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.
Basically, everything in Dierdre's filing has been brought to the attention of the CA and DE courts by either CBV or shareholders- Carter's self dealing, everything that was in the TRO. And Dierdre does have a conflict of interest in her arbitration award. It will significantly reduce share value. Not to mention her misrepresentations in Texas courts leading up to the arbitration.
Did Cohen change the font size in CBV's filings as well?
Besides most courts have requirements regarding legal filings surrounding layouts, spacing, font size and which fonts can be used. Usually, there only a few, Arial, Times New Roman, Helvetica.
Considering it's been almost a year now since the trial against Cox was convened so they could negotiate a settlement, eleven months since they reached an agreement, nearly a ten months since the motion was filed, and no one has as of yet reached out to the TA, I'm guessing there really was no other way.
Hard to believe after 7 years of PTAB hearings, discovery, expert discovery, more discovery, appeals to the federal Court of appeals and SCOTUS, Carter threw his hands up and said, "Damn, I can't believe you got us with a chocolate chip cookie recipe! You win!"
Oh, well, we should just go with whatever Cohen suggests since I'm sure he has shareholders' best interests in mind,
Are you talking about the Leane v. Carter case (1:21-cv-00514) that was referred to another judge over two months ago, on February 28, and is still awaiting a response to Carter's motion to dismiss?
Not sure why you're concerned about the legal expenses.
Well, I guess it's a lot easier than reading through filings with the intent to comprehend them and thinking for yourself.
Odd that some have suggested "loose lips sink ships" but have no trouble sharing info that may be detrimental to shareholders (and themselves? -- maybe/maybe not...) by convincing them to give up, no?
They heard that from one of the patent creators, who heard it from, wait... that "true southern gentleman," William "Billy" Carter. I'm guessing some are back in the "trust Billy" camp?
Yes, please. Out here "in the light" as some have demanded.
That clause makes absolutely no sense at all if Leane got her contract reinstated. That contract gave her 22%. How can 22% be more than the "remainder?" At any rate. She rescinded that contract nearly 5 years before filing a request for arbitration. I think the statue may have run. I pull up both 5 years and 4 years on the statute of limitations in Texas. No matter, though. Carter had no authority to represent Chanbond in the Texas court or in arbitration.
You're right about Carter and Leane. Carter has given up nothing, but I knew this from the beginning -- that he wouldn't volunteer any information, he would need to be compelled by the courts. Everyone who has followed this board for a short amount of time should have known that. He has never been big on shareholder communication.
True, the shareholder plaintiffs have a lot of shares. The bulk of the funds spent to date have come from 5 or 6 people. However, there are far more shares being represented in this derivative action than holding 200 million or so being held by those 5 or 6 shareholders contributing most of the funds.
Carter and Leane aren't giving investors the time of day. Why do you suppose they want everything sealed? Are they hiding something? You have every advantage the rest of us have really, which is nominal until shareholders are allowed to intervene and have access to the information through discovery.
And was the judge "informed" by the plaintiffs that Rader emailed the info to them? Because there really is no way opposing counsel would know if Rader emailed the info to the plaintiffs unless plaintiffs decided to share that info, since that would fall under attorney client privilege. The judge was "informed" of opposing counsel's assumptions. Nothing more.
We don't know the settlement amount, because everything has just automatically been filed under seal for some reason.
You'll recall that Leane filed a request for TRO in Texas, even though Carter lives in NC and UOIP was never domiciled or incorporated in Texas. Attached to that request for TRO was a copy of the ISA between "UnifiedOnline, Inc." and Chanbond, and her request for arbitration. In both, she listed "Unified" conflating the LLC holding Carter's privately held shares with Unified Online, Inc. as a "defendant," and in those filings she was requesting that the contract between "Unified" and Chanbond be rescinded. She had to conflate the two so she could file in Texas because the statute of limitations for breach of contract is 5 years in Texas; in Delaware it's 3 years. Which is why I also believe Carter listed a Dallas address for Unified Online LLC when he incorporated it to hold his shares, rather than using a North Carolina address like his other companies (the two had this planned to begin with). I don't know what she was awarded, but I'm assuming she didn't get the contract rescinded, because now, in North Carolina, she purports to be representing Unified Online, Inc.? She effectively sued Carter, Chanbond (which Carter did not have legal authority to represent - we've determined a majority shareholder does not automatically have exclusive authority of a corporation) and Unified Online, LLC, and won an award, which she is now asking the Delaware Court to confirm against Unified Online, Inc., but at the same time she is claiming she is representing Unified Online, Inc.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but I presume it's from CBV. I wouldn't trust any information from opposing counsel, or from CBV, since Leane and Carter and their lawyers have probably not been completely honest with patent creators. The "truth" is in the filings, many of which are not sealed. Carter and Leane have not exactly been entirely honest here so far, so I am disinclined to believe anything they or their lawyers may have shared with CBV at this point. But you do you.
"It was a settlement to benefit the financiers and the insiders..." Who would these "insiders" be? There was only one insider, Carter, and he also holds common shares. All shares are common. Dierdre rescinded her unilateral contract, so that also leaves her with common shares. Am I missing some other "insiders?"
Of course. But like someone posted earlier: everyone wants to eat at the restaurant, but no one wants to cook or clean the bathroom.
I'm sure Dierdre can explain all of the errors in her Request for TRO in Texas as "honest" mistakes.
