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.
During my High School years I was taught English by a British world war two vet...he liked the phrase "storm in a teacup."
Thank you Tony. Good to see you holding on.
Honestly I am a poor immigrant who wants to move on in life and would be happier if this bickering could stop so that we get paid fairly and move on with our lives.... "ain't got no time for dat!" Lets all search in our souls and do the right thing!!!!!
Yes the inventors do...but redacted on pacer.
July 09 2021 dismissal of case...July 12 2021 filing with patents office
In my opinion DLs filing/intervention is not about the $300K
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-MN
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE CLERK:
Kindly enter the appearance of James H. S. Levine on behalf of IPNAV, LLC and
Deirdre Leane, Intervenors in the above-referenced action.
DATED: March 16, 2022 /s/ James H. S. Levine
James H. S. Levine (DE No. 5355)
TROUTMAN PEPPER
HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
302.777.6500
james.levine@troutman.com
Attorneys for IPNAV, LLC and Deirdre Leane
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 23 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 540
Thank you
In reality therefore based on this CBV is already trying to claw back what has been taken by the lawyers ...if I am correct?...But then why sue Chanbond instead of the lawyers? or is it because the money has not been distributed? or the fact that the waterfall was not fair?
I agree. It is important that we know information about how they dealt with international infringers in the settlement agreement. A lot of money due to us could be "hidden" in there. We are also entitled to know what they agreed on with Cisco and Arris...as infringing manufacturers...There must be some form of compensation in there to "avoid future litigation." as well....all monies due to shareholders.....Yes we need to know about those. Thank you LongUoip
Thank you
Do we have a date when the appeal will be heard? I have been holding this stock for a year, but I do not post on this board. Thank you
Thanks for posting.
I think LongUoip is referring to the 3 cases, Dedre, CBV and California.
You could be right. BC can not ignore all the lawsuits and expect things to resolve themselves. No new filings in pacer and California. Someone has to be working somehow to resolve this? Things can not just come to a stand still? I refuse to accept that no negotiations are not happening.
Page 10 on this link further adds to the fact that the settlement could have been substantial.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1366163/attachments/0
Might as well re post this old reminder. This will show what Billy and his lawyers had in mind.
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/XUcCE78
Agree.
There are 3 of them each about 230 pgs. A bit busy to look at them for now and I only got one for now. Some of the Information is redacted ...which I think will include the settlement amount.
There is nothing on the CBV lawsuit. All quiet.
There is nothing yet. I will keep checking.I only have access to pacer but not the California Courts. So I will post the CBV lawsuit
I tried getting that document....but got this message.....Status: The court has restricted access to this document so we were unable to retrieve it. You have not been charged.
When are the TV commercials starting? Anyone please?
Amazing that this is trading at this price!!
Thanks for posting unfortunately they are not available for sale to Canadian addresses
Welcome.
No they did not ask me to. Yes Iam a client.
No the broker handled everything. I just attached that PR by Tilton and filled three easy forms. I dealt with a licensed TD broker not the customer service guys...and they were dealing with their safety dept which handled the communications with Pacific. Customer service reps did not have the authority to handle the transaction...but a licensed broker.
Yes they did. My friend also did the same....but we are both clients with TD. The main thing was to get pacific to authorise them to trade and there was no problems. Just that it took over a month due to people being away from the office. Your broker has to give you 3 forms to fill to authorise them to continue the process. They also want proof of how you got the shares and i provided the PR done by Tilton then
Did that last week. Iam in Canada. cost about $600 USD.
I agree...The stove is too caliente for them right now. The lawsuits from the shareholders and investors can possibly blow off their socks the other way to an extent that all their trade secrets are exposed, and bring forward more and more lawsuits for them from other unrelated parties. Best solution in my view was for them to agree to something. The next updates from the investors and shareholders filings in my view will reveal a lot going forward.
"Mind games"....From the inventors lawsuit..." 128. Upon information and belief, Ms. Leane executed the for both ChanBond and
IPNav in July of 2015 and backdated the document to appear as if it was executed
contemporaneously with the in April of 2015.
129. Therefore, Defendant ChanBond, through Ms. Leane, has breached Section of
the by purporting to enter into the improper
130. Defendant’s breaches of the has harmed Plaintiff in an amount to be
determined at trial.
COUNT VI
Against ChanBond
(Declaratory Judgment - )
131. Plaintiff incorporates the averments contained in the preceding paragraphs, with.
Possibility that such things can get them both into a big investigation that could be very bad for both of them so they had to agree on something, then pay people off and move on.
Defendant hereby withdraws, without prejudice,......Guess they agreed to some deal.
Here is the filing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
GREENSBORO DIVISION
DR. DEIRDRE LEANE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM RALPH CARTER, JR.,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 1:21 – CV – 00514
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
NOW COMES Defendant William R. Carter, Jr., by and through his undersigned
counsel, and hereby gives notice that:
1. The filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on October 20, 2021 (Dkt. 14)
renders moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed October 1, 2021 (Dkt. 10).
