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.
If you Google 'law firms of record representing Skype in sale to Microsoft' you get lots of results & depending on who authored articles and/or their in interest, a lot of lawyers & legal firms names are mentioned. None of them ever mention SAM. If you sift thru it you find at the top & corroborated numerous times, the names of the 2 women & the parent firm of Sullivan & Cromwell are shown to be not only the attorneys & firm that represented Skype in the sale, but also represented them before the sale & before MS interest.
Anyway, in no way is anything I said or brought up, to disparage any of the noted lawyers or firms. And SAM seems to be a fine firm for vp to have retained. The only issue is that certain parties, such as VP & SAM seem to indicate that SAM represented Skype in the sale but the records don't appear to beat that out & so good DD, imho, dictates to find out why. Anyone who chooses to characterize that activity in a negative light, is mischaracterizing things (same as when warnings of caution were put out). Sounds paranoid.
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/05/dealmakersresslerpayne.html
That link (I got some of my info from it originally) speaks to representing the founders, not Skype itself. At some point the founders became separate & rcvd a 14% share (of?). None of that nor any of the earlier stuff said is a bad thing, just different (greatly I think) than what was originally reported. That's all. And if you really like "moving on up", I'll be happy to sell you the domain which I own.
I did not say anything was a problem, nor did I imply as much. You said that, not me. In fact, just to make sure you didn't get any wrong impression, I made sure to add that in no way was my question intended to diminish the integrity of any of the mentioned lawyers or firms. Yet you come back saying that I make it sound like there's some problem w/those parties, when I most certainly did nothing of the kind.
What I did say is I thought there was a discrepancy between what was reported, which clearly sounded to say that SAM was the law firm responsible for handling the Skype side of the big sale, but when I went to check the details of that, as the facts/article I posted show, it was a different story & I asked what about that. That, is essentially what I said. Nowhere did I intimate any issue w/any of them. The issue was simply that the announcement & subsequent commentary here, clearly sounded to say SAM was the firm who handled that huge deal for Skype, but the info I found sounds to say that is not the case, thus I asked about it. You responded w/an article that reports that SAM was basically the firm who represented Skype in its earlier days. It goes on to say that 2 lawyers from SAM were called in to assist SASM, but that's a different story than was originally put out here. And when looking at the apparent lawyers & firms of record, in the sale, SAM is not mentioned at all. That is then a fair reason to question what the PR said & what SAM has said about it, and what the comments said.
It's not a negative thing to try to get the facts straight & you put words in my mouth I didn't say or attributed to me that I had a problem w/any law firms.
Not sure what to make of your info spec. As far as I can tell, SAM firm represented Skype in startup days, but when acquisition became a factor, Skadden was called in & apparently 2 of the partners from SAM also helped during that process.
My point was that when this news (the PR) was released, the commentary here sounded pretty clearly to say, that this firm, SAM, was the firm who represented Skype in the big sale, but when I checked into that for other details, is when I came across the article from the time it occurred, which listed many lawyers/firms as the firm's of record in the deal & SAM firm was not anywhere on the list.
My question thus, why not (in light of how here on the board they sound as tho to be 'the responsible firm' in the sale?.. It at least appears to be a contradiction, does it not? (this in no way is intended to diminish the accomplishments, etc of any lawyers or firms mentioned, only to clear up the apparent contradiction. The comments here immediately following the hiring of SAM seemed to clearly tout them as the, or a, main player responsible for handling the Skype side of the world's largest (one of) company's (MS) largest ever acquisition, when in looking over these other infos, that does not seem to be the case. Maybe I'm not seeing it right?
I didn't even notice, until I took a closer look at the excerpt, the below listed specific noting of the representation for the founders & their Co (of skype). It seems to be in contradiction to earlier link purporting 'SAM' to be the legal firm. I wonder what's up w/this?
__________________________________
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is counsel to Skype
founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, as well as to their
company Joltid Limited, which is also a Skype shareholder.
