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.
Good!
Keep it simple!
If he cannot, we should be able to claw back (or threaten to claw back) absolutely everything he did without authorization.
Stay well.
I wonder, if there is this constant effort to deceive the Court, does the Court not take that into account? I guess Billy's argument is that he can sell something he does not own and keep the proceeds. I would not want to so clearly document these efforts, if I were him. Stay well.
"Instead, having sat silently for years while Mr. Carter and ChanBond bore the risks and burdens of a hotly contested patent litigation campaign, the Non-Parties lied in wait until March 21, 2022..."
There is plenty of evidence on IHUB that some shareholders "trusted Billy" and were waiting for him to have the TA contact UOIP shareholders.
Attorneys can cite these posts if they like. Not really reasonable to cite a source, selectively.
I suppose, alternatively, Billy deceived shareholders so that he could use the above argument.
Stay well.
Lived there for a year...1996-1997...say hello to Billy, for all of us UOIP shareholders. Ask him when we get paid, please.
Is he having BOD meetings in his living room?
8)
Road trip?
I missed that post, but let's saddle up.
I will give my proxy to one of the major minority shareholders.
So, we need a shareholder vote to elect BOD.
TA is instrumental in contacting shareholders for vote?
BOD "appoints" CEO.
What I am having trouble with is understanding how a majority shareholder can "appoint" a BOD.
Yes, DE corporate law is usually adopted by states. Last time I checked about 54% (Compustat) of all US corporations incorporated under DE law. I think it was called Court of Chancery and all business related legal matters were resolved in DE when we were only 13 colonies.
So, no shareholder vote for 3-person BOD?
Okay.
I am confused.
Okay.
I did not know we had a 3-person BOD.
Also, a great way to contact each and every single shareholder that the TA has on record as owning shares.
Stay well.
Precisely my thoughts!
I am going to assume that the TA has run into this case before.
You do not have to explain anything to the TA, other than the fact that we need a legitimate BOD and do not have one.
Then, let the TA explain why they want to prevent UOIP shareholders from having a legitimate, 3-person, BOD.
I suppose they could say "trust Billy."
What would the TA say?
'Cannot have a vote to elect a legitimate, 3-person BOD, because the majority shareholder does not want a legitimate BOD - everyone might find out he contracted fraudulently?'
And what is to prevent the 3 largest minority interest shareholders from contacting the TA to call for a vote for each of the largest 3 minority interest shareholders to serve as our 3 directors for UOIP?
The voting instructions come through our brokerage accounts. I get these email notifications all the time. I guess the TA would say okay or no, you cannot, and provide a reason.
Voidable?
Please do not cite me on this one.
It has not been through the review process.
The editor is looking for reviewers, but all qualified white collar felons have been locked down for the night.
Agree.
More misrepresentation and fraud.
Billy's law firm can cite me.
Agree with beyond the scope.
Problem for him...more misrepresentation or fraud.
I hope folks do not persist on wanting him on new BOD if that issue arises.
Critical point. Winning an arbitration against a person and entity never authorized to contract would have no value.
I put me on ignore.
8)
So, once recognized, UOIP shareholders, including Billy and Leane, can receive a "safe payment." Just like the inventors. In fact, I suspect that Billy and Leane would like this idea.
Sorry, talking to myself. I find myself to be very interesting...at times. Of course, I sometimes disagree with me, but I keep it civil. I, sometimes, cite myself.
AJ
So, there is something called a "schedule of safe payments." All parties can be paid the "minimum" anticipated, without risk. Done in liquidations all the time.
"Schedule of safe payments. A schedule used in an installment liquidation that determines what amounts may be safely distributed..."
It is usually associated with partnership liquidations, since this is the context in which it is taught, but it works for any entity.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but, as I recall, inventors have received some amount. That amount was a "safe payment."
Law firms can cite me, if they like.
Stay well.
I was looking at the bottom Pacer.
Seems like everyone but shareholders knows the settlement amount.
:(
I like the way you do accounting.
The $3.5B measure is in the neighborhood of the $2 PPS that one of our posters, since gone missing, suggested...a long time ago.
Sure would be nice to know the settlement amount.
8)
"...perhaps, Bayard made a deliberate leak of the ARB..."
This thought occurred to me, as well.
There do not appear to be any consequences.
Stay well.
Thanks to all for these posts.
Given the fact that BrokeAgent has been cited by legal scholars and in legal proceedings, I believe that additional, potentially citable posts are warranted. In fact, I believe that law firms should be copied on all future posts. I suspect that honorary law degrees will, soon, follow, perhaps along with compensated speaking engagements.
Semper Fi!
I do not understand this post.
I do not understand this post.
"...just hope I live to see a resolution given how slowly the courts work and how adept lawyers are at delay tactics..."
I guess I may be stupid, but glad I did not go to law school to learn how to delay stuff until folks die.
Stay well.
Not really sure about what you are saying here.
Are you saying UOIP shareholders should trust Billy?
Once settlement amount is known, a "safe payment" can be made to shareholders.
Why?
1-I am guessing inventors rec'd some money.
2-Billy has rec'd some money.
3-Leane may have rec'd some money.
If any of above is incorrect, please post a reply.
Stay well.
Agree.
Find a new boyfriend?
Billy did not work out very well.
Not just read.
Researched and cited.
Still, I would like to know what she won.
Even if she will, ultimately, not win.
PS:
Hi, Diedre:
Normally, I would date you, just like everyone else, but, you know, you are not attractive.
Stay well.
I was wondering about the malpractice angle.
If the release of settlement or arbitration information is a problem, I am guessing that the release of other information is a problem.
They did their research and cited the source.
;)
From this point forward, all legal research should be conducted and using IHUB as the source for case law.
8)
No string citations from chat boards, please.
:)