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.
LOL.....after a settlement and case being dismissed with prejudice, this typically does indeed mean that the two parties walk away from the court no longer owing each other anything. The statement is a reiteration of dismissed with prejudice of everything including court costs. Wow.
You mean like the word "settled"? Pericles wanted to sue for all profits infringers on his patent made (estimated $20 BILLION). If he settled for only $100 million.....would he consider that a "setback"? I think so.
I stand by that assessment.....there was a settlement. Was it billions? No. But it was enough for Pericles to agree to never bring the suit again (dismissed with prejudice) and for his business to continue as a going concern. Again, my understanding of the legalese remains the same.
Are we really supposed to believe that there is anyone posting on this board that does'nt know the simple mechanics of a reverse merger, or why companies do them? C'mon now. The CERPQ merger is underway. Big time.
Correction....the company that this shell once represented was in bankruptcy. This shell no longer represents that company and when the bankruptcy was discharged it left a squeaky clean shell.....so the new company has a nice clean house to move in to.
One question about your chart as it pertains to CERPQ......why does it state that Weimin Sun listed as CEO, but then it says "new ceo info removed, returned to Lazar"? https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CERPQ/profile Weimin Sun is still listed as CEO.
So, in fact.....the 10q is telling us they SETTLED. Each side is responsible for their own legal expenses (which always happens regardless) and owing each other nothing. Here is why.....AFTER A SETTLEMENT, everything is squared and when the case is dismissed with prejudice they no longer owe each other anything. This statement is being misunderstood as meaning Sector 10 got nothing in the actual settlement. That is not what this is saying.
Perhaps it is a matter of differentiating of what Pericles would be happy with from what shareholders would be happy with. They stole his life work, big companies profited up to $20 BILLION or more from his technology....he has been in court for a decade and it ruined his marriage. What is justice to him? Would he be happy with $25 million after they profited tens of billions? $100M? $500M. We do not know what is in Pericle's mind as to what is justice.
Wow, if I was the plaintiff in a case and my legal counsel worked out a deal like that for me, I probably would end up paying HIM nothing LOL. But alas.....that is not what SECI 10Q says. Owing each other nothing is just a statement of reemphasis at the end pertaining stricty to the legal expenditures. Example....you go to lunch frequently with a friend, you often take turns paying for the other's lunch. One day your friend says to you, let's each pay for our own lunch today....owing each other nothing tomorrow. That's all this statement was. It was not pertaining to the entire settlement.
Agree 100%!
From my perspective.....the 10Q did not give us any info we did not know about already. It did confirm that there was indeed a settlement (while some were pushing the narrative that it was the Judge who took it upon herself to end the case, or dismiss it). My immediate thoughts are that plaintiffs do not "settle" for $0 in a court case (especially after 11 years) in fact, plaintiffs settle to avoid walking away with nothing. Plaintiffs do not go through the trouble of filing a motion to classify documents as private (settlement agreement) for a $0 settlement....and they do not agree to a dismissal with prejudice with a zero settlement, essentually agreeing to never take the case back to court again. Those notions are ridiculous. Keep in mind, the settlement may not be billions.....but it may be better than you think. Pericle's legal counsel advised him to make a settlement offer due to his lack of resources, financially, to go on with multiple trials. The other side did'nt know anything about that. We as shareholders are finding out after the fact (post settlement). All defendants knew at the time of litigation is that Pericle's had battled them in court for 11 years, and I am sure they wanted it to be done and over also. This 10Q was for the period ended Sept 30, 2020. Any settlement would not be reflected in this filing. While the company was allowed to disclose that they settled, they could not disclose settlement terms. We now wait for a future update or filing to find out what Sector 10 has in store for shareholders, such as a distribution. I do find it odd that a expert market, caveat emptor stock is updating it's share structure every day on OTC markets.
I agree!
"Just imagine if the court record had stated -"Parties attempting to resolve the case, offer made by Dutro Company" instead of the reality of "Parties are attempting to resolve the case, offer made by Sector 10". I think I already answered this yesterday, did I not? https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=159277750 Plaintiffs often make an initial settlement demand/offer in a court case. This is nothing unusual LOL.
"Well counsellor do you have a link to this supposed Settlement"? Wow, no....unfortunately I do not have a "link" to classified court docs LOL.
https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-cmp-detail.aspx?cmpid=468 Settlements - Dismissal of Cases when cases are settled, the order they are entered will generally be in the following form. "Parties report case is settled. Case is dismissed with prejudice; each party to bear its/his/her own costs". Often, the parties will request that the court also retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Is that your final legal argument with $SECI? The "Fantasy Island" surrender?
Great points....$SECI must have gotten one heck of a good settlement for Percival to take down all of that info. Coincidentally, all of the information Percival gave us as to the details of this litigation on his websites is exactly the kind of information a losing defendant would want removed from the internet prior to agreeing to Sector 10's settlement offer/demand. Thanks!
Hey whatarush....just wanted you to know I am unable to PM, but thanks for the messages. Your CNGT looks interesting. I am not an attorney but I play one on tv LOL. I have alot of experience with different shareholders cases including bankruptcy, IP protection, reverse mergers/custodianships.
I agree! But there is a difference between the stipulation agreement (which both parties ultimately agree to at the end of the case) and offers/counteroffers made under the good faith statute whilst the case is still ongoing ....which must be made a matter of public record on the court doc to later determine whether the offer was indeed made in good faith and if the rejecting, losing party is now liable for the other's legal fees. Your post seems to be confusing the two issues....unintentionally I am sure! As far as the stipulated agreement....or as we $SECI shareholders refer to it as, the "settlement"....It WAS made private/classified on the plaintiff's motion which was GRANTED by the Judge, so that point of your post is right on!