The entire article, blog & author
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/05/microsoftskype.html
Below is an excerpt from an article, in 2011, about the MS/Skype acquisition. This part covers the retained lawyers for the Skype side. The legal representation for MS is also listed in the article but I had the impression that the legal firm just hired by VP was the firm that represented Skype in that acquisition, so I only posted that part. But I looked that over as well.
I'm not sure how exhaustive the list is, but a read of the entire article makes it sound like all the lawyers are listed here.
So does anyone know why the firm Stubbs Alderton & Markiles
isn't listed?
______________________________________________
"S&C is now counsel to both Skype Global and Silver Lake on the
Microsoft deal. A corporate team led by London partner Richard
Morrissey, Los Angeles partner Alison Ressler, and Palo Alto partner
Sarah Payne. Also on the deal: IP partner Nader Mousavi; antitrust
partner Steven Holley; tax partners Andrew Solomon and Eric Wang;
and partner Matthew Friestedt and special counsel Michael Katz
handling benefits matters. Neal Goldman is chief legal and
regulatory officer for Skype.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is counsel to Skype
founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, as well as to their
company Joltid Limited, which is also a Skype shareholder. M&A
partners Michael Gisser and Rick Madden are part of Skadden's
team, along with litigation partner Lance Etcheverry, tax partner
Michael Beinus, and benefits partner Joseph Yaffe. Gisser also
represented the founders in connection with the 2009 eBay-
Silver Lake transaction.
The deal, which has been approved by the boards of both Microsoft
and Skype, is expected to close by the end of the year.
I did when I bought it for something like 5.71 few yrs back
Can someone help w/current bid/ask.. handset is way behind. Thx
Look at that chart, along w/this news & tell me that's not blatant manipulation, legal or not I don't know but they're playing w/fire at this stage... unless they know something we don't.....??
It does indeed a lot to quell doubt, tremendously, not 100% but goes far.
GL
Agree wholeheartedly on the 99% b.s. (or at least pure speculation). But speculation, after all, is a huge part of what stock trading is. That said, while your point is true, it's what I hear over & over here. There's too much repeating the same old thing. Not that your bullet points, generalized as they are, aren't true or important, but their are other viewpoints & they can have just as much validity, esp if they speak to often overlooked and/or non-discussed issues based on real world concerns.
If the patents & the team, such as it is, is all you feel any need to consider & are perfectly comfortable w/those aspects alone, in lieu of any other possibles, or influences outside of that basic realm, then that's fine. But I'm not so comfortable about it & have given valid reasons & I've been thru it before & seen what can happen. So to those who show what they're made of w/ridicule & insult (iggy to them), so be it & to those who, like you, keep it respectful & offer your solid points, very good but it's same ol same ol & not leaving room for other valid considerations. I've been thru this before & I've seen what can happen, to fly in the face of all the beliefs & touts & solid points & experts. And I saw how the right mix of speculation & facts & substance, could alone, prop a company up for a long time, even tho they never made any money, "but had the ingredients" to. So if anyone wants to ignore those histories & lessons, or just the plain old cutthroat nature of the beast, so be it to that too.
I keep hearing "timetables" & all that is fine & good. I understand that certain things take oppropriate time. But my observation & question has so far, been avoided. I'm certain it a good question because when billions of dollars are at stake (just the sale, but ongoing billions in licencing for future) in the most cutthroat world of finance, stuff like "timetables" are likely thrown by the wayside or at least not such an important consideration when ALL that these patents portend to be & the galactic implications they hold, are in play.
What timetables are you specifically referring to? This whole thing became a reality based scenario, complete w/not much I can see, to threaten that all of the patents are gonna be secured, for weeks & months now. I think it naiive to think the world & the Microsoft's & the Cisco's, whoever, are in the dark about such a far reaching & uber valuable thing & need some PRs to get hip. What I mean is if I was MS, I would not be about letting it get away.
Thus, either something is wrong here, or, very intense negotiations between the big boys are going on & unless there's a bidding war going on, then it should be soon, before they find themselves (who are already at the table) getting outbid by someone from left field. We can only hope that's what the behind the scenes are.
