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.
Agree Bud...better yet, why does iHub continue to allow this kind of crap yet censor those who post the truth? Hmmm....
Why do you always answer your own questions?
What? This is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard. Before a public company can go private, the share holders get a vote. Why would any share holder agree to take less than the current market price for their shares? That’s some effed up logic right there.
Lol...math is hard!
Rapz...you have access to the Twitter response. The Apple, ATT, & Verizon all parrot Twitter’s initial opposition...then Hudnell schooled them on his reply, No need to waste money downloading the other 3.
Weird...only missy is sophomoric? Why not Emu Malala?
Agreed. Time will tell how this turns out.
I would think so but not totally sure. If he still controls/owns 51% of the stock he’s still the majority but may also depend on “voting rights” of the shares he controls. You can control a shit ton of shares in a company but if they’re restricted in some way and don’t have voting rights, that entity will have little say when it comes to voting decisions.
Actually, his returned shares reduced the OS count UNTIL the time Emil decides to exercise the warrants. There is zero affect on the AS count. Regardless of how the accounting or money flow works, he has 10 years to decide when he wants to exercise his warrants. The bigger point is the anti-dilution clause is gone. Nobody has yet to explain why Emil “didn’t have a choice” but to eliminate it.
Why is this an issue? Warrants & stock options are granted in corps all the time. I’ve executed stock awards as part of my compensation in the past...BFD!
For supper...hopefully not crow! Lolol!
Can you tell us where it says Emil “didn’t have a choice” to enter into the agreement with the company to give back his shares & owed salary in exchange for stock warrants and $1? I had trouble finding that in the filing. But I did notice the part about not being able to sell any shares without them being registered with the SEC. There goes the cheap, illegal shares I was hoping to buy.
We keep reading about big news due out...will tomorrow be the day it comes or just more of the same?
“Let’s light this [VPLM] candle!”
How so? Who can force a CEO to change the terms of private employment contract? Please explain why Emil “didn’t have a choice.” Opinions are one thing, facts require proof!
Complete & utter BS! Since when does our government dictate the terms of an executive’s employment contract in a non-governmental industry?
What alleged “govt regulatory” body controls employment contracts? The Department of Boggie Menz? Now that’s some funny stuff.
———
“He is doing it under govt regulatory pressure!”
Apple loses mandamus request to transfer case out of Albright’s court in Koss case. Why is Apple so afraid of claims construction hearings in any court? Weird!
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/node/27309
And BTW...I’ve never been proven wrong that VPLM pps is STILL less than $ 0.14!
Hey DB...have you noticed...the price is STILL less than $ 0.14 per share. This kind of sucks for those who got in at those levels. LMFAO!
Be well...
For those who need refresher on ADR dates and why there was no “big” news by the end of March, see this post...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=162954005
New documents available in N CA Apple case.
> N CA Apple - Doc 76 Stipulation
> N CA Apple - Doc 76-1 Declaration of Modi
> N CA Apple - Doc 76-2 Proposed Order
You really should pay your secretary more in salary...she must be pretty good and on top of VPLM happenings!
Lol...secretary! You must be making more than Emil if you can afford a secretary!
Feels like this is true for many following VPLM..
“When one door of happiness closes, another opens, but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one that has been opened for us.” — Helen Keller
Not sure why anyone would think there would have been any news by the end of March when the first ADR is scheduled to go through this coming Friday which is 4/9. And the joint statement is due to be filed on or before 4/23. These dates are taken directly from the court docket ADR stipulation.
Does mean I’ve never been proven wrong about about the VPLM ADR? SMFH!
Sub penny? Na never going back. Besides the “always correct” price would be $ 0.14 per share. After all, why buy VPLM low when you can get in at such a great price! Lol!
One other point...VPLM had previously entered a consent statement to agree to dismiss all 4 cased in W. TX. Just caught that in the W TX dismissal.
No stays...cases against ATT & Verizon (Cellco) were dismissed in W TX. The only interesting thing about this order in Waco is that the motion was initiated by ATT & Verizon whereas in the Apple case, VPLM requested the dismissal. Kind of makes you wonder who is willing to discuss any settlement and who isn't. Remember, Apple approached VPLM to discuss the ADR route to end the lawsuits.