"Hello". Thanks for proving my point! AGAIN, LIKE I SAID.....only if the defendant had REJECTED the offer and later lost the 4 day bench trial, would they have been liable to pay the plaintiff's legal fees.
Oy vey. No.....it is not "that simple". Just like the offer being made by the plaintiffs was on the court doc as a matter of public record....the defendant's rejection of the offer would have been recorded on the court doc as well, due to the statute of good faith. The issue would have been revisited after the 4 day bench trial and an official ruling (which we did'nt get, due to settlement). This really is all standard legal protocol. Consult an attorney and ask.
With that being said....can anyone show me on the court doc after Sector 10 made an offer to the defendant, where the defendant REJECTED the offer? I don't seem to see it anywhere! I do however, see the defendant filed a stipulated motion to dismiss with prejudice which is standard in all cases where the parties have reached a settlement and never plan to take the issue back to court. "The End".
I can help here =) Offer made by Sector 10. "Winning parties don't make offers". Sure they do! Consult an attorney for more information! https://www.mmmlaw.com/files/documents/publications/Good-Faith-Raises-Important-Issues-in-Settlement-Offers.pdf Under the statute, at any time less than 30 days before trial, a party to litigation (either the plaintiff or the defendant) may make an offer to settle any tort claim. If the offer is not accepted within 30 days (or rejected before the period expires) and the rejecting party does not achieve certain threshhold amounts the party rejecting the offer can be liable for the other's attorney fees, provided the offer was made in "good faith".
Daniel....with this $SECI post, you are RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
This week should be fun.....hopefully Pericles delivers some kind of news SOON!
"Dumbest post of the day award" No clue as to what you are trying to say here with $SECI.....care to elaborate?
Yes, I mean WITH prejudice. A Judge dismissing a case with prejudice on their own power is very rare....the plaintiff would have had to have done something egregious, such as criminal misconduct. The majority of the time that a case is dismissed with prejudice is due to an out of court agreement or settlement. That is what happened in this case. A pre-trial conference, as well as a 4 day bench trial was scheduled. The Judge would not have shut it down on her own power before hearing all evidence. Both parties had to agree to the stipulated dismissal, as filed by the defendant. The court document even told us that the parties were working to resolve the issue. This was a SETTLEMENT.
Correct, Lindy.
"I've called it correctly since the get-go". Like $SECI from $5 to over $100 correctly? I don't think so.
Not mistaken....but rather you are confusing the entire case for a summary judgement issue that was one aspect of the case. I think when the company releases news....very soon, we will see.
If $SECI is a "sinking ship"....it is only because of all of the money we are making. We're gonna need a bigger boat.
"The case IS dismissed. Not only dismissed but dismissed with prejudice (that means after hearing the case, and making a legal dismissal)". NO....that is NOT what it means. There is a big hole in your scenario. The judge had not heard the case. A pre-trial conference and 4 day bench trial was set in stone to do so. In this case, the Judge herself did not make a ruling one way or the other. The court doc clearly showed us the reason why the Judge dismissed the case with prejudice (never to return to court) the case was SETTLED. The court doc told us that the two parties had been working to resolve the case. The plaintiff and defendant must agree to have the case dismissed with prejudice in a SETTLEMENT. Last time I am posting that info. I believe most others are beginning to interpret the court filings correctly, which is perhaps why $SECI is taking off today....
Hi guys....how's our stock this morning? LOL $$$$$$$SECI
I don't know if it SECI's case would have been postponed again, but Covid cases are picking up in Utah....so it was a possibility. The bottom line is that some on here would have you believe that Sector 10 pursued this lawsuit for over ten years only to find themselves in the hotseat, begging for mercy and for the case to be dismissed LOL.....does that sound logical? Sector 10 would not have agreed to the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice (which means this case will never see a courtroom again) unless as you said....the settlement was to Pericle's liking. Monday we run.....
It's obvious that it was the company's filings...but there was nothing "made up" in official company filings. I have read the court filings, but The breach of contract and tortious interference claims mentioned in the 10q (which covered the stealing, and the licensing to third parties) was where the damage was and THE pivotal information that would have been released during the four day bench trial. The summary judgement was not the end all issue your post was making it out to be. It was a moot issue, but public record. The rest has been classified. I'm not going to keep up with the back and forth. Good luck and good night.
Precisely. Looking forward to SECI Friday's run picking up to where it left off tomorrow...GLTA.
Thanks percival.....no surprise there. Just letting him know that if that had been the deal, it has no bearing as to who won/lost the case.
I agree.....
Your earlier post addressed the summary judgement that was in favor of the defendants. This was not the main issue of the case nor was it the main factor in the stipulated motion to dismiss WITH prejudice. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/925661/000109690618000629/sector.htm In its ruling the court denied the defendants' request to dismiss Sector 10's claims for breach of contract and tortious interference against certain defendants. The Court, however, did grant defendant's requests to dismiss Sector 10's claims for misappropriation of trade secrets. With this ruling, Sector 10 can now pursue its tortious interference and breach of contract claims in a second phase of fact discovery that Sector 10 believes will result in additional evidence further supporting its claims. What I highlighted in red is most likely the information Sector 10 requested to be classified private (for the sake of the defendant) along with settlement agreement. The summary judgement was a moot issue but was a matter of public record and had to be included in the court doc. With evidence and settlement under seal, The defendant then requested a stipulated motion to dismiss with prejudice (agreed to by both parties) and it was done, Never to return to court again. Hope this helps....if not, "consult an attorney".
"Please address why/how both parties were to pay their own legal/court fees per the transcript if it was a one sided massive award. TIA". Your welcome in advance. It is something that is known as "The American Rule". Both parties always pay their own legal/court fees, regardless who wins the case. This is basic stuff. "Consult an attorney", they will explain.