We dun need no stinkin timetables... ; )
I did listen to it (I had a very hard time w/the sound, but I heard about half to 60 percent). I did hear some of the plan you noted, but listen, those guys are in it to make $. Ppl that sell stuff naturally (regardless of their fiduciary duties... I think THAT'S been shown enuff times) have an inherent bias to say what we want to hear, esp when on the spot on a CC. Not saying lying, but hell, these guys make fortunes keeping this stuff going. Face the fact. Look at the fairly obvious unusual 5 months long MaMipulation & all the easy small money those predictable ups/downs are making for them, until everything's "in place". A loose numbers crunch appears to reveal it's more than they could get (safely) on interest or money market.
It's not about all that anyway. My question was saying how can the big boys not know about a monster lurking and/or not pre-emptively grab control of these patents. Something seems not right..
Are you saying that they aren't already aware of vplm & the patents that are supposedly gonna rock their world, very soon... and they don't even know? Seems naiive, no? And isn't MG already been basically approved?
I love it. All these big telecoms are recently on the hook for their part in all this gov snooping on EVERYTHING (they have the capabilities) but THEY are about to blindsided by vplm who's gonna show me how it is & put em to bed, because they don't even have a clue as to what's about to happen. Real plausible Wow.
(am just playing devils advocate)
Exactly. Boy are you right..
Smart traders making money off the ubiquitous & frequent rise & fall. Small but steady income.
Excellent explanation.. Reading "in between the lines" I'm guessing you have not only experienced this once or twice & maybe even involved in money markets (just the way you said a couple things..). If I got you right, a s/h will either get his $ (or close to it, depending..) right away by selling or will automatically get the sale price (wouldn't doubt if there was some "funny business" new math in the sale price/share price calc..?) by simply waiting at the mailbox. Sweet! And the new company is just that.. a new play. Thanks so much. I hope it also enlightened someone else.
Would you care to offer your opinion on if or how sure you feel about the chances of this occurring, how soon, and I'm not sure if it's "plan B" referred to or not, but possibly of a surprise choice to get into licencing? Reason I ask that one is because w/such a rare opportunity the potential "layers" of value here seem to present, I can't help think smart mngmt wouldn't consider.
GOOD LUCK
Thx small cap.. Wow! A couple days ago I decided to try thinking ahead to that scenario & was real conflicted as to what the heck happens in such a case. I've never been in that situ nor seen it. I came to a hazy conclusion in my mind from 1 extreme to the other. The dream scenario is pretty much what you just said. I hope your not kidding me ; ) that sounds great, but I'm not clear on the last part re: if you don't sell. I mean so is it now a case where it becomes a new company & has a new price that whoever decides to stay in would do so because they are counting the possible further growth (that obviously the buyer is shooting for) thus even higher possible profits. Sorry if I didn't explain that right but I think you know what I mean.
Thoughts on what would be expected if there's a buyout, re: what would happen to this stock after the initial price rise.
If you need to flatter yourself thinking you've "hit some nerve", also telling... But the fact is I only calmly responded to what you so "nicely" said. No "nerve" hit here, but not surprising that your post follows my saying that I don't want to keep on w/it & only was replying to defend what you ridiculed. The response was clearly stated. If you don't care for writing style of someone, don't bother reading or respond. This is not the place to keep throwing insults. I suggest you move on if your real motivation is only facts on vp. But I hope it made you feel better.
1) I DIDN'T think that ever. That's your assumption or misconception.
2) I'm fully aware of the penny stocks risk. You somehow find a need to repeat that even tho several of my lasts posts, including the last one stated exactly that fact, so...
3) when you say "we" know this & "we" know that, about whatever, I guess you fancy yourself as a spokesman for the board or you have a frog in your pocket. That's fine, but others have also urged caution here as well, recently. I didn't mean for it to be such a big deal, but if ppl bring up contradictory remarks to the way I presented my point, I replied to & defended the points that I though we're worth it. The truth is that not everybody understands the risks the same way you might. There's many ppl who read the board who aren't vocal & you may think you know everybody & how everybody thinks, but you don't.
