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.
Thank you Sir for all the effort, time and commitment to us fellow longs on this board. It doesn't surprise me that someone would try to discredit your review of the marksman hearing... Same thing happened when you helped raise funds for the transfer of the files last year... I am optimistic after reading about clyw's lawyers and the points they presented to the judge. Hopefully we hear something soon from the courts!
Can you clarify more than "both sides stumbled on terminology"...
What part of the argument did they stumble on to give you the opinion of a 50/50 odds at best?
It wouldn't look good on his resume if he stated those things would they? Of course anyone who has been following this will know this....
This receiver is a lawyer right?
I'm sure he would have some insight on if any agreements by unelected management in the past were lawful...
If this is true, then it is truly a "win" for the average shareholder like myself.
How long has Daic been holding this company hostage? And how much longer would this company be held hostage if the judge didn't believe this action was in the best interests of the shareholders?
That's assuming if prior agreements with Daic are valid...
It doesn't surprise me that clyw's lawyers make this assumption.
Proof???
Maybe try to go to higher court.
But I think the judge had all the proof he needed to make a very strong and quick judgement...
It's just how the court system works... At least in the USA
I seriously doubt the judge will change his mind on his decision...
It's like pleading to get out of a speeding ticket after a judge hands down his decision. Doesn't usually work
Their actions indicated they didn't give a crap about their shares...
They should have tried to maximize the value of the shares because now they are out of a job.
I hope you are right dsu,
But the upside from here on out will be peanuts compared to the potential of the patent...
I'm with litton
Going after past infringers was never going to happen...
We are now at least gonna see what the patent is worth. The patent supressment is done...
It may be what the opposition wanted the whole time
Who's got the majority of the shares?
Thanks again SirH for answering some questions after a surely long day...
Don't worry about some of the posters who are too quick to judge the answers given at an insanely late hour.
I am just a shareholder who wants what is best for my investment. I trust the judge will make the proper decision in these matters. It shouldn't be your responsibility to judge yourself.
I look forward to your synopsis of the courts proceedings when you get some rest and a clear head.
Jmon
Thank you SH for your efforts. I look forward to your update.
The time for the verdict leads me to believe it won't be a simple solution...
After looking at the arguments from both sides I can't see how anyone can logically say Dave Williams is hurting the company... It's quite the opposite. He is looking out for the shareholders. Let's not forget that he has put more money into this company than any of the other board members. It's hard for me to believe he wants to trash his investment due to spite or revenge...
The only thing that I hear from the management side is name calling and these are people that obviously have connections to Turrini and Kyle.
Williams gets my vote
Excuse me, but who has a felony charge against them?
What did Buckhalter Nemer do for us????
Absolutely nothing... And from the court filings, we still owe them money!!!
What a crock.
Thank you for posting the latest court filing...
After parsing through it, it is somewhat evident what had been going on for the past year.
Looks like Turrini has been in cya mode. Seems he had a felony charged domestic assault against him and may have used company funds to finance the lawyer fees. Is this why the records issue was so important? When the other board members caught wind of this in early 2011, they were basically then on the outside looking in on all company issues. Since then, Turrini's self interest was to save his butt and get rid of Dave Williams. Unfortunately for him is that he hasn't been able to do that. Unfortunately for us shareholders, the company hasn't been the focus of our CEO for the past year...
Seems to me that Dave's solution is to get a fifth director in so there can be a shareholder meeting and an election of a new board. He has been trying to do this for the past 3 years as he won a court order in 2008.
Turrini is trying to get out of his mess cleanly and if he has to give the company away to do this he will. It doesn't look like this will happen now. He hired Buckhalter Nemer to help him with his mess but when he failed to disclose everything to them they bailed on him stating finances were an issue...
This is absolutely unbelievable. We are in worse shape then we were a year ago!!! It's gonna be a while if ever that I get back my investment in clyw.
Unbelievable...
I would support Sir wholeheartedly!!!
If this was the case, wouldn't we see a lot more shares getting dumped?
Thank you Sir, and your commitment to our investment!!!
DSU,
I have not agreed with you in the past, but the more I analyze this situation, I'm afraid you may be correct in what is happening with this company...
I'd love to keep my rose-colored glasses on, but until management can work for the shareholders, we ain't going anywhere.
What's really scary to think about is what's going on with the settlement, and what is in the fine print in this settlement?
Who knows, but this should be a priority going forward instead of trying to get rid of independent directors...
Very interesting statement DSU...
"It is illegal for the company officers to arrange to have one (an audit) done... so, perhaps you should consider management's recent statements on the subject in context of the law... since they're on record stating they intended to simply ignore the independent directors, and act themselves in direct violation of the law."
