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.
Disregard my previous response. You were correct. I found the payment of $533,765 shown under settlement expenses on the 10K ending 9/30/2019. My mistake.
When? I didn’t see that in any financials.
Agreed Turtle. Facts are stubborn things. A simple read of the court minutes in the new case is pretty telling...the 13th is right around the corner.
BTW...I’d say that the board of VPLM PERSONALLY paying only $ 600K to Kipping vs being ordered to release the 95 million shares could be thought of as a positive for shareholders. If this was such a big win for Kipping, Kwan, Locksmith then why did Kipping file the current lawsuit to take a second crack at getting the frozen shares released? Facts matter!
I never claimed that. I said the current lawsuit will be done soon with no shares awarded to Kipping! Vplm cancels shares and removes count from current outstanding shares. My post was pretty clear and unambiguous!
Just checked Pacer. Nothing new added to docket report yet. I’ll keep an eye out.
I did...it’s all BS! This will be done soon!
Not seeing this on either Apple cases. Nothing new posted to dockets. Which case are you talking about?
Not sure I understand. I’ve read all the case minutes available. Did I miss something? If so, on what date & what hearing are you referring to?
Next date in Kipping case is 10/13/2020. Hearing at 9:30 AM PST on VPLM Motion to dismiss Kipping complaint. Based on Kipping not being awarded ANY SHARES last case, and no new arguments presented in this case, IMO this gets dismissed. Could be wrong, but based on the reading all the case minutes, seems like this one will be done real soon.
I do not. I’ll look fir it when I get a chance.
It’s document 32. I named the file incorrectly. I fixed the name on my Google Drive file. Thanks.
Yep. It’s the proverbial “let’s throw a bunch of poop at the wall and see if we can get any to stick.”
I could be wrong but I think Albright gets to decide whether to transfer or not based on the established law for transferring cases. I don’t think Koh gets any say in the Waco cases unless Albright transfer them to her.
Someone with a legal background please weigh in here.
The way I understand it, Koh needs to make ruling on her cases to avoid a conflict in Waco but she doesn’t get to decide that she “wants” the cases per se.
From what I can gather, even if she decides the cases are similar and wants to move ahead in her court, VPLM will request a stay on those cases until the Waco cases are done since those were filed before the N Cal cases.
Let me know your thoughts after you have a chance to read Hudnell’s motion.
Based on what I read, it might be difficult to establish similarities between the patents but never say never when Koh is involved trying to protect her bankroll from the Bigs.
Link in post 96377
Link to VPLM Motion to Dismiss full filing in N. Cal.
It’s a long read but worth the time if you want to get a better understanding of the games the Bigs are playing & obstacles they keep trying to throw in VPLM’s path to proving infringement. Unreal.
Document_32
Really? Have you read Hudnell’s motion to dismiss in those new N. Cal cases? It’s Document 32 in Apple case number 5:20-CV-02460-LHK. Pretty powerful 29 page argument on why all these cases show be dismissed.
Here’s the first page:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 5, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
before the Honorable Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) will move the Court, under the first-to-file comity doctrine and Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss this action. The grounds for this Motion, as set forth in detail below, are simply that these cases do not belong in this Court: by filing their Complaints, the Plaintiffs contravened the long- standing principle that the cases filed concerning the patent should proceed in the first-filed jurisdiction—the Western District of Texas. Further, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over VoIP- Pal in all three cases, and venue is improper as to VoIP-Pal in all three cases. Moreover, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over U.S. Patent No. 9,935,872 (“the ’872 patent”) in Case No. 5:20- CV-02460-LHK. Accordingly, all three cases should be dismissed.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
1. Whether the Court should dismiss these declaratory judgement actions under the first-to-file comity doctrine because the Consolidated Plaintiffs filed these cases after VoIP-Pal filed suit for patent infringement on the same patent in the Western District of Texas?
2. Whether the Court should dismiss these declaratory judgment actions because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)?