4)the way you just characterized it... as you & all your fellow stockholders are the "big boys" & i'm just some chicken little that you don't need around here is very telling. I know that I've been a gentleman & respectful in my comments & have not only the same right to speak my mind as you, but also have given facts & have value to my comments. Also have a fair amount of experience enough to know a thing or two.
5) what your post says about it being the riskiest thing there is... sound like a most definite backpedal to me. I admire your convenient current viewpoint.
6) I have no desire to go on about the same thing or around the same circle. I only started out urging caution & gave good reasons, whether you agree w/them or not, but it seems to have stirred a hornets nest. It not only makes me wonder why the couple of you who make a big deal over it, would be so touchy about it to do so. My wondering leads me to conclude that some people are too defensive about a cautionary story. It is to those people.... that come on boards and tout the very certain windfall impending, (contrary to your characterization of yourself now, as someone fully cognizant of the most risky thing you be in) who should have such sentiments countered or modified by whatever or whoever thinks they have an at equally sensible but different viewpoint. So I did. And I will again if I think it honestly appropriate. Let me ask you this: if you had the billions or whatever is the amount that you currently think the company should accept right now, would you buy it? I think you would likely be inclined to. If so, then why haven't the big guys who likely know more than you about what there is to know bought it before they lose such a gem? If no, why not?
I guess the best way to answer that, is there those like you, who have total belief & confidence in the all the important aspects of vp & then there are those who are very interested in the amazing looking opportunity, which is surely a unusual one, thus might have some inherent vulnerability. Then there is me, who didn't have a clue about any patents play going on. To the best of my memory, I got in solely on it being a voip Co & I mightve read the company statements & it was so cheap, it seemed prudent to give a shot. I learned about the patent thing later & seeing the price go from 2 when I got in, to near 7 when I bought more. But I read everything here & learned all I could grasp about the patents & at a certain point in time, more recently, it or occurred to me that something might not be right here, because all things considered about the gold mine this looks to be, tell me that too much time has gone by WITH too much good news & promise, for it to languish for months & not get bought out yet. The company's bandied about... Cisco, MS, etc, are smart enuff to know the realities & I cannot fathom how all of them can, at this point in the patents process, allow this baby to "get away".
Ok?... So I then thought about my experience w/TIV & the 50 yrs long, makes no money but brings in 100,s of millions & had highly respected mngmt ppl & lots of tangibles too & the investors on the various msg boards would chop your head off if anyone questioned the pot at the end of the rainbow, but they all lost it all (except for the few that got out before losing all) so I was simply thinking about the lessons learned there & thought to issue a cautionary warning, because not everybody is right & there's a lot of emotions involved. I had no other agenda. Sorry.
Well, you said "... judge on how you invest..", so I took that to mean like one's record as opposed to what they say, thus I disclosed being up for entire time since entering mrkt, w/zero understanding of it & have only worked myself up to what I estimate is maybe 2 per cent understanding now & w/a lot of pennystocks too, so I must have something right. But maybe you just meant, hey, you bought vplm, so that was smart, lol
I guess it was expressing frustration about only originally urging some serious caution at this point & I used what I thought was some good examples to illustrate it, since there were a lot of similarities in terms of the "sure thing" factor et al & so many ppl lost so much $. But it didn't go over well.. so just been instead alluding to the many comments that attach themselves to the "sure thing" sentiment & so I said why not then bet the farm. That question was meant to draw out from whoever reading, that caution is a really good thing at this point. In fact I don't think know caution is strong enuff. I wish the best for all & i'm in long too, but something doesn't seem right (maybe). I guess the clearest way I can put is that it's at this stage of a play, w/all the apparent 'sure & massive thing' commentary abounding, while for month's, pps languishes & is dropping into 6's, that a voice of caution was a appropriate. But it gets me treated like a basher...
I not only agree w/that 1000%, but I have 1 or 2 posts that were trying to show that point. That's if I understand you correctly.. If so, DOESNT THAT VERY POINT & LINE OF THOUGHT , played out to it's logical conclusions (the uber savvy big boys) tell YOU that something THEREFORE... 'might' be wrong here... at this stage of this 'game'?