If this is true, what the hell is everyone screaming about on this board???
What is in these records that everyone is afraid of?
Is it not bad to have checks and balances in any company?
I'm just interested on who's looking out for the shares that I own...
Ben Lurkin,
I don't have access to send private messages but if you would be kind enough to respond to my email, I would appreciate it...
Seamus49er@yahoo.com
He'll pick up more shares when it gets to his price point as he did before the last runup...
I'd bet he knows more than he should...
If the courts provides a provisional director that's unbiased, I would be all for that. I was under the impression that certain board members wanted to add another board member to break the deadlock....
The board did vote 3-1 for the Daic settlement... I wonder what issues other than the financial documents there is a deadlock about? Or if it's needed now since there is an agreement to copy the records...
I'm not on the Dave or Ed side or the Christian or Kyle side...
In fact, these adults have to get their crap together to benefit this company because if this company wins, they all win...
It seems to me that there is something in the past financials that everybody wants... Don't know what it could be, but everything that has occurred since the supposed settlement with Daic points to these financial records... Yes, we need them to get SEC compliant, but why wasn't this such a big issue before... We've had a couple of years to get this resolved.
To believe that Turrini and Kyle are bringing in an unbiased board member in doesn't fly with me...
They obviously wouldn't bring in someone unless there was some sort of connection there...
I've lost a lot of faith in this stock and this board since the settlement. Just hearing that so and so has been in contact with a board member or has inside information just doesn't sit well with me. Wish I would've have known many of your connections while reading your posts for the past year...
What's up with the new board? Seems like the moderators did a good job here. To me, it seems like a vehicle to get away with some posts that people couldn't get away with here, and for good reason IMO.
It's starting to smell real bad around here and I don't see it getting better in the near term...
Pure comedy!!!
The pot calling the kettle black...
Well, this is speculation on my part, but if he indeed is getting an independent audit of the financials, that may be an explanation for his sale of stock...
There has been some definite shadyness that has occurred in the past, and maybe he doesn't trust Turrini and feels the books may or will be cooked...
If this is true, then he would be looking out for the beat interest of the shareholders.
If I were in the know of something done fraudulently in the past, and I was involved, I would be pressuring in any way I could to have Dave stop.
Including continual posting and bashing of him on a message board...
So here's a wild theory...
Someone knew Dave Williams sold shares (possibly to pay for Markle or for financials) before the SEC form was released. Hence non-stop bashing of Dave Williams today.
When the SEC form is released, get out everybody, the aliens are coming to get you...
What a great opportunity to get shares for cheap!!!
It makes no sense for Dave to obstruct CLYW by not releasing any financials to get us though this SEC hellhole. He has too many shares and invested too much of his own money to tear this company apart. It also makes no sense for him to sell now other than if he needed the money now. Didn't the court case just end? How is Markle getting paid?
If he thought this dream was over, why not wait until after the shareholder forum where there is surely going to be a spike in share price due to all the positives that will come out of it... And why would they hold a shareholder forum if they didn't have anything positive to say? If I were going to sell my shares, it wouldn't be at these levels...
So if this is how the game is played, why not play along with them...
You speak with some knowing certainty...
Not sure what to believe since accusations are being thrown out of both ends... In my opinion, both sides aren't doing any good for the shareholders by gossiping on this board.
I'm gonna try to make forum, but will be a quick hour flight in and out as I have my kids sports obligations that weekend.
Nevertheless, I look forward to meeting you and everyone else on this board.
The more you harp on it, the less I believe it...
Hidden agenda not so quite hidden anymore...
I don't feel good about the fact battlelines between the members of the board have spewed onto this message board...
Totally unprofessional and in my opinion Mickey Mouse...
They should get their crap together and settle their differences.
I would hope to see a united front at the shareholders forum
Do you think Sharma still has a few shares from when he used to work at calypso?
Good point,
T-mobile could have squashed clyw at that time when it indicated in the filing that there was a finance issue with clyw. We couldn't afford to have both cases going on at the same time... Is why many thought there may have been an agreement with t-mobile when the stay was announced.
Of course things have changed since then with the acquisition fr att. But it does indicate that t-mobile believes there is some substance to the patent.
Agree HR,
The lawyers on a contingency basis will also tell how strong our patent is...
Plus, it would resolve the issue of funding.
If this is 100% true, why would any lawyer take on this case on a contingency basis???
So the patent can now be proven invalid in the courts due to settlement?
By settling, clyw intrinsically supports Daics prior accusations that he is owner or part owner of the patent?
Because clyw paid him?
You assume this without reading the settlement agreement? Couldn't they have paid him for something other than issuance of the patent? He was a officer in the company?
Any patent lawyers out there that can confirm this?