So, the only remaining cases in Waco are Amazon, Facebook, and Google.
Lol. Trust me grammar is NOT my strong point. If you’ve read any of my stuff you’ll see that.
As far as the negotiations, I agree that they could be talking and addressing ANYTHING in regards to the lawsuits & patents. Both sides would be foolish not to ask for the world in hopes agreeing to a mutually beneficial end result. What the “world” is for each party is certainly debatable however I don’t think anyone on this board knows for sure unless they are actually in on the meetings with the lawyers.
As I like to say, time will reveal how this ends.
Good Luck To All!
“Tough” sticking out? I don’t want to know...lol
Thinking you meant “tongue”. And yes, I am playing the grammar police today. ????
NBD. Everyone on both sides speculate on what they think will happen. All are entitled to our own opinions.
These questions are worse than the teasers on the 10’o’clock nightly news! ??
Yep...bottom paragraph of page 2 into page 3 states...
“On December 10, 2020, counsel for Apple contacted counsel for VoIP-Pal, seeking VoIP-Pal’s agreement to dismiss its case against Apple in the WDTX along with a covenant not to sue Apple concerning the...(page 3)... ‘606 and ’872 patents. See Declaration of Lewis E. Hudnell, III; Exhibit 1 (12/10/20 Letter of A. Modi to L. Hudnell).”
Only time will tell how the new VPLM case developments will turn out. Until we see the final joint statements from the parties...
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”
— George Bernard Shaw
So are you saying that the Bigs won’t agree to dismissing all the cases & Koh will proceed with a fair trial? Talk about a dream world. We’ll see who’s right in time.
I’m impressed you know a rudiment but come on DB...it was worth at least a Triple Ratamacue damn it!
No dream...right in the court docs. When they dismiss this becomes reality.
One other point...with the documented claims of and perceived bias against VPLM by Koh in the last cases she dismissed prior to claims construction, would it be a wise career move for her to pull the same shenanigans again? No judge would want multiple claims of bias on their record if they have future aspirations of higher court appointments.
Yes she could but the Bigs would still need to provide the data for their defense of non-infringement. Check out the schedule order dates.
I’m getting a lot of questions on July 21,2021 dismissal date. Here are a few of my thoughts on why. Purely speculation on my part but it sure feels like some are playing checkers while Hudnell is playing chess.
- July 21st is the day before the scheduled claims construction hearing. I think this is a brilliant move by Hudnell to squeeze the Bigs. Remember, the infringement cases were stayed pending the outcome of the Declaratory Judgement cases so if they don’t settle or get dismissed, all parties will need to provide their “evidence for” or “defense against” infringement PRIOR TO (ie April, May, June) the actual claims construction hearing on July 22nd. None of the Bigs want to “open their kimono” to this data. Especially Apple whose own expert accidentally admitted they are using VPLM technology at the PTAB trial...which contributed to Apple losing both IPR trials on the merits of the arguments.
- As I understand, VPLM & the Bigs are still holding the scheduled settlement conferences. The future date of dismissal in the shadow of the settlement meetings throws the Bigs the proverbial olive branch to play fair. If they are reasonable with VPLM, the cases will get dismissed. If not, VPLM can retract their dismissal motion and compel claims construction to proceed.
- Check out Document 61 Case Management Order in the N CA Apple case. It has the hearing dates listed for the case.
Might want to read the legal documents...
“VoIP-Pal’s covenant not to sue and its voluntary dismissal of the WDTX action divests the Court of jurisdiction over Apple’s claims of both noninfringement and invalidity.” This means Koh would lose her jurisdiction over the 606 & 872 lawsuits...so they would not be invalidated.
Keep in mind, the actual infringement cases have never been heard or proceeded yet. They were stayed pending the outcome of the Declaratory Judgement cases file by Apple et al.
If the Bigs had VPLM over a barrel and finally had a chance to crush VPLM, Why would they, the defendants (Apple et al), contact VPLM asking for them to dismiss the infringement lawsuits? Hmmm.....