOIP/Chanbond in Texas.
Then this was planned from the beginning. Vile. They diluted the 600,000+ shares after UOIP "purchased" Chanbond to fund the litigation.
Yes, Billy and Leanne have worked together in the past.
So that's how it's done legally? Sell the patents/Chanbond to a shell company, UOIP. Dilute the company and sell shares to the public to fund the litigation. Let the company get delisted, and let the contract fall into breach. Have the contract for the sale of the company voided in court, and walk away with the spoils.
Is it really a breach of contract if she agreed to a monthly penalty/fee if the $5m wasn't paid in October?
That's my thought. She'll try to void the contract right before settlement and stiff UOIP shareholders.
If Leanne bought Chanbond, and then sold Chanbond to UOIP. Wouldn't it just Leanne v. UOIP? Is this just a formality, do you think, so they can ensure payment of the $5 million and the $20,000 per month going forward? Idk, I guess you're right, we need to see the suit. Who has the Pacer membership?
She's enforcing the contract; 28:1332 is Breach of Contract.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3:2020cv03097/339427
That's the current number of boxes at .27 cents. Won't matter if Leanne has the contract between UOIP and Chanbond voided by the court.
She's the President of IPnav. She took over when Spangenberg left to start IPwe with Carter. She's the one who hired Carter. Maybe she's trying to force him to get serious about settlement. I dont know. She owns 40 million shares of UOIP. But she also has to act in the best interests of IPNav clients, the patent creators.
Maybe Leanne is filing as a formality? The $5 million is due this month.
Leanne is the president of IPNav. What is she doing?
Dr. Teece's numbers add up to just over $991m at the bottom end. I doubt Carter would take rock bottom.
That was my request. But since I convinced him to buy UOIP...
Welp... I texted my son awhile ago to see if he'll come and visit me in the state run facility and bring me news of UOIP, and he's not responding. So... I guess it starts. But, hey, I'm glad Jennifer is getting her "billable hours."
Or... they just keep kicking the can down the road until we're all drooling over bingo cards in the common room of a nursing home or assisted living facility somewhere during the few hours that we're actually awake each day.
Andrews is retirement age...
I talked my 31 year old son into buying shares. If this drags on much longer, he may stop speaking to me. I'll die a lonely old woman in a nursing home somewhere with my phone in my hand with the beginnings of an IHub post on the screen, my tombstone will read "Just be patient!"
Probably depends on how old your kids are. If they're young -- say grammar school or middle school -- maybe, if they're in their 30s...
But "keep your fingers crossed!" LOL. Wasn't too long ago (a year ago? two years ago?) I was lambasted for telling people not to get their hopes up for a settlement any time soon.
Seems they would just need a hearing for the judges ruling in that case.
I'm sure they included a veiled or direct threat of appeal if Andrews doesn't allow it.
Jesus. Are they serious? What "standing issues?"
They're response, requesting all of the trials be scheduled in succession with the second trial being with Comcast two weeks after Cox, due to all of the defense's BS, indicates they're aware.
The patent creators are in the demographic she claims will be excluded from the jury pool and contends to be ignorant when it comes to technology.
So she knew they wouldn't have to quarantine for 14 days or she didn't do her homework.
When was that filed? The Delaware.gov website says the 14 day self quarantine for travelers from out of state ended when the state entered Phase 2 of reopening June 1.
https://coronavirus.delaware.gov/faq/is-the-out-of-state-self-quarantine-still-in-place/
... unless... we get a request for a stay because the parties have reached an agreement.
They should be anyhow.
Well, it seems to me it might be a bit more prudent for Cisco and the ISPs to start PURCHASING some of these patents their using and spinning it into a positive in their financials, instead of STEALING them and hoping their attorneys can spin it court. Let's hope this judgement, and any others before settlement or verdict with Chanbond v. Atlantic Broadband, et.al., doesn't bankrupt them.
We just need a court date!
There was probably a vague reference somewhere in their quarterly right after the suit was filed.
I said they'll bury things until they can't any longer, basically. Took them 5 years to own up to Chanbond.
I said in 2015, when the suit was filed.
Cisco has a habit of burying things in their financials. Chanbond wasn't mentioned at all in their q3 2015 financials. While Arris reported the lawsuits in their legal section mentioning Chanbond and their indemnity agreements with "certain" of their clients, Cisco vaguely alluded to "other" potential legal actions at the end of the legal section and referred to a note at the bottom of the notes section mentioning their customers being sued. Chanbond was never mentioned. Though I'm not sure they'll have much success burying a $1.9bn damage award.
Cisco isn't named in this suit. But they should be nervous. They could end up being sued by any or all of the 12 litigants (excluding Comcast) and Chanbond.