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 UOIP (PUBLIC) becomes UOIP (Private) how will "private' know how many shares I own (owned) when they were "public"?
My shares sit with TDA, I have my statements, etc. but UOIP doesn't know how many I own today.That is what I am seeking answers to.
Maybe we won't have to worry about it!
I am staying with this until the end - and will continue to follow advice/suggestions from the great people who have also invested time and money with UOIP. Thanks Zomby!
It was determined (last week) that the messages JBBB received were "probably" not from Mr. Carter. The only thing that happens after today - we are on the grey market.
The reason I posted that - people are saying we would own shares in a privately held company and that is not the case. Carter owns majority, he has to make an offer the the rest of us LONGS. For those who agree to the price, we sell our shares to him. For those who don't agree, liquidity sets in and eventually the shares are worthless. None of us will be apart of his privately held company and the deal he makes - if he goes private and there is no buyout. JMO after researching this subject.
How does privatization affect a company's shareholders?
In public to private market transactions, a group of investors purchases most of the outstanding shares in the public company and makes it private by delisting it. The reasons behind the privatization of a company vary, but it often occurs when the company becomes heavily undervalued in the public market.
The process of making a public company private is relatively simple and involves far fewer regulatory hurdles than the private to public transition. At the most basic level, the private group will make an offer to the company and its shareholders. The offer will stipulate the price the group is willing to pay for the company's shares. Once the majority of the voting shares have voted to accept the offer, shares of the company are sold to the private bidder, and the company becomes privately held.
The biggest obstacle in this process is getting the acceptance of a company's shareholders, the majority of which need to accept the offer in order for the transition to be completed. If the deal is accepted by the shareholders, the company's buyer will pay a consenting group of shareholders the purchase price for each share they own. For example, if a shareholder owns 100 shares and the buyer offers $26 per share, the shareholder will receive $2,600 and relinquish his or her shares. There is a large benefit to this type of transaction for investors, as the private group usually offers a substantial premium for the shares compared to the current market value of the firm.
If Carter takes this private, he will be making a billion dollar + fortune for himself. WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING UNDER $2.00 PER SHARE!
Some of the most famous companies in the world have gone from public to private, including Heinz, Dell Computer, and Hilton. An example of a public company that became private is Toys "R" Us. In 2005, a purchasing group paid $26.75 per share to the company's shareholders - more than double the stock's $12.02 closing price on the New York Stock Exchange in January 2004, the trading day before the company announced it was considering dividing the company. As this example shows, shareholders are usually well compensated for relinquishing their shares.
Tony and Zomby,
I received a Pacer alert email.
There are 5 Pacer submissions processed yesterday
#55287 - I listed them.
I don't have an account to pull these.
PacerMonitor Alert 5 new results for ChanBond
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02426)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02427)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02428)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02429)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02430)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
PacerMonitor Alert 5 new results for ChanBond
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02426)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02427)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02428)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02429)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
ARRIS International plc v. ChanBond, LLC (0:18-bcaag-02430)
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Sep 27, 2018
Thank you!
All the best to you and the Mrs.
Good Luck to all others who are hanging on!
Zomby - assuming you either had a conversation or received an email...are you comfortable with the upcoming events? I have been following you through this on IHUB and appreciate all you have done and continue to do. I have been a shareholder since 2010 and staying until the end! Just looking for your opinion. Thanks
Everything in here is opinions / speculation.
No one here has received actual information.
Waiting for PACER updates to obtain facts.
No one knows anymore than you right now.
GREY MARKET trading has no bearing for current share holders.
I understand grey is automatic....but the recipient of the "WC" email is misleading others...reason for my reply. thanks...JMO
WC did not say one way or the other - whether or not we are grey...his comments lend no clear answer...so any indication otherwise is speculation. IMO
Thanks...not very informative...seems the message is the same you 'used' to post. Are you comfortable with that? He did not address your biggest concern that UOIP is not a company...I hope we get a bit more than "Hang in there."
Is sharing off the table?
Did anyone see this?
ORIGINAL: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/comment-bcarter.pdf
From: Billy Carter
To: PTABNPR2018@USPTO.GOV
Subject: A Comment From a Concerned Citizen!
Date: Monday, June 18, 2018 11:27:16 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
In re: PTO-P-2018-0036 dated 05/09/2018
I wish to add my support for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed rule changes:
- Change the claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter partes review (“IPR”),… before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with a standard that is the same as the standard applied
in federal district courts and International Trade Commission (“ITC”) proceedings.
- Amend the rules to consider any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the involved claim in a civil action, or an ITC proceeding, that is timely made of record in an IPR.
I believe the PTAB has become the most important and influential tribunal in the U.S. patent landscape. The America Invents Act (AIA) invests PTAB judges with extraordinary powers and this change will
bring more clarity in USPTO guidance and consistency in PTAB decisions. These two changes are reasonable and make the PTAB proceedings more in line with the intent of Congress when It passed AIA.
It will decrease the occasions where patent owners must deal with continued, trivial IPR petitions that are staggered over many years. This practice is unfair and denies the patent owner justice,
because each win is followed by another IPR, which adds 1-2 years to process. Since the creation of IPRs, patents have been routinely reviewed on multiple occasions. Some patent families have had
more than 125 separate petitions filed, because a decision of one PTAB panel does not bind another one, surviving one review provides no armor against subsequent challenges.
The purpose of the patent system is to encourage the disclosure of new, innovative technologies, so that the base of knowledge upon which other inventors work advances. In exchange for the technical
disclosures in patents to competitors, the patentee has to be protected from thieves who contributed nothing to the disclosed technical advancement but would copy it for their own profit. Most
inventions today are improvements on prior, disclosed inventions, so a weak patent system that discourages patenting slows the advances of technology and the benefits those advances would have
brought are delayed or not realized at all. Patents are important. Patents help enable the American Dream.
Thanks for considering my opinion,
Regards,
Billy Carter | President | ipCM, LLC | 2515 McKinney Ave. #1000, Dallas, TX 75201
Office: (214) 438-0750 | Cell: (336) 480-8418 | Email: billy@ipcmadvisors.com
SEC Orders Hearing On Registration Suspension Or Revocation Against UnifiedOnline, Inc. For Failure To Make Required Periodic Filings
Sep 18 18
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the commission) instituted public administrative proceeding to determine whether to revoke or suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months the registration of each class of the securities of UnifiedOnline, Inc. for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission. In this Order, the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that the company was delinquent in its required periodic filings with the Commission. In this proceeding, instituted pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j), a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, the judge will hear evidence from the Division and the company to determine whether the allegations of the Division contained in the Order, which the Division alleges constitute failures to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 there under, are true. The judge in the proceeding will then determine whether the registrations pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 of each class of the securities of the company should be revoked or suspended for a period not exceeding twelve months. The Commission ordered that the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding issue an initial decision not later than 120 days from the date of service of the order instituting proceeding.
http://otce.finra.org/TradeHaltsCurrent
SEARCH "UOIP"
H10 Halt
RELAX FOR AWHILE!!!!
Trading Halts and Delays
Securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) as well as the Nasdaq Stock Market, have the authority to halt and delay trading in a security. A trading halt—which typically lasts less than an hour but can be longer—is called during the trading day to allow a company to announce important news or where there is a significant order imbalance between buyers and sellers in a security. A trading delay (or "delayed opening") is called if either of these situations occurs at the beginning of the trading day.
There are two types of trading halts and delays—regulatory and nonregulatory. The most common regulatory halt and delay happen when a company has pending news that may affect the security’s price (a "news pending" halt or delay). By halting or delaying trading, market participants can have time to assess the impact of the news. Another type of regulatory halt happens when a market halts trading in a security when there is uncertainty over whether the security continues to meet the market’s listing standards. When a regulatory halt or delay is imposed by a security’s primary market, the other U.S. markets that also trade the security honor this halt.
Nonregulatory halts or delays occur on exchanges, such as the NYSE (but not on Nasdaq), when there is a significant imbalance in the pending buy and sell orders in a security. When an imbalance occurs, trading is stopped to alert market participants to the situation and to allow the exchange specialists to disseminate information to investors concerning a price range where trading may begin again on this exchange. A nonregulatory trading halt or delay on one exchange does not preclude other markets from trading this security.
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerstradinghalthtm.html
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 84185 / September 18, 2018
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading in the securities of the following issuers,commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 19, 2018 and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 2, 2018:
- Swissinso Holding, Inc. (SWHN)
- SYDYS Corporation (SYYC)
- UnifiedOnline, Inc. (UOIP)
The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of the foregoing companies due to a lack of current and accurate information about the companies because they have not filed certain periodic reports
with the Commission. This order was entered pursuant to Section 12(k)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).
The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders and prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available information and any information subsequently issued by these companies.
Brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, at the termination of the trading suspensions, no quotation may be entered relating to the securities of the subject companies unless and until the broker or dealer has strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by the rule, it should refrain from entering quotations relating to the securities of these companies that have been subject to trading suspensions until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is certain that all of its provisions have been met. Any broker or dealer with questions regarding the rule should contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action. If any broker, dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they should immediately communicate it to the Delinquent Filings Branch of the Division of Enforcement at (202) 551-5466, or by e-mail at DelinquentFilings@sec.gov.
09/19/2018 09:30:00 UOIP UnifiedOnline, Inc Common Stock Halt=Yes
Trading Halts and Delays
Securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) as well as the Nasdaq Stock Market, have the authority to halt and delay trading in a security. A trading halt—which typically lasts less than an hour but can be longer—is called during the trading day to allow a company to announce important news or where there is a significant order imbalance between buyers and sellers in a security. A trading delay (or "delayed opening") is called if either of these situations occurs at the beginning of the trading day.
There are two types of trading halts and delays—regulatory and nonregulatory. The most common regulatory halt and delay happen when a company has pending news that may affect the security’s price (a "news pending" halt or delay). By halting or delaying trading, market participants can have time to assess the impact of the news. Another type of regulatory halt happens when a market halts trading in a security when there is uncertainty over whether the security continues to meet the market’s listing standards. When a regulatory halt or delay is imposed by a security’s primary market, the other U.S. markets that also trade the security honor this halt.
Nonregulatory halts or delays occur on exchanges, such as the NYSE (but not on Nasdaq), when there is a significant imbalance in the pending buy and sell orders in a security. When an imbalance occurs, trading is stopped to alert market participants to the situation and to allow the exchange specialists to disseminate information to investors concerning a price range where trading may begin again on this exchange. A nonregulatory trading halt or delay on one exchange does not preclude other markets from trading this security.
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerstradinghalthtm.html
Only posted (cut and paste) main items from the document found. The full document was published 09/04 and link provided. Just sharing information. No opinion, comment or personal remarks added.
No. 17-1686
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
RPX CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
CHANBOND LLC,
Respondent.
---------------------------------
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Federal Circuit
REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1686/62700/20180905121140319_RPX%20v%20Chanbond%20-%20Petition%20Reply%20Brief.pdf
In short, Respondent’s position on the power of Congress to control agency action in this matter is in stark contrast with the position of RPX. Respondent argues in effect that there is nothing Congress can do by statute to create a private right, which when deprived by an agency, constitutes an injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing. According to Respondent, a party either has standing based on facts outside of any statute or they do not. That is the same position taken by the Court of Appeals below. RPX disagrees. This case is a good vehicle for resolving this important question.
CONCLUSION
The petition should be granted.
Fixed 5G is being billed as an alternative and potentially significant threat to wired broadband services, but this emerging wireless option won't be able to catch up to the capabilities of cable's fixed-line platform, a top exec at Charter Communications said.
"I don't see anything about 5G that ever makes it comparable to DOCSIS 3.1 or DOCSIS 3.1 Full Duplex or any of the capabilities we have through a fixed-line service," Chris Winfrey, CFO at Charter Communications Inc. , said Thursday at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch 2018 Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference.
https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/5g-speeds-cant-match-docsis-31-charter-cfo-says/d/d-id/745898?
LONG AND STRONG UOIP !!
I would think paying $10 to find out of a company is "REAL" is worth the price.
We are all buying and sitting on "ghost" shares!! I sure wish I could see proof of 70mil shares as well!
LONG UOIP!!
Feel free to pay the money requested to obtain current status of UNIFIEDONLINE!
https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx
LONG UOIP!!!
TO JBBB
The discussion of buyout has been repeated on this board many times.
However, if there is no buyout, the settlement could have both companies entering into a royalty-bearing license agreement where ChanBond is paid a license issue fee and ongoing royalties. The "13" will also receive a license to Chanbond patents in the deal. The settlement and license agreement will recognize the value of the technology and ensure Chanbond is properly compensated while protecting consumers and shareholders. When news breaks, share price skyrockets, you sell when you want to sell.
At this point in the game, the only decision is when to sell (if no buyout) not how I get my money!
EPR Financial News
UnifiedOnline, Inc. acquired 100 percent membership interest of ChanBond, LLC on 27th October 2015. That was a portfolio of patents through which the company understands that there is a technology that allows all the major cable companies to offer high-speed data transmission over the hybrid-fiber coaxial networks. UOIP purchased Chanbond for $5,000,000 payable before October 2020 along with 44,700,000 shares of the common stock. On 21st September 2015, Chanbond files a lawsuit in District Court of U.S. against the 13 biggest cable MSOs in the country. Chanbond claims that every cable multi-system operator in the country is virtually using DOCSIS 3.0+ which is infringing upon its patents. The three alleged infringement of wideband signal distribution system patents are:
Patent #1: 7,941,822
Patent # 2: 8,341,679
Patent # 3: 8,984,565
One of the major cable modem manufacturer Cisco filed eight interparty reviews on these patents. Six of the Cisco IPRs on patent 2, and 3 were not established for IPR. Only one of eight interparty reviews was established for IPR on March 3, 2017. Chanbond and the legal team of Mishcon de Reya New York LLP which is a respected law firm are appealing the single IPR that Cisco got.
ChanBond, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Case #: 0:18-bcaag-01886
Case Files: Apr 26, 2018
ARRIS International PLC also filed for five interparty reviews on these patents, but on July 27, 2018, the PTAB denied Arris a hearing because the petition is time-barred. Arris and Cisco are not being sued; only the thirteen cable companies are being sued for the infringement. However, the modem manufacturers are trying to invalidate the patents because their clients are at risk of patent infringement and Arris International has made it public that they have indemnified certain cable companies. This is from the “ARRIS Form” 10-K filed for March 31, 2018
From page 47 ARRIS INTERNATIONAL PLC FORM 10-K
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645494/000119312518066821/d505150d10k.htm
“ChanBond v. MSOs, C.A. 15-cv-00848, et al, District of Delaware (RGA). On September 21, 2015, ChanBond filed suit against several MSOs alleging infringement of three US Patents. Certain of our customers have requested that we provide indemnification. The complaint requests unspecified damages for infringement and injunction against future infringement. To date, no evidence of infringement or damages has been introduced. It is premature to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, ARRIS may be required to indemnify the MSOs and/or pay damages for utilizing certain technology.”
Throughout all of this UnifiedOnline has remained quiet and if you search UOIP on OTCMarkets the company is listed as Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) and as Delinquent SEC reporting. On October 26, 2014, UnifiedOnline Inc. submitted the necessary 13-D with the SEC (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005061/uoip_sc13d.htm) that they were operating in the dark. The sole manager of the company is William R. Carter, Jr. and he is the one who has exclusive and sole authority over all the activities and operations.
During this time there have been no comments from UOIP, but do not let that cloud your judgment about the validity of the company, its patents, or this case. Bear in mind that UnifedOnline retains Mishcon de Reya New York LLP which is a respected law firm, representing a diverse portfolio of clients in more than 60 countries with more than 200 litigators across New York and London. UnifiedOnline has been under the microscope of the 13 largest cable companies in the United States (billion dollar corporations) and the Federal Court System. If there were a hint of scam or any wrongdoing no one would be wasting time, energy, and money to fight these patents. Do not confuse silence on UOIP’s part with sound legal recommendations.
Keep yourself informed with the court schedule, but keep in mind that this may settle or UOIP could be bought out any moment between now and the actual trial.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00572/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8341679/06-01-2018-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2043-62-EX2043_DI_271_2018_05_24_Amended_Scheduling_Order/
Disclosure: I am long UOIP since 2010
A question for the experts on this ticker. When the decision IS made and money IS awarded, how long does it take before the money is disbursed? In the event that there is no buyout and Billy keeps the company moving, would the "award" be considered a royalty or would it be disbursed as dividends? I have read posts on this site where many here have been part of patent plays in the past. Thanks you in advance for your anticipated reply.
The post contains the dates for release...not until then.
There have been posts about the transcript:
**Official Transcript of Discovery Dispute held on 08-09-18 before Judge Richard G. Andrews. Court Reporter/Transcriber Leonard A. Dibbs. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/11/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/9/2018. (lad)**
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/transcript-rates
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/copydocs
PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS (PACER)
The Clerk's office provides two public terminals where customers have direct access to (PACER) dockets and PDF documents, and copies may be self-printed for $.10 per page.
we all have to remember...this stock is Caveat Emptor...it will be hard for some of these "big boys" to buy into this at all...regardless of all the DD and potential for riches here...they will hesitate!
I have my few million and happy I have been with UOIP since IceWeb days....no matter what the daily "play" is - the outcome is larger than anyone can wrap their head around and I am in until the end.
$$$LONG UOIP$$$
Oh but new technology DOES exist that may eventually replace wi-fi. It is not mainstream YET.
PureLiFi (company in Scotland) has developed "Li-Fi"- essentially the same as Wi-Fi, except for a small difference— it uses LED lights to transmit the data wirelessly as opposed to using radio waves. It HAS been developed and it IS being used. https://purelifi.com/company
DOCSIS 3.0 technology is the current technology of today.
DOCSIS was also approved by the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) as international standard - which could lead to a global lititgation - lol!
The cable companies are using the patent not the manufacturer (Cisco & Arris -who are not named in the litigation).
The court will tell the cable companies to pay for the use (since the beginning) or stop using the technology. That is where the buyout comes into play.
Cisco sold their cable business to Technicolor for $660m in 06/2015.
They currently have no interest in bidding for the patent as they are not in the license as a service business. However, Arris (who is still in the cable modem business) would have an enormous interest in protecting their customers (all the cable companies) - as previously mentioned.
BTW - PTAB is not in the business of driving companies to bankruptcy. ARRIS will owe a small percentage of profits..usually 1 to 3%...that will not put them out of business. The consumer will ultimately "pay more at the pump" so ARRIS 'could' get back some of their losses.
Thank you JBBB...appreciate the advice.
Just a quick question...do we continue to keep our shares "locked"?
Is there a point where we should unlock them?
If they are locked and a settlement comes - what happens to my locked stock?
Thanks to all on this board for your knowledge and diligence - especially Zomby and wife! I have been with UOIP since 2007, have significant holdings here but am a novice at penny stocks. I hold mostly blue chip and don't do anything but purchase shares! Hopefully I retire with this stock and can spend time learning the ins and outs of sustainable investing (options, etc.). Thank you in advance for any reply.
Locked all of mine! Thank you so much for the information.
$$$ UOIP $$$
Some advice for a beginner...when you say "lock up" are you saying to put an order in to sell at say $5.85? Do I set this as a limit or stop? I have a couple million shares and want to do the right thing for all of us but I am not sure I will do it correctly. My shares are sitting with TD. Thanks in advance for advice.
FYI - subsidiaries of UOIP: Interlan; ChanBond, LLC; IceWEB Storage Corporation;KC-NAP, LLC; Computers & Tele-Comm, Inc.; Iceweb Online, Inc.; InterLAN Communications, Inc.; LearningStream Inc.; DevElements, Inc.; PatriotNet, Inc. IceWEB's Integration Division; Arogen, Inc.; iPlicity Inc.; The Seven Corporation.