3. Whether the Court should dismiss these declaratory judgment actions because venue is improper as to VoIP-Pal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)?
4. Whether the Court should dismiss the Apple Complaint because it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the ’872 patent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)?
I found the actual order after I posted my previous comment. No need to act as if we’re dumb.
This is unclear...Orders staying cases as in put on “temporary hold”or “staying” in Waco.
I tried looking up in Pacer but only the cover sheet is coming through so I can’t see the actual order Albright signed.
Can anyone add any context here?
All good points Rapz. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Quote:
“Quite a BS pump piece....”
———————————————
Na, just VPLM winning in court again driving over 49 MILLION shares to trade hands in 1 day. He’ll if a single pump piece could do this, Emil should have published something years ago.
Wonder what the next few weeks will bring to this P & D, scam, POS stock we love to hate. Lololol!
I’ll say it again...with almost 80 million shares traded on an uptrend in the last 2 days, either VPLM has the best pump & dump scheme in the OTC markets or winning in court really matters.
It really doesn’t matter what Kipping does with the shares. He can’t sell or dispose of them in any way because the TA has them frozen.
It only matters how the judge rules...which is looking very likely to go VPLM’s way.
Are you hearing or seeing any indications that Emil is in talks to sell any time soon? Given the movement & momentum building in the court cases, I think a sale is more of a future issue once a more concrete valuation can determined. Thoughts?
Excellent explanation Rapz. As far as shares, since the shares where issued at some point they are counted in the company outstanding shares total. Even though they are frozen at the TA, they are still considered “outstanding” from an accounting perspective therefore count towards dilution. Once VPLM wins again & the Kipping case is over, those “frozen” shares at the TA plus, I believe any shares Emil received under the anti-dilution clause triggered by the Kipping OS should be cancelled and removed from the outstanding share total. How much the OS goes down is unknown but should be somewhere around a 5-6% reduction.
Do you agree?
AGREED! The volume the last 2 days has been off the charts!
Just found info on the Kipping hearing. It appears Kipping’s motion & VPLM’s counter motion for summary judgements were denied BUT VPLM was granted relief for further discovery which seems like good news.
Here are the court minutes:
Case: A-20-807745-C
Events & Orders of the Court
09/29/2020 All Pending Motions (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Kishner, Joanna S.)
Minutes
09/29/2020 9:30 AM
- Defendants Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment, Defendants Countermotion For Summary Judgment, And, Alternatively, Defendants Request For 56(D) Relief Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment Argument by Mr. Smith regarding the plummeting stocks. Opposition by Mr. Knecht and request for further discovery. COURT ORDERED, motion and countermotion DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Request for 56(D) relief GRANTED. Mr. Knecht to prepare the order.
For reference, Rule 56 (d) states:
When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
Link to full Nevada Civil Procedure Rules:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/nrcp.html
Nothing new posted to either docket last time I checked today.
Yeah, not bad for a POS scam pump & dump company right?
ROTFLMAO!
DB - I recall the $ 10 billion DOESN’T include potential treble damages if willful infringement is found. Is that right or am I mistaken in my recollection?
Quarters would be nicer!
Yes...been here for a long time!
I see we “touched” $0.04 today! We need to see this thing going to $0.40+ again!
Motions on docket in Kipping case today in Nevada District Court at 9:30 PST.
Could this be another win for VPLM?
Link:
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=12013086
If link doesn’t work, look up case A-20-807745-C manually.
Decisions in Waco coming soon! Let’s get this candle LIT!
What case is this for?
Nice. Thanks GBC.
Thanks GBC. Where was this published? Hopefully it can generate some new interest from the legal and investment communities. Wondering if Motley Fool added any more shares to their position!
Good point DB. As you already know, the VoIP-pal.com website has listing, by defendant, of their past legal filings on their “Legal Action - Recent Filing” page.
It’s a good place to start for anyone new to VPLM... and maybe others ; -) ...to understand the history of the lawsuits.
https://www.voip-pal.com/recent-filings