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.
"Lawyers have been paid, financing paid. Deidre's $5 mill has been paid, inventors paid."
Your information is coming from the inventors and your saying they have been paid. They are telling you that the settlement amount is much lower than anyone expected - yet they have been paid and are still fighting for more funds. Doesn't seem to add up?
Or your information on the low settlement amount is coming from the opposing legal counsel who obviously would want shareholders to go away quietly - therefore tell someone they know is highly regarded on this board misinformation to discourage further legal pursuit.
By the way - financing could very possibly be declared as Carter's responsibility as it seems (in reference to Deidre's filings) he had taken on personal loans in these deals and the interest they made was absurd which could amount to many millions and millions of dollars that will come out of Carter's portion.
I don't understand how anyone who owns shares is not worried about these important facts - there is very clearly some foul play and anyone owning shares should want to get to the bottom of this.
When have I ever claimed to know everything? I simply follow the most logical path when I discuss all things UOIP. I rather not take pointers from opposing counsel or listen to what other interested parties have to say. It would defeat the purpose of getting to the bottom of all of this.
Had you paid closer attention to the process here you would realize what I was referencing when declaring criminal problems. There are seemingly many actions taken on the back-end by Carter and Leane that were done illegally. You are all likely in for a pleasant, or UNpleasant surprise.
Leane filed a complaint in NC and suddenly decides to file a motion to dismiss after Carter decided to let her in on the spoils. Whereas Carter decided to exclude shareholders/CBV (conveniently the two parties who would have absorbed a very large amount of the settlement). Putting 2 and 2 together one can easily conclude that they saw an out to leave CBV out and additionally leave shareholders out entirely if they settled their differences. As Leane likely had a lot more inside information due to her connection with Carter's acquaintances - Carter decided it was best to settle his differences with her and move forward hoping shareholders would go away quietly and negotiate a smaller piece of the pie for the patent creators they so kindly took to the cleaners.
This whole thing was managed so poorly it should be embarrassing for Carter and Leane. They now face lawsuits with their money tied up and potential criminal charges, instead of realizing the value of the patents and the amount of proceeds they would have received from a fair and likely award amount at trial/settlement. Greed tends to make people think irrationally - so worried about "What do I get and how do I ensure I get the largest piece of the pie", rather than "How do we see this thing through to the end to benefit us all the most possible", as stated prior - realizing the value of these patents, Deidre and Carter would have been considered rich after the conclusion of the trial/settlement.
I'd imagine you realize how ridiculous that sounds that Billy waited until the very last minute when the defense gave up in trial to determine $ billions plus in damages to settle for some lowball number your alluding too. Teese's valuation was what was presented in the documents/trial.
If, as you say, Billy and Deidre were receiving 42% of the gross settlement so there was no need to consider shareholder's cut - why would Billy not then cut out Deidre as of course she had no standing after rescinding her 22% prior? Does not make sense Billy decided to cut others out (such as the shareholders and CBV) and then include Deidre when he never had too as she had no legal standing. This makes no sense if as you keep telling us all here that there was little to fight over.
And finally, if Billy and Deidre knew there was not much leftover to share with shareholders - why would that not make that clear to shareholders so that they would go away without spending their own money prolonging this lawsuit and potentially getting them into deeper criminal problems by continued spotlights on their actions? If there was $100 million or less to go around for all parties - you think shareholders would be ponying up to make sure their represented and Billy and Deidre get into legal problems?
It would be nice to get a response to these questions as you continue telling us all you KNOW the settlement value is peanuts - yet can't give us anything more than you know because you spoke to CBV who have a vested interest in themselves and benefit from us being out of the picture.
So can you just say for the record, you are asking shareholders to trust Brauerman and Cohen? Just want to make sure we are on the same page. As they were the ones to advise you and that is how your telling us to proceed. Basically asking us to trust Carter who has made it very clear shareholders will receive nothing.
Very interesting stuff. Look forward to reading more about this.
Well that’s because our patent has not been legally recognized across the market. Once a giant like Google gets hit for damages by infringing on a patent - everyone else falls in line as they realize the problems with infringing. A lot of value will soon be realized here.
