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.
To whom it may concern. Please do not send me any PMs. I cannot respond in any fashion that does not violate the terms of this board. To ensure that I do not slip on this matter I have blocked PMs.
If you wish to discuss matters privately with me I have posted my email here in the past. Simply use it.
Moderator, feel free to delete this message.
Storm would not be conflicted ... necessarily. The Bar Association rules on conflict are not that restrictive, being drafted by the attorney's for attorney's rule 1.7 is pretty generous leaving most decisions about whether something is a conflict to the lawyer himself.
Since Storm did not work directly on the State case is is doubtful he was conflicted.
He is not licensed to practice in California from what I can tell. Here is a list of the licenses I could find:
Admitted in 1990, Texas and U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
1991, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
1995, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
1996, U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
2000, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas and U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
2001, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
2003, U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin
2004, U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
2006, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin and U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
What all that means is that he only appears to have passed the bar in Texas. He has not other state licenses that I can see.
Well then I suggest you do some research.
I don't have to defend anyone, nor would I. I either agree with or disagree with actions and motives not personalities. You think I dislike Turrini but I do not like or dislike him. I have issues with his actions or inaction and, based on the facts as I can ascertain them, deduce probable motives. I do the same with Williams. It just so happens that, from what I can tell, William's actions and motives tend to align with my interests as a shareholder significantly more often then Turrini's actions and motives.
As for Storm the facts speak or themselves, or are you denying that Storm's x-partner is one of Diac's many attorneys. If that is not true then I will withdraw my deduction.
I can't speak for the others but I am not screaming "Sell". It is only worth arguing about if there is value in the company, even if it is only in the law suits against management.
Besides, tomorrow is the big day.
As I recall Storm was Diac's choice.
We never heard from the attorney running the state case. The lawyer at the forum was Storm, that is Diac's lawyer, so I can fully understand why he said what he did. The question is why Turrini believed him.
From the 8K dated 01/19/2010:
"As previously reported in the Company's last 8K on December 24, 2009, the Company has taken steps to halt the actions of Drago Daic et al in their attempts to take the Company's intellectual property. This has resulted in Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) being issued against Daic, Williamson and their "Receiver", Kelly Stephens. On 1/14/2010, the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court issued a TRO stopping these actions on the '923 patent until 1/27/2010, at which time a hearing will be held to decide if further Court Restraints are warranted. On 1/15/2010, the Superior Court of Harris County, Texas issued a TRO stopping the actions on the remainder of the patents until 1/29/2010, at which time a hearing will be held to decide if further restraints are warranted."
From the 8K of Dec 28th:
"The company has been notified that Mssrs. Drago Diac and Jimmy Williamson have further encumbered our patents and have "assigned" them to a Reciever for the purpose of auctioning them off to the highest bidder. The date that the receiver has set for this "auction" is January 15, 2010 and the authority claimed for this sale is the alleged default of Calypso Wireless Inc of the settlement agreement. The lawyers of Mssrs. Daic and Williamson's have set up a website (calypsopatentsale.com) to advertise this auction."
If anything Pierce and Turrini screwed up the case so bad that all they could do was settle on terms dictated by Diac.
I suppose that is true. Shareholders have been complaining about a lack of information so I can understand the reasoning. We are running long so we will give an update.
Still, eight days is an odd amount. If they were that certain about the date then I guess we will have to wait till the ninth to see if they were right.
At where? Your post?
The more one thinks about it the more odd it actually seems. If you only needed eight more days to finalize and file the settlement, why bother to release the PR? What crisis was about to befall the company last week that they needed to get the information out to the public less then ten days from signing the final settlement?
Even if they sign documents today it will take a day or two before we see it in the Court documents and maybe as long for them to file the 8K. They may issue a PR before that but...
Of course, this is giving them the benefit of the doubt that something has been done.
Eight days seems like an odd number to put in a PR so I am going to have to assume that they had a reasonable expectation of getting it done.
Of course, Diac could have just been yanking their chain, putting them in a position where they have to give in on some other little detail because he knows their waning credibility is on the line.
Here we go again ...
Or maybe he is referring to Calypso Wireless SA, the new foreign company that will hold all the outside-the-US patents but still be operated by Turrini and Sharma. You just never know...
I think Castor was probably referring to someone with the technical knowledge and experience to build a viable business plan to maximize the value of the patent, or the money to exploit the patent, or both.
I should also apologize. I have no reason to believe that the information you related to me was not an accurate representation of what turrini told you. If I recall correctly, I simply did not believe that the information you related was accurate - so one has to consider the credibility of the source of the information not the honesty of the messenger.
My apologies for using your name and statements in my musings on the activities going on with the board.
That you don't think it is true does not change the fact that it is true.
But even if you don't believe me, you have SirHaggus' statements to the same effect along with the court documents and how things actually occurred. It is all there, all you have to do is be intelligent enough to put the pieces together.
No, because you would have to have a crime. Here what you have is more a form of corporate jockeying for control. The issue was real, the company did not fabricate the issue with the records, they just choose not to solve it because they could use it to their advantage in a court action. That is not criminal per se - unethical maybe, but not criminal.
Now, some of what they swore to in court documents may be perjury, but I will bet that they skirted any specific language that they could be held to.
