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.
So, a JG Wentworth move?
Thanks for posting the article on the Mishcon suit.....very relevant and interesting!
Yeah, you were told that - do you really believe It? Think it through, ZW, who is the "source" and why did they tell you that? Really, man. Of course they told you that.
For starters, how much the patents were sold for and to whom. Why Bentham was used if legal was done on contingency. Why is everyone playing hide the ball with the facts of the case? And what is being hidden?
ZW - but we don't really know the truth, the whole story, do we? Much of it is clouded by NDA's and side deals. Hopefully, some day, and soon, we will know the full truth.
Just about everything is weird about this suit, hopefully we will get some clarity soon.
As always, thanks for updating us. Much appreciated.
This has been dragging on so long I've forgotten what month and year the trial/settlement was for UOIP........
Thanks for posting that information, both are interesting. Very.
Thank you for the update, much appreciated, as always!
Thanks for keeping us informed....much appreciated!
Thanks....this does sound like good news, although it will take him time to get up to speed on the case, it has a lot of moving parts.
Many thanks!
Thanks....any link or explanation. Hope you're well.
Hi long uoip - any news in our case in DE?
Thanks for continuing to keep up with the proceedings.....much appreciated.
Thanks, ZW - that's the case I'd heard of but not seen. It was filed by Chen for Deidre, right? Have you read the whole thing or just have access to the heading info?
Appreciate the information.
ZW - that's the one I was asking about. Why would Cohen file there rather than DE Chancery?
Oh, hi shajandr - actually, I was asking ZW. But, since you're here, I'm surprised you think the case in North Carolina wherein dierdre purports to represent shareholders is filed in federal district Court. Her personal case against Carter is and should be. The separate case representing UOIP is filed in NC business court.
And...assuming ZW sees this, a further question -i f the federal district Court in Texas was the proper place to file the tro, and Texas was the proper jurisdiction for the arbitration, why ask a NC Court to confirm it?
Hi ZW....a question for you, if you know the answer - why did Cohen file in NC on behalf of Dierdre instead of the DE Court of Chancery? I thought I read that he had suggested that the Court of Chancery was where we should have filed.
If you don't know, could you ask him? Seems curious, doesn't it.....
Thanks....
VC3
Thanks for keeping up with this....much appreciated.
Thanks for posting....
And, please, don't drive drunk!
Long - the link opens but the page it opens to is blank.
Hi long - the letter link doesn't open. Re try? Thanks.
Pacer link for this yet? Thanks.
Still heavily redacted - do you know the amounts that were redacted, and how? What are they?
Unless they will be harmed by exposing wrongdoing......poor babies.....
And what about this line:
Total purchased intangible assets with finite lives .. . . . . . . . . . . . 5,087 (1,973) 3,114
Are these the patents?
I don't disagree at all. I noticed in what I've read of the deposition that Earl is a UOIP shareholder and makes references to shareholder expectations....I haven't read enough to see if he develops that thought further.
I think ZW is actually referring to the last visible part of pg. 65, below the long (and mysterious) redaction.
"Q. And do you know what the -- the final
22 settlement number was?
23 A. Yeah, I do.
24 Q. And -- okay"
Then, on pg. 66:
"1 Is it -- is it a number that you're
2 happy with?
3 A. Well, you know, you never want to go
4 around second-guessing people. Obviously we
5 thought the number should have been higher. But I
6 was not in court while things were going on, so I
7 don't think I'm in the position to second guess.
8 But all three partners felt disappointed with the
9 number"
But we don't know the number....Earl says he does but doesn't share it. As you point out, $1 Billion would be disappointing if $3 Billion were expected. From long uoip's recent post, seems Bentham was expecting a large settlement as well. I can't imagine them folding for $100 million, can you?
Earl isn't the only one Cohen has been grooming and flattering....stock in trade for an attorney, agree 100%
I wrote that ironically. Or sarcastically, if you prefer. What's your source?
Yet, the settlement was a pittance.......
Ah, yes.....Jennifer Ying. My porous memory dropped her name but not her delay.
Seems it is yet to be determined if she did well for them or not....others seem to have done well, not us.....
Ha. Right.
Sheez.....remember the female Atty. who got Andrews to delay the trial becasue she had a vacation planned? Can't recall her name at the moment. Seems if someone is MIA, they have to have a backup or the person who went to Europe shouldn't have....
I'm in the latter Cabal, y'know.....
Good points......what I truly do not understand is why any person holding shares of UOIP would give credence to information or advice coming from opposing counsel or opposing parties. As I think I've noted here before, introducing doubt and misinformation is commonly used by attorneys - if not complete misinformation, at least shaded information certainly. I've even had attorneys that were supposedly working for me and that I was paying tell me things that proved false, and they knew it at the time. I know LT saw my point in a post or two not long ago.....opposing counsel and opposing parties have a vested interest in shareholders giving up and going away. They have no vested interest in helping shareholders.
You enumerate valid questions and points in your posts - what do you think about my question?
I've never said anything that should lead anyone to think I'm not aware of Whitman et al joining a law firm with international focus - that move looked to me like a precursor to extending legal action on behalf of UOIP to countries (and users of the tech) beyond the US. Hopefully my tongue-in-cheek post about BC didn't lead you to think otherwise.