Amazing, when you consider she was just greedy; public enemy #1 for a year and a half. I'm guessing it was Dierdre's counsel the motley crew got chummy with at the hearing...
I believe it was the opposition's lawyers who brought it up.
Indeed. Why wouldn't they have just wrapped it up a year ago when they paid CBV? Why hasn't anyone contacted the TA to gather shareholder info?
Sure, that would be perfect. Let's do exactly what the opposition lawyers want us to do. Great idea! We start over in the Court of Chancery, where would be lucky to get a hearing date before they wrapped up CBV's case. Carter and Leane would throw some money at CBV to make it all go away and it would be over us. We would have no recourse at that point.
Why are people pushing advice from the opposition lawyers? Does that make any sense at all? Why is the opposition's counsel giving "free" advice to shareholders? If they are so concerned about shareholders' payouts, why haven't we been paid? The case against the 13 was settled last July (or June, who knows when -- I've heard both). It's been nearly a year now.
Dierdre has a conflict of interest with her arbitration award. She CAN'T represent UOIP. Not in Delaware, not in North Carolina (which by the way I don't believe has jurisdiction in this matter anyhow).
Why do you suppose shareholders have taken action, in California and in Delaware? Because there was a settlement agreement reached last June or July, and shareholders have still not heard from anyone. Thus, the argument below doesn't make sense, does it?
It certainly does seem like it might be a breach of his fiduciary duty, which by the way he still owes to the shareholders whether he had authority or not.
They're certainly trying hard enough to keep us from intervening. Why spend all of that money on lawyers to fight us?
They may have been sold, or it may have been agreed upon that the patents would be allowed to expire.
If the argument actually makes sense, sure. If the argument doesn't make sense, how do one "understand?"
Well, if one or more of the parties involved -- CBV, Carter, Leane -- have shared the settlement information with one or a few shareholders, then I guess there is no need for the heavy redactions and sealed documents. May as well unredact and unseal everything.
Well, if CBV has the info in the sealed and redacted filings and has shared that info with certain shareholders, and those shareholders have shared it with other shareholders, they might as well unseal and unredact everything at this point.
I believe you are correct. And, as stated in Unified's request for intervention, Carter has no authority to hire legal representation to defend Chanbond against CBV. I believe his function as manager of Chanbond (hired by Dierdre Leane prior to the sale of Chanbond to UOIP, by the way) was to represent Chanbond as the plaintiff in the patent litigation against the 13 only.
It also seems to me that using the same lawyers that Dierdre hired for the patent litigation to defend Chanbond against CBV may present a conflict of interest as well.
Ironic Leane would rely on the statute of limitations here when she waited nearly 5 years after she rescinded her unilateral contract to whip that ace out of her sleeve and have it reinstated or honored. I guess the same rules don't apply to all of us, eh? I wonder if Carter brought it up in the arbitration... probably not, since the two are probably still working together.
According to CBV's complaint, Raskin shared the settlement amount with them in June 2021, and they obviously felt it was worth spending the money on legal fees.
Dierdre
I can't imagine why counsel for Leane and Carter don't just have court docs unsealed and unredacted so shareholders can all make a determination as to whether or not it makes sense, since they seem to be of the opinion that it doesn't.
The tweet is interesting. I don't understand why Leane and Carter and their counsel think it's appropriate for Chanbond to intervene, but not Chanbond's parent company.
At any rate, I'm not sure taking advice from opposing counsel is a good idea.
Since all shares are common, we would get the same for ours that they get for theirs, but I suspect that would be nothing or next to nothing, given the waterfall in Dierdre's TRO, the misrepresentation of shares in the TRO, and all of the secrecy around the arbitration award and settlement amount. But why would Carter and Leane care how much their shares are worth if they're both getting 20% or 22% or whatever they negotiated amongst themselves before the sale of Chanbond and probably had an arbitration judge/panel confirm. Regardless of the settlement amount, it seems the two of them would have more to gain if they can get Zomby to convince everyone to relax and "trust them."
By the "cabal," I'm presuming you mean plaintiffs. The reason is listed below Zomby. Dierdre's derivative action on behalf of shareholders is secondary to her percentage of the top for the contract she unilaterally signed between IPNav and Chanbond, then subsequently rescinded, then received an award for in arbitration.
Again, if the information she presented to the arbitration judge or panel was the same info she presented in her request for TRO in Texas, shareholders were not represented outside of her shares and Carter's shares.
I don't believe shareholder's interests are aligned with Dierdre's interests.
The only shareholders keeping secrets are the plaintiffs, which is as it should be. Anyhow, that forum was to discuss strategy, which is pretty clearly laid out now, and present an opportunity for shareholders to engage in discussion, ask questions or get clarification, about the filings after they post. He knows that.
I'm not sure why people think plaintiffs working on behalf of shareholders (whom certain shareholders refer to as the "cabal") should put everything out here "in the light" for Carter, Leane and CBV to see, while Carter, Leane and CBV file "sealed" and heavily redacted motions, and while some of those same shareholders have, or may have, information from the one of the other parties that they refuse to put out here "in the light" because, well "loose lips sink ships," it may be harmful that party's interests. Puzzling. It's all just so puzzling to me.
At any rate, the information Z is looking for is in the filings in Delaware, in unredacted and unsealed motions. It's all a matter of public record, and everyone has the same access to it, so I'm not sure exactly what the accusations are based on.
It's in the filings. Besides, I answered it below.