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.
Ooh, ooh, ooh! Pick me! Pick me! I know this one!
I don't understand it either. Did I miss something? Has there been a report?
Really? You've been seeing all of the filings in California and Delaware and you still don't trust them?
No one has received any info. Chanbond's lawyers refer to one of my posts re: