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.
He is a fine Southern Gentleman (I hear) and fine Southern Gentlemen like their Bourbon and Cigars, I'm told.
Thanks - found it - I'm not surprised.
It was interesting reading. Transcribing something like that truly is a PITA. Thanks for doing it.
Most alarming and likely illegal, wouldn't you say?
Thanks for posting - did you have to re-type from a hard copy? Yikes. Lotta work.
Yep, those are the high points.....Billy Carter must stay up nights thinking of ways to screw people and line his pockets. What a life.
Good to see you post - you'd been awfully quiet, was worried CV19 had gotten to you.
If you are referring to my posts this morning you miss-understood them....the point I was attempting to make is that LT and ZW were manipulated and deceived by Cohen during their brief conversation at the hearing....do you understand my point? The redaction was the focus of their exchange, true, but my point was Cohen's intent to deceive them.
One other point, LT - we know that ihub is monitored by opposing counsel, right? BA was even quoted in a filing....remember that? So, if opposing counsel is monitoring ihub and you and ZW are making plans to attend the latest hearing, they know you're going to be there and they know you will report back in here on ihub what happened and what your reaction was. And, such reports are appreciated - but - if opposing counsel knew that the redacted settlement amounts had led to pretty accurate guesses by shareholders and discussed here on ihub - and that you and ZW were attending the hearing and knew you'd be posting here afterwords, do you think they would intentionally come off in an aggressive, rude, off-putting way? Or would they make nice and try to give you false information to carry back and report? Opposing counsel are adeptly working toward a goal and that goal doesn't include paying shareholders their due.....their goal is focused on their clients interests and we aren't their clients. By introducing doubt about the size of the settlement here on ihub, they add to the sentiment that helping with legal action is wasted money. That's exactly what they want UOIP shareholders to think and believe because that helps them achieve their client's goals - and, once again, UOIP shareholders are NOT their clients.
Why would he tell you that? Think that through. What would motivate him to say that? What would his team have to gain or lose by telling you that? Seriously. Think that through. He isn't a "nice guy", you know - he's an attorney and knew who you and ZW are and how you fit into the ihub puzzle. He had a reason to interact with you and tell you what he did. He - they - wanted that information to be shared here, and it was. You have done what he wanted you to do.
If you know what really happened, lay it all out with source information.
Those are some big numbers.....
And Carter settled for $100 M............sure, that sounds right.
I don't think I'd seen that before....seems quite relevant and important.
I see your point based on your experience. I appreciate your concern for my contributions to legal action being wasted....but wonder why you waste your time trying to dissuade others from taking an action they deem feasible. What other shareholders do with their money is their own business, isn't it? I respect your choice to refrain from contributing......let the process play out and then, when it is concluded, we will see who was right and who was wrong. If supporting the legal efforts turns out to be right, please be advised I will gloat... .......and, if I'm wrong, you can, likewise, do your own gloating.
Hi - I didn't say it was a guarantee....I said:
"No, it doesn't - it will take more than jawboning and wishful thinking for us to get paid. It takes legal action."
No, it doesn't - it will take more than jawboning and wishful thinking for us to get paid. It takes legal action.
Extremely relevant. Good find, thanks for posting!
Why, indeed......it isn't just being done for fun.
I agree they should have to show not only how the settlement amount was determined but how much it was and who got what. Sooner or later through discovery, probably, the amount will be disclosed.
take it easy with all this use of accounting jargon - you will get AJ all worked up....
Agree, from a corporate law point of view. And he didn't have the authority to hire attorneys either, but he did, apparently, as well as sign off on an agreement with Bentham for part of the settlement.
I don't think he did. I was agreeing with what AIF had written.
I completely agree with the idea that if the settlement were small ($100M or so) that Carter et al would have publicized the fact. I've wondered if that is why we hear here so often that that was the amount - and that those that persist in presenting that amount as fact are consciously assisting Carter. Point taken about Carter letting it go to trial. Actually, very good point.
I'm not discussing the amounts with him - asking why he believes that. I take your points, though, and agree. Seems based on trial information and testimony that the settlement should have been significant. What gives me pause is the incredible incompetence that seems on display by Carter, Deirdre and their legal team. If you were planning a big rip off as it seems they were, a competent group surely could have come up with a better plan than endless legal fights..... The seeming incompetence is worrying in the sense that they may well have settled for pennies on a dollar to get it done fast and dirty.
Do you believe that by trying to parse the width of redacted numbers?
Agree - if the settlement were that low, the numbers would have been released.
What a mess. I hope it has been pointed out to the judge very clearly that Unified OWNS Chanbond.......
One thing I honestly don't understand in the logic of his (?) presentation is that, if Chanbond is OWNED by Unified, and it is (I think, anyway), then an action by CBV against Chanbond is, by logical extension, an action against Unified. Or am I missing something?
I see......of course.....Deirdre.
That worked - thanks. That is quite the docket. You're very good at this.....I won't ask how you got their Twitter feed......seems she shouldn't be sharing anything, eh?
The link won't load - they must have seen your post???? And took it down???
Good find, though............
I don't pay much attention to the attorney's names - who is Cohen working for?
Good post.....we shouldn't trust her. Time to start cooperating as the common shareholders we are and stop squabbling.
Don't forget the rights to the movie version of the book.....next step is to decide what actor gets cast for the various parts......who would play Billy? Deidre? ZW?
The judge WAS Billy?
We got denied?
Now I recall....thanks. Since it is all in the SEC filings and the legal team has them, hopefully, eventually, the SEC might take a look at this whole matter. Thank goodness we have a legal team overseeing this.
Who, what, when and why the shares were sold to the market will only be known if the legal team gets discovery. And that process hasn't been cheap.
I did too - and they got them from the market maker/transfer agent. That's the way it works. If they were fraudulently sold into the market, as they may have been, I don't know how that works.....but we own documented shares of UOIP.
Happy Easter, all.................I hope the Easter Bunny was good to you!