Exactly, this is an operating company growing tremendously right now - which can partly be attributed to their product finally being officially recognized in some markets. Once Google is found to be guilty of infringing as they basically already have been (just a question of damages amount at this time) - they will be officially recognized in all markets, including the highest volume markets. Not to mention Google will have to pay damages and decide whether they want to make a move to buyout the patents or pay fees for the product. This company is heavily undervalued for what is coming - only a matter of time.
Well done in putting those calling the purchase of Chanbond in question to rest. Maybe now we can get back on track that Carter was not authorized as we have been discussing to make decisions on behalf of UOIP as he did. Seems a lot of things were overlooked in his overall plan here.
Right, we are supposed to trust those listening to opposing counsel and ignore our own counsel / logical reasoning. Understood.
Imagine trying to realistically debate that a group of lawyers and Carter took the cable companies to the cleaners for 5 years through the PTAB, and then a prolonged (due to COVID) trial only for the cable companies to give up at the last minute claiming they had no viable defense against valuation experts with a very conservative low end range at around $3-4 billion in damages - only to say yeah we’ll take $100 million or less through all of said circumstances. Seems a bit far-fetched wouldn’t you say?
Not to mention - shareholders have come together to fight for intervention into the case which could seriously hinder the Deidre, Carter, Chanbond lawyers, Bentham, etc. and they are withholding the “pittance” of a settlement number giving shareholders the much-needed fuel to keep fighting instead of revealing that there is nothing of value here to fight for so go away. None of this adds up… hopefully shareholders read between the lines.
It’s already been answered if you read the filings. However there are a lot of questions I have posed regarding some information your referencing and other things where I’ve got zero answers. Interesting stuff.
Except that he responded in a filing as to the reason he was not there… which as you can see nothing came of the Judge’s rant about Rader because it was made very clear that he was never ordered to be there by the clerk. Also it was made very clear in Rader’s filing that the opposition jumped all over this petty issue to distract from the real matters at hand.
Also I wanted to ask where your getting this information that the funds were disbursed to all parties last fall? Can you tell us where your getting this information as it’s not in public filings? Unless I’m mistaken and missing something… weird that you have such sensitive information.
VC3 I am 100% on board with your posts.
It’s amazing that this is even given a shred of attention. I’ll bet Cohen is reading this board laughing at the amount of attention this board gives to his total nonsense. The fact anyone could believe font sizes were manipulated to deceive shareholders particularly in this case is mind boggling. Then again there are plenty of people in this world who have purchased pet rocks. So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
I think so too, otherwise what is with the extreme efforts to continue keeping shareholders out of the know and fueling their fire to continue fighting for intervention. If it were such a small amount as indicated here by some - then they would have given up the pony show awhile ago so everyone would realize its not worth our continued efforts financially to fight. Instead they hold all information close to their chest. I think we can all agree - nobody, not even Carter is going all the way to trial in a case this size with legitimate valuation experts putting the price tag they did and settling for roughly 3% or less of the total low end range valuation of the patents. That is absurd and somehow it's continued as a conversation here.
Well now we are under $100 million. Wonder what tomorrow holds? Maybe Carter just told the defendants to just pay his lawyer fees and he would walk away a happy penny-less man. Maybe then all of us shareholders contributing to the legal fund will cease.
Lol this post was awesome!
But BrokeAgent, Cohen (opposing council) said that the font size in a legal document was intentionally manipulated to confuse and mislead the same shareholders who are fighting to intervene in the case! This was by design to keep shareholders encouraged to continue fighting for intervention! Doesn’t this make a whole lot of sense?
I can’t believe people even buy into this stuff…
Thank you, the only peculiar thing about it is - I never get a solid response to these logical points - instead I get some long essay reply that distracts from the topic at hand. That should be very telling for those reading - if anyone is actually reading.
Also - the only information presented is baseless claims that are clearly regurgitated from insiders (likely CBV). We all see how accurate they were when telling everyone that Deidre was the only opposition here and Carter was to be trusted to do the right thing.
Exactly, the same patent creators that could potentially benefit financially in an extraordinary way if shareholders were excluded. Seems perplexing anyone would listen to what they have to say at this point - especially how inaccurate their advise has been over the course of this case altogether. We were told to trust Billy and Deidre was the only opposition we should all be focused on - meanwhile look where that would have got us. Yet some are still listening to this same party...
