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.
But there is an "arrangement." They "arranged" to pay a fine and have their securities revoked -- "Ah, shucks, yeah we screwed up and you caught us, dammit." Sadly, this is a "civil" matter, so that's the worst that will happen, unless traders sue.
There was another ticker mentioned in the September 5 suspension that has not been revoked. Perhaps because they didn't make an "arrangement" with the SEC to pay a fine and have their securities revoked?
If a company is issuing PRs with a stop sign or CE, they're pumping. Get in and ride the MOMO, but make sure you don't swing. You need to be out by the closing bell. It's a day trade. Sooner or later (likely sooner if they are delinquent and marketing), you'll wake up and find them in the grey market. They pumped it, took trader money to pay the fines and maybe they'll walk away with a bit of profit.
LAH* sounds like a scam. A holding company revoked and issuing PRs about a "temporary suspension" and reinstatement? Could be a problem for the execs. Not a problem for me. I wasn't holding any of that one.
Yeah, I don't think there's a process for reinstatement from revocation. Companies have an opportunity for reinstatement after suspension, but once revoked...
That PR is misleading. The were revoked, not suspended.
I think you posted some reinstatements of suspended companies. I am not aware of any revoked companies becoming reinstated.
I'm thinking trial by March or April 2020. Then we wait for appeals -- 9 to 12 months, depending on the Appeals Court (they could all file separately, even though 7 are owned by 2 of the defendants). I believe they have 30 days to file an appeal. Most, or all, will wait until day 29 or 30, then 9 to 12 months thereafter for an appeals court decision. Someone on here has repeated said, "they'll ride it until the wheels fall off..." Can't remember who...
I think you're right Scruff; the "loose ends" is the Daubert Hearing. The parties will list their expert witnesses, evidence, objections, etc. at the pre-trial hearing. The contested claims need to be settled before the Pre-trial hearing, or at the Pre-trial hearing. Anything that is not listed at the Pre-trial hearing will not be allowed at trial.
I thought there was a second pacer that came out later the same day. Probably just wishful thinking.
I think it's 11/25.
Don't we have Daubert in November?
Had to know it wasn't gonna happen until after the new year with Daubert right before the holidays. Actually, I'm surprised it's scheduled that early in the year.
Businesses pay to have their logo on the building if they don't own it. Either way, they don't necessarily occupy the entire building. At any rate, 2515 is the address filed on the 13G, so I would presume that's the right address.
Unifiedonline! LLC is the company Carter formed when he took controlling interest - 904m shares.
So we have a couple months to wait, and people get antsy. Lol. Here's a link to the 13G with the relevant info https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005061/uoip_sc13d.htm
The suite number is listed as 1000, if I remember correctly.
Unifiedonline! LLC is the company Carter created to purchase controlling interest of Unifiedonline, Inc. He has the office in Dallas mentioned below. Phone number is (214)438-0750 on the 8k.
I was just going to post the Dallas address on the SEC forms - 2515 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, TX 75201.
Have you been in touch with the patent creators?
No. I haven't read through everything as thoroughly as I should. That's why I check the board. Collectively, I think we have everything covered well. :)
The 5th combination was already allowed.
I saw the response to the sur reply. I didn't read the sur reply though. Well then, let's get on with it, for Pete sake.
The judge could be waiting for Chanbond's response to defendants' 5th theory. He mentioned he could review it separately, but perhaps Chanbond is close to wrapping it up.
So the patent creators get the big middle finger from Commscope too? That's like having one of your neighbors burglarize your home and sell the goods to the rest of the neighbors, and they all drive by laughing while they flip you the bird.
Speaking of birds... nothing from the crows? I would settle for some rumors, innuendo and hearsay at this point. The silence from the court is deafening.
That would likely be resolved in the pre-trial hearing.
Judge Andrew's could be tied up on another case. I hope they're negotiating.
The silence is just dragging it out longer. As you said, a court date would prompt an earnest discussion. We haven't even had Daubert hearing yet.
Silence of the shareholders doesn't bother me. The silence from the court is a bit unnerving.
I would take $5.00 a share.
I think that's just another stall tactic, honestly. They could try the case jointly, and the jury could be instructed to rule separately for each defendant. They're all using the same tech, just to different degrees. And there may be only a few who were "willfully" infringing.
I haven't crunched the numbers. I recall someone did awhile back. I think it was ZW. If I'm not mistaken, it was somewhere around $900 million for the six years of infringement leading up to the suit.
They would need to get about $12 billion award or settlement to get $5 pps with the share structure at revocation. If the 13 lose at trial, they can get treble damages IF they can prove wilful infringement. So far, I have only seen documentation supporting wilful infringement on Comcast's part.
JMO, of course, but at this point, the 13 would have to buy a few jurors or a couple of appeals court judges to win this.
My only concern at this point is whether or not UOIP can solicit private placements. We know IPwe is soliciting private placements. I'm not sure if UOIP would be disqualified with the revocation, or if it doesn't matter at this point with the roll back of Dodd-Frank. They could dilute the stock with a private placement.
Yeah. If not today, Monday would be a great day for a Pacer, asking for a stay because they've reached a settlement.
I don't think it's automatically provided to the company, but rather it's available to the company via the TA once the company becomes private.
Actually, it's probably the TA, Old Monmouth, currently holding the shares. The board (I think there are two board members) will hire accountants or a law firm to handle any distributions.
The company will receive a list of all shareholders, including the number of shares each owns, at the time of revocation.
JMO. I think they were in negotiations (we know it's a requirement) and hit a wall. They both decided to play hardball. Judge might have sent them back to the table. Andrews could set a date for Daubert, but I don't think we'll see a pretrial or trial date until the parties file a brief stating that they were unable to reach an agreement, which could come before or after Daubert. I think negotiations may be more earnest once they know what is or isnt admissible. No idea why Daubert isnt scheduled. Judge said he would rule on the 5th theory separately, but maybe he's waiting on Chanbond's response.
I prefer cash.
I had an attorney tell me once "it's all a game."
The judge, plaintiff and defendants will determine the trial date based on their respective schedules. So, yes, defendants could attempt to push it out by claiming conflicts with hearings or prep for other cases. I suspect defendants decided years ago when they agreed to consolidation to request separate trials as part of their strategy to wear Chanbond down. So you can bet there will be more delay tactics.
The length of the trial will be determined by the evidence being presented, which will be determined at the Daubert hearing.