...and I meant to add (since you RIGHTFULLY, imho, noted your respect of one's record...and I also noted this in removed post) that I got into trading approx 5 yrs ago. I don't have a head for much of what is necessary to learn to really know what you're doing, but I saw perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity in the market, so I got in and have studied my butt off as to whatever I can grasp. I have worked approx 30 or so stocks. The majority were or are pennystocks & so by rights I should have been slaughtered a long time ago. But I have enuff common sense I guess, to have worked my way thru a lot of bad stock situations & am significantly ahead, for the entire time. I was much more ahead near the beginning than now but nevertheless ahead.
Step.. I'm not sure what "I never said that is referencing", the part about having patience or about the numbers. I can't recall (but I will look back) if it was you whom I posted about the 170 shares or not, if that's what you're referencing? Actually I tried to correct myself in another post (removed) in that maybe what I was thinking of bids/asks, rather than trades (I don't get to see a whole lot on this handset) but it was honest try to help someone & I have stated I am very unknowledgable about those aspects of trading. Thx
The notion that someone would have to have insider info in order to have found there way into vp @ 2 cent is (fill in the adjective). There are countless other ways to have found or stumbled one's way to & they don't require too much imagination to conclude. In my case, I don't actually remember. Maybe a pump email or just some of my flailing around looking for something interesting. The name may've come up in a link or something, possibly while studying about voip? Certainly not inside info, so just another assumption or misjudgment.
I haven't said anything against having patience. I have been patient & long for about a year. And you have given me no reason to disbelieve what ever you might say (although I might add that statements like that are usually meant to impress). My point, same as all along, was simply that anybody who believes the patents & quickly coming huge buyout is "a given", w/no possible doubts as to what could change that from happening, is, in my opinion, not being realistic & therefore ought to invest there last penny & their kids money too (aside from paying bills).
I don't know what "great idea" your referencing? But anyway, to your question about why here? is simple & the same reason as most people get involved, because there's a major attraction & a lot of potential. But all this talk about sure thing & will happen no matter what, based on these patents, is over reaching faith. Not to say the patents aren't real or appearing to be quite valuable, but because if you knew every possible scenario as to how this could play out differently, and still had this unshakeable belief in, then you WOULD put up the farm because you would have nary a doubt in your mind, so WHY NOT?
I too bought from 2 cent to 7 cent. And I was willing to buy more recently, but ran out of monies. But now, all things considered, I would only hold if I had the cash, because something might not be right here...
I agree. I was thinking the same thing, esp since they wouldn't have to name any names, but still in the best interest of the s/h. So why do you think hasn't happened. It points to what... would you say?
My post about TIV was not intended to show numerous direct parallels, but to show some comparisons to what often happens & to offer a few indirect parallels to help illustrate that.
––––––––––
"I think facts are getting mixed w/possibilities. In one sentence its said that those who aren't convinced WILL NOT benefit. That is counting chickens b4 eggs hatched."
______________________
That was my opening statement. It is clear & concise & factual.
________________________
"Then what follows in next sentence is that those w/
foresight will be greatly rewarded (altho the word "possibly" was used) . It's all speculation & conjecture...
*here, I continue to point to an example of the problem I'm talking about & again, it's clear & concise. I simply paraphrased the quote & made a point about what sort of problem it presented. Also was factual.
__________________
"& many other things are possible & I just would never tell ppl w/legitimate doubts they will wind up losers when it's just as possible longs will."
*I continued on w/my thought...clearly saying that other things were possible & so THAT FACT predicates why it's not a good thing to be advising people. Very clear & concise & factual.
____________________
"I'm not suggesting this is not looking like an exceptionally great play, but...
*here, I have made my opening point (explained above) & then, so as not to go too far into in give any wrong impression, I inserted some balance to my intended point, by making clear that I was not bashing or diminishing the potential of vp. Another clear comment & helping to show my intention & position, clearly.
__________________
"..but I was long into into a company stock, not a
penny stock & watched it graduate to nynex or nasdaq..