I suggest you pose this question to Deidre - as she has already given up a splendid piece of the pie to Carter who your saying should have received $0 per Unified's bylaws... Pretty weird that there are people with a lot more money and high level lawyers at their disposal that are conceding money to people who apparently have no legal right to a portion.
That last part where you try to explain that Chanbond is not owned by UOIP is incorrect - why would Rob have no authority to execute the agreement between Chanbond (Deidre at the time) and UOIP when he had full authority of UOIP at the time? Carter was given full managerial authority of Chanbond upon the execution as he was also majority stakeholder in UOIP at the time and it was written in the terms. So I'm missing the link your trying to make that Chanbond is still legally solely owned by Deidre because of flaws in the contract between Chanbond and UOIP...?
I'd rather find it out ourselves through legal documents then listen to hearsay from your insider info coming from a party that would much rather see shareholders out of the equation (I.E. - Give up). Doesn't seem like a bright idea to listen to a party that could care less about our intervention in the case and would actually benefit financially from us not being included in the settlement funds.
Another important piece to this puzzle - this case ran for years through the PTAB process and finally into trial after delay after delay. Hard to understand how anyone would not question the fact that this got all the way to trial where finally the defense aborted and after 1 day at trial gave up and looked to settle. When someone is willing to settle for peanuts, they do so well before trial. The valuation experts in this case gave a very clear range on the value of Chanbond's patents. To say that Carter and his lawyer team settled for $100 million or less (approximately 3% of the low end range of valuation experts accepted into the trial) is pretty far-fetched when they waited years and ran this all the way to the end where the defense gave up.
I also find it very weird that whoever is speaking to you is willing to give up information knowing that it is not lawful to do so and in doing so risks more legal trouble for themselves. And finally, if the settlement was peanuts, why is the opposition trying so hard to keep everything out of public view when they could easily undermine shareholder's lawsuit efforts by releasing the settlement value to show there is nothing of value to be had to continue fighting for with additional money being thrown away. If I knew there was less than $100 million at stake and a healthy portion was already paid to lawyers, etc. It would be very difficult to come to terms with continued contributions to an action that would likely amount to much less than I will continue putting in.
I expect you understand these very simple and logical points of view and would understand why few believe the small settlement talks here on this board.
This is correct, however NLST shareholders should take comfort in knowing how hard and how long Google has tried to invalidate the claims in NLST’s patents as this shows their real fear of facing their judgement day in court (likely will never get that far as Google will look to settle). The closer they get to trial - the less leverage they have in negotiation. Unfortunately these tech giants seem to never learn that lesson from historical cases.
NLST is considerably undervalued at this time when weighing their current growth YOY and the potential landfall from Google and the revenue stream there after when they are recognized officially by law. I don’t think this undervalued circumstance will go much longer.
Most people protect themselves. This is a dangerous one to protect yourself on quite frankly, but to each their own. Nothing will stop this train. Very undervalued when taking into consideration their current growth over the last two years and the impending lawsuit with Google that is heavily in their favor thus far. Not to mention once that lawsuit is settled, Google will be paying fattys to Netlist going forward. At a little over $1 billion market cap - this has huge upside and an impending move to the NAS.
Sure doesn't seem like it.
I'm sure if shareholder's counsel from Delaware is agreeing with advisement from the opposing counsel and Judge about our correct path as shareholders to particular shareholders AT the hearing - they will advise the decision makers in this lawsuit. Therefore unless we see that strategy pursued within the next week or so - I doubt it's the correct path to protecting shareholder's interests. Don't see how shareholders would be helping themselves by removing themselves from intervening at this time while the TRO is in place and pursuing actions elsewhere down the road when the TRO has expired and CBV, Carter, and Leane walk away with everything and the money is disbursed. Seems bit of a stretch to me that anyone would agree that is the right path for shareholders... besides of course the opposing legal counsel that wants to get paid too.
According to those who want to see this derivative action filed by shareholders fail. So I take that with a grain of salt. But we will see. As BrokeAgent said, by the time we are heard - the TRO will have expired and they will have settled with CBV and gone away.