2. As such, Defendant hereby withdraws, without prejudice, his Motion to Dismiss
filed October 1, 2021 (Dkt. 10).
Respectfully submitted, this the 26th day of October, 2021.
SIGMON KLEIN, PLLC
By: /s/ Ben E. Klein
NC Bar No. 40993
Email: ben@sklawnc.com
By: /s/ Grant Sigmon
NC Bar No. 43205
Email: grant@sklawnc.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 1:21-cv-00514-UA-JEP Document 15 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that this day he served a copy of the foregoing
document on counsel of record by electronically filing same via the ECF System, which
will send notice to all counsel of record as follows:
Akiva M. Cohen (email: acohen@kusklaw.com)
Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein PC
1700 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019-5977
T. Greg Doucette (email: greg@tgdlaw.com)
The Law Offices of T. Greg Doucette, PLLC
311 E. Main St.
Durham, NC 27701-3717
This the 26th day of October, 2021.
SIGMON KLEIN, PLLC
By: /s/ Grant Sigmon
NC Bar No. 43205
Email: grant@sklawnc.com
Attorney for Defendant
Case 1:21-cv-00514-UA-JEP Document 15 Filed 10/26/21 Page 2 of 2
Unbelievable...so much ruthlessness
So much dishonesty in there...unbelievable!!
Nothing in the exhibits but here is the case,
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
Defendant.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-MN
PUBLIC VERSION filed
on October 22, 2021
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff CBV, Inc. (“CBV” or “Plaintiff”) hereby brings this civil action against Defendant
ChanBond, LLC for breach of contract, specific performance, injunctive relief and declaratory
relief, and in support thereof represents upon knowledge, information, and belief, as follows.
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and
seeking specific and prompt performance of payments due and owing to CBV pursuant to the
, which has
been stymied by the actions of both the former and current owners of ChanBond.
2. Under the , CBV to ChanBond in exchange for
3. In furtherance of , ChanBond brought numerous patent suits
in this District (collectively, the “Patent Suits”).
4. In June of 2021, ChanBond settled the Patent Suits .
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 5 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 104
2
5. Accordingly, under Section of the , CBV is entitled to payment of
ChanBond has indicated that no payment will be made
6. However, ChanBond has breached the
CBV is entitled to specific performance of the
because will cause
CBV to suffer significant, negative tax implications if payment is not made by the end of calendar
year 2021.
7. Apart from breaching
, ChanBond and its former and current owners, Dierdre Leane and William “Billy”
Carter,
Unified also tortuously interfered with
CBV’s rights under the by entering into certain of these ancillary agreements and by
.
8. Ms. Leane has improperly asserted that, at the time of entry into the , CBV
agreed to . This is plainly false. First, Ms. Leane’s predecessor,
Mr. Spangenberg, specifically structured the as a , rather than a
, because he found that working with multiple owners made settlement negotiations
in patent litigation very difficult, if not impossible. Second,
Rather, Ms.
Leane, recognizing the value in the Patents, is trying the squeeze as much value out of them as she
can by resorting to breaches of the agreement and fraudulent conduct. In fact, she unilaterally
signed for both parties in late July of 2015, 3-months
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 5 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 105
3
after the , and backdated the document to give the appearance that it was signed
contemporaneously. Not only this, but the would clearly qualify as an
under Section of . In fact,
CBV was not informed of this conduct and had no knowledge of this fraudulent and invalid
until 2020.
9. Further, ChanBond and Ms. Leane entered into an October 27, 2015
by which
ChanBond and Ms. Leane as required
by Section of the .
10. Through various lawsuits and arbitrations between Ms. Leane and Mr. Carter,
among others, CBV has become aware that Mr. Carter is also asserting the existence of other
agreements which would and which are
invalid , because
Specifically, Mr. Carter has asserted another agreement between Unified
and Mr. Carter under which Mr. Carter receives
as well as agreements by which he purportedly
and also
11. Each of these purported agreements are , because they were
entered into as required by Section of the , and are, therefore,
invalid.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 5 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 106
4
12. Further, Mr. Carter has
These amounts are also improper because they are are
required under Section of the .
13. Upon information and belief, the result of entering into these purported agreements
14. As a result of the above actions, as explained in greater detail below, CBV
respectfully requests judgment in its favor that ChanBond breached the and requiring
ChanBond to specifically perform the by
. In the alternative, CBV requests compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined at trial. CBV also respectfully requests that this Court issue declaratory relief in the
form of a declaration that the and are invalid as under the .
JURISDICTION
15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ChanBond LLC because it is
a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.
16. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over this civil matter under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1) because there is, upon information and belief, complete diversity among the parties and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.
17. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to the
in Section of the (defined below) under which they
THE PARTIES
18. Plaintiff CBV, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
business at 848B North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 5 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 107
Contents still under seal. CBV has not posted any public or redacted version yet. I am keeping an eye on that and will post asap when it comes out.
Has anyone been in contact with the inventors lately?...Is it possible for someone to reach out to them? Maybe something may come out.