*I continue, introducing the entity that I chose to use to help illustrate my clear point & NOT for the purpose of making a big parallel case out of it, other than to show how a stock w/major reasons & evidence which seems to validate it's major value, can go against the facts, touts. So it is moving in a straightforward way & in a sensible order. (I might add at this point that I was in a hurry & am using a phone & the text software is malfunctioning & making it very hard to compose. So, grammar, spelling, run on sentences, lack of paragraphs are just consequential. I have no problem how to effectively communicate & the good points & construction are there, as this shows.
I could keep going thru the remainder, most likely continuing to show it was not pointless or incomprehensible, and anyone cared to be constructive, and wanted to point directly to a statement or sentence or point, that they think is pointless and/or invalid, I happily clear it up or admit it was faulty.
I'll only add here, that an example of comparative or indirect parallel, is like when I went on to describe that company as a 50 year old company w/many yrs on the stock market. Obviously that's not a direct parallel to vp, but was used to help add to the many elements in place that made this become a widely held stock with lots of very major & solid looking "fact" with it that was able to attract, sway, convince, hook & hold many people, investment groups & hundreds of millions of dollars, over a long period of time, when in fact, this company never made money from day one. And the boards were filled (for years) w/many very savvy stock folks & industry experts, who continuously trumpeted the virtues & the undeniable great value to come. They also (the company) had a lot of tangibles to show & it's more likely that it didn't start out as a scam but was ruined by a combo of bad management that then became corrupt. This was no shell company either & it had all sorts of major credentials on the board & if people came on the message board & so much as gave a less than stellar comment about the top brass guys, the longs would hand you your head on a platter...But they never made any money & all the hundreds of millions in investment money disappeared because the fiduciary duties were not adhered to & everyone lost everything. And nobody believed any warnings along the way, right up to the last days. The warnings were there, by only a handful of very knowledgeable folks who knew better but they were always put down & ridiculed. To this day, a couple of them still post the "I told you so's".
Incidentally, there was oil & gas & some gold. It existed. The proof is that the companies who bought up all the firesale dirt cheap properties, went on swiftly to have very good production numbers currently.
So regardless of using verbiage like "parallels" or "comparisons" or "indirect parallels", the fact remains there are some valid comparisons in terms of "promise" (backed up w/some serious facts) vs "outcome" & I THOUGHT it was a prudent cautionary to make the post. I don't pump, I don't bash & I try to be objective. To some, fodder for ridicule... your welcome.
You're not supposed to concern yourself about such trivialities. Pay no attention to anything that might hide behind the curtains. No worries.
What are they waiting for & why are they risking losing out, pray tell?
Henery, I'm not sure but when you see "170", doesn't that mean x100? How could 170 shares @ 6 or 7 cent, manipulate anything?
The parallels, which were pointed out & not to do w/patents or this technology, we're there, thus zero understanding of the simple point. In any event, if you are so certain that nothing can stop a huge sale soon, I would think you should "sell the farm", empty all your pockets & even the piggy banks...... Why Not?
Yes spec, I agree & that's the point... that nothing is a forgone conclusion, but I was reacting to commentary on the board, a fair amount of, as I see it... that does indeed sound very much like it is a forgone conclusion. I don't disagree w/any of your points about the patents & the solution they appear to solve & in fact, I see all of the great potential of all that's been pointed out w/respect to to them. My only point & I attempted to use a major "big story, 50 year company stock play goes bad" to illustrate it, was that no matter how good it looks, it is not a proven fact that nothing can go majorly wrong, and so to exercise extreme caution at this vulnerable time. It doesn't matter if a couple people get hung up on "grammar/all over road/pointless, mindless, no parallels, etc etc", because the fact of the matter is its good, straightforward thinking, makes sense & is only cautionary, which is fine advice in penny's ticks. That, instead of others losing the message.
Forgot to answer what "in the bag" means. It's a common knowledge phrase. I don't remember my exact use, but it refers to the talk here, about how the patents bringing soon & for sure riches, are a forgone conclusion (which nothing is until it is) or in the case of the other Co I used for example, same definition, different products.