Can you explain why the parties who want this wrapped up (Carter and Leane) would not release the settlement value if it were less than $100 million? Why would they withhold this information instead of letting it be released so that they could move forward without a group of angry shareholders intervening in their case? Why would they run out a lawsuit against the top cable companies in the US for 5+ years to settle for peanuts at the very last moment in trial when the defendant gave up? If there is no reasonable explanation to these points - then I have a hard time believing anyone is listening to the forensic document font accountants when they say the max value of the settlement carries 8 digits.
As stated prior - there was much discussion on valuation by VALUATION EXPERTS who do this for a living and the range given would warrant multiple billions of dollars on the low end. Again, the defense threw in the towel after the first day. This is simple stuff.
I believe the patents might have been sold as part of the settlement. Therefore taking away any chance of further legal pursuit from our perspective. This was a one and done for Carter and friends. They thought they would get away with everything.
I guess we should allow the $100 million dollar examples that show shareholders are entitled to near nothing stick in order to undermine our efforts. We understand your solid - many, however, are not as solid.
While I agree with your take on incompetence at the decision making level - I disagree with risk on a low end number and I'll tell you why. Carter and friends were at least smart enough to let this run all the way to trial where the defense spent 1 day arguing their points before giving up and asking for a stay to settle as they had no formidable defense. Had they been looking for a quick and easy way out they would have settle well before trial to take the money and run as quickly as possible in their grand plan that has recently run into a wall legally. Also - had the settlement figure been much less than most expected - they would have definitely allowed the figures to be shared publicly (whether legally or not) in order to discourage lawsuits and actions such as the intervention they are currently working so diligently on trying to have us excluded. If the settlement figure were $100 million or less and shareholders knew that do you think they would have as much endurance to fight? These are preposterous notions that can easily be excluded from logical discussion.
I already understand why there are people here opposed to it. The actions taken thus far can be very simple to understand for anyone why they have been taken and why they were required to be taken in regards to protecting shareholder's interests. Anyone pushing the idea of a $100 million or less settlement has a hard time comprehending what has transpired here over the last 5 years - or they are pushing that message by design. No party would ever take this case as far as they did with the right pieces in place that were accepted as credible information as presented in the trial and settle for $100 million or less. This is a preposterous notion. As I stated prior - the valuation experts testimonies presented factual information that referenced a value on these patents well above $1 billion on the low end of the range. And yet we have people here telling us that the settlement was definitely less than $100 million (10 digits) and others using examples of $100 million to present some scenario that might discourage shareholders from continuing their action as the value would not be worth fighting for. It's interesting that $100 million was the chosen number in some long drawn out essay for an example of what shareholders might be entitled too - not some more realistic number.
Not to mention would they not make sure those fighting for a fair share - of what apparently is a very low value - know that there is not much to fight for as they would be discouraged to continue investing their own time and money in the fight and give up? This is simple stuff lol
It’s not believed by anyone. It’s simply being pushed for a reason here. If they settled for 10 figures or less why would they have waited until trial on a lawsuit of this size? Anyone who actually believes that needs their head checked lol. The value expert who’s information was vetted and accepted to be presented in court had a low end valuation that would value in billions alone… if you settle for 50% of that number AT TRIAL (when the defense gave up after one day of hearings)…. Your still at $500+ million easily. But let’s keep discussing with some folks trying to push small numbers just because they feel like discussing those numbers as an example LOL.
I assume this post will be ignored. But maybe it will paint the picture for anyone who even gave the recent post about Leane not being a "witch as portrayed around here" a thought. It's been clear as day Leane is out for her own interests all along and a successful derivative lawsuit only recognizing Carter and Leane's shares - well yes I guess that is a major win for SOME shareholders now isn't it? LOL!
I guess maybe we should pursue the actions you have presented that you have been referenced by the opposing legal counsel and a pissed off Judge. That will probably be our best course of action at this time... Just like trusting Billy was the right course of action after meeting him at the prior hearings and he stood our shareholder friends up for dinner.
Since we are on this topic, let's discuss what is in Deidre's derivative lawsuit in NC - what is her objective? To assign a board to delegate the distributions of funds? If so who will be the candidates to be assigned to the board? Do shareholders pick?
I have to say your very productive in moving this thing forward. I'm glad we have you here.
A lot posted here about the judge and her emotions. Seems like nothing references the judge and her responsibility to follow the law.
So then basically, your position hasn’t changed all along. We understand this. Thank you.