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.
You don't think Dierdre may have a conflict of interest?
Why don't you do that? I'm guessing if you haven't yet "studied" it, you can't possibly know it is the "exact" case that the shareholders have filed in California? I believe shareholders' lawyers have already "studied" the shareholder derivative action. It's mentioned in shareholder filings. Maybe you could start there.
I did see those two. I guess it's just the exhibits I missed. No worries. I pull them.
Oh? Are we worried about "our" position now? Hasn't seemed to be a concern on this forum lately...
I can't help but feel like Carter and Leane orchestrated this whole thing intentionally.
It sounds like Chanbond's lawyer is referring to my post again. Again, they're assuming that Rader "disseminated" the information based on my ambiguous post that they latched onto.
Was the settlement amount included in the exhibits? I thought the motion and exhibits from Rader on Friday were for the hearing on Monday? Wasn't this Rader's response to Brauerman's letter to the judge?
Hey, LongUOIP. Rader's filings posted to Pacer Friday, April 22 never seemed to have gotten uploaded to IHub. I see where you posted the update, but not the links or docs. Or did I miss a post somewhere?
Fraud: noun - wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Synonyms: cheating, swindling, trickery, artifice, deceit, deception, double-dealing, duplicity, treachery, chicanery, skullduggery...
oh my.
financier. You know, like... oh, I don't know, Bentham?
A financier is a financier is a financier.
How do you figure protecting shareholder interest = "extortion?"
Hmmm. I wonder who pays for the shareholder's lawyer's expenses, like airfare, hotels, meals, when he travels?
Yes, and thankfully we have a good group of shareholders contributing to the cause!
I've posted it many times on here -- from UOIP, Rob Howe issued them. Am I the only shareholder who read the SEC filings?
Actually, it's in the SEC filings. I've posted that a number of times on here. Rob Howe issued the additional 600m shares after UOIP purchased Chanbond. Protecting those shares, and the other 100m or so that were outstanding before Carter and Leane's shenanigans will, however, require legal efforts.
Rob Howe issued the shares right after UOIP purchased Chanbond. It's in the filings. I understand the proceeds were used to pay of the old IceWeb debt.
That was in 2015. The initial loan in 2015 was for $2 million. Remember, Leane alleges Carter took out additional loans, several million I believe is what she accused in her request for TRO (just want to make it clear I'm talking about public filings here!). So perhaps the potential settlement looked a bit more attractive to Bentham later on than the initial minimum at the outset?
That's exactly what a derivative suit is all about. The funds belong to UOIP.
We were assured our interests were being looked after when the company sold the shares.
I would agree the lawyers did the heavy lifting. Carter? I'm not convinced. The lawyers and Bentham took the risks.
Lying about "material" information is a crime. The penalty is 5 years in prison. Not that the lawsuit in NC is material. But there were some "material" misrepresentations in her Request for TRO.
This woman just continually perjures herself. What the heck do we care about her lawsuit against Carter in NC?
Maybe they had something else on weighing on their minds at the time. lol
Carter knows 60% of the outstanding shares were diluted after Chanbond filed suit. Leane knows as well. If she didn't know it at the time, she knew right after she filed her Request for TRO, because I brought it to her attention via private message.
Well, I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that some shareholders trusted "Billy" implicitly, and the rest of us obviously gave him the benefit of the doubt, does not absolve him, UnifiedOnline, Inc. or Chanbond of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
Carter and Leane's filings might even suggest that Carter's malfeasance was intentional, which is particularly egregious since more than 60% of the outstanding shares were dumped into the market AFTER Chanbond filed suit against the 13. If the corporation issues an additional 600 million shares, and the CEO purchases a block of shares from that issuance, why wouldn't shareholders have an expectation of fair dealing?
Leane's opposition to the intervention points out the action in California, which contradicts the statement below. Not to mention, we know, and the court now knows, they follow the board, so "lied in wait..." might be a bit of a stretch.
IDK. Apparently, they feel like we are limited as to the number of suits we can file, while they're opportunities to screw over shareholders are limitless.
"And as to the affirmative claims against Carter, permissive intervention cannot be granted because there are already two other proceedings by which Unified stockholders are pressing those very same claims – one in North Carolina (Leane v. Carter, No. 2021CVS5405 (N.C. Business Court, Guilford))..."
I wasn't aware that we were intervening in the lover's quarrel?
Exactly. But Leane claimed in her request for TRO that Carter was the CEO of UOIP and Carter incorporated UOIP in the state of Delaware in April 2015. Which is why, if she presented the same info to the arbitration judge/panel,along with her claim that there were just 1 billion shares oustanding, it's no surprise that she won.
I must have missed that post.
The answers to all of your questions are in the filings.
Well, obviously we need to vote for a BOD, since we don't have one.
We don't. They resigned.
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I believe LongUOIP asked how we know the directors appointed by Carter resigned.
It's in the SEC filings.
Again, if Dierdre presented the same information to the arbitration judge/panel that she presented for the TRO, and Carter didn't correct the record, then the info presented to the panel was incorrect/misleading, i.e., Carter was CEO of "Unified," Carter incorporated "Unified" in April 2014, there were 1 billion shares outstanding...
Also, wouldn't Carter have been acting beyond the scope of his authority representing UnifiedOnline, Inc. at arbitration?
Dierdre's shares, and the rest of our shares, will be significantly devalued if the court confirms the arbitration award, no matter the settlement amount.
Twenty-two percent of "gross" settlement seems particularly excessive in this case. Anyone deserving of that type of consulting fee would probably be smart enough not to rescind the contract then fight like hell to claw it back 5 years later.
I noticed she skipped right over that part where she rescinded the contract between IP Nav and Chanbond after Chanbond was sold to UOIP, though, and didn't bring it up again until settlement was "imminent."
Perhaps they're all paid according to their share ownership. I don't understand why the arbitration panel awarded anything to IPNav, since Dierdre rescinded that contract after UOIP purchased Chanbond.
I'm not sure many other law firms would be willing to embarrass themselves such, to be honest. Heck, I'm embarrassed if I have to tell you the truth. Though I don't think VC3 is going to get a response from the poster, given the answer doesn't fit his desired narrative.
(Was that response too ambiguous for someone not following along?)