As to the actions of the attorneys who filed the case, in my opinion there may be some matters in how the case was handled, particularly if they had complete knowledge of the situation, that could result in problems with the state bar, but again, not strictly criminal. More than likely they will simply feign ignorance.
Drago2 - OK, the "already in their pocket" thing was only my opinion, not fact.
What is "wrong" is a matter of opinion. What is illegal is a matter of law. You consistently confuse the two.
Based on what he has done for the company, I am willing to take him at his word. Since I was the one on the phone to Ms Pierce, I know that is a fact. The events are the events, so they are fact. Since you take the court documents as fact, that pretty much makes everything I wrote a fact. You may interpret them any way you want, but that does not change the facts.
There is nothing illegal about trying to engage in a corporate take-over of sorts; to gain control of the company.
SirHaggus' statement that he tried to arbitrate the records issue prior to the meeting and that he was told to stay out of it by management. The California court filings including the claims that management only started to make demands for the documents in late spring of 2011, roughly the same time that the attacks on Ihub started. The fact that corporate council would not take possession of the records as stated in court documents. The events that actually occurred before and after the forum.
Are you claiming that Sirhaggus lied?
I respect you right to have an opinion, but just to be clear, my assessment was not based on what Dave said but on what others have said, court documents, and how the events unfolded. The facts are what they are.
Business, like life, ain't always fair...
Just a SWAG, but to do what you want to do would take between two and four simultaneous court actions in at as many as three different states. Not even sure of all the prerequisites that would be required before you could even get standing as an individual shareholder or as a representative of a class of shareholders.
1. File in the Texas state case as an interested party and block the settlement. Not sure this could even be done. may require you to file a derivative suit first. Approximate cost, $25-$50K for the initial work to block the settlement.
2. File a derivative suit in Delaware to have management or the whole board removed. Approximate cost, $25-$50K. You might be able to piggyback this suit off the California action if you can get one-third of the shareholders to agree.
3. File in the court of original jurisdiction on the default judgement to find that Diac breached the agreement and therefore our agreement to dismiss with prejudice is null and void. Attempt to reopen the appeal or at a minimum appeal the value of the judgement. A long shot. Approximate cost $50- $100k.
All this does not even touch the fact that you would have to go back and redo all the discovery on the state case to be able to make a real argument that Diac interfered and/or that Turrini colluded in the interference. So, if you have between $100-$200K laying around feel free to initiate the actions you are discussing. Even if you could, it would probably be two years before you would even begin to see any real action on these matters. In the meantime, the clock ticks on the patent.
Reality is that we are where we are. You play with the hand you are dealt.
Shoot me an email at tbaquinas@gmail.com if you want to discuss this further. For now I think this board might want to move on to more current and realistic concerns.
I say go for it. You have certainly demonstrated a willingness to work for the betterment of the company in an impartial manner. Seems to me you are just the type of person the board needs.
I thought Hokies was the CEO of CLYW once already. Don't want to go backwards.
You really feel that you can sustain a RICO action more luck to you. BTW, RICO provides for attorney's fees and treble damages.
Well then you might want to look up the definition of a "settlement" and see that its function is to make legal issues go away.
You need to get off you high horse and look around. We could be "right" six ways to Sunday but without a revenue stream to pay a gaggle of lawyers it takes to prove that in a court of law and enforce that judgement it really does not matter. I will not discuss the merits of different long term courses of action in an open forum. What I am going to say is that, until we have money, all your arguments are simply theoretical musings. You might as well be arguing alternative history.
I disagree. I believe that at this point the settlement is a necessity. We need it to clear up ownership issues and finish what we started with T-Mobile.
Sure, we could go the distance with Diac now but with management spending all the company funds on sideshow antics and Storm giving management legal advise (or simply towing the company line) I am not sure we could pull it off. The mess we are in is real, not theoretical. We have no funds to fight and management has screwed the pooch on the litigation by not doing proper discovery. We need to get this deal closed and go where the money is rather than continue to spend money on a fight that we almost have to go back and start over again to be able to fight properly.
How we got to this point and who is responsible are questions for another time. Now we must get into a position where the company can actually benefit from its assets rather than simple squabble over who will control their potential value.
I have seen nothing that indicates that a material term of the agreement has changed, so you are going to have to elaborate on how it has changed twice.
First off, every company needs management to handle the day-to-day affairs of the company. I suppose the three remaining board members could hire someone, but I am not sure how they would pay them and I am not sure what caliber of person you are going to get with a opening salary offer of zero dollars. No offense to the current board but I don't think any of them have the experience to manage this company. They could probably fudge it until the settlement with T-Mobile but I am not sure that is the best course of action. A receiver would handle all the functions of the company but I believe she would effectively limit the board's authority.
If there are serious, credible allegations against Turrini ... say, he actually was the author of the scheme to buy the three patents knowing that the board would not go for it with the knowledge that there was a $3M poison pill build into the deal, or that he had a felony record that he has failed to reveal to the board, then I think the question becomes how to rid ourselves of him with the least damage to the company. If all else fails, it may mean having to go to the Delaware court and ask that the company be placed under the control of a receiver, but I would have to research what the standard is for that action and how difficult the burden of proof would be to meet.
I would think the more appropriate method would be a per-unit charge based on the devices that use our technology. But I have no idea how many devices we are talking about or what an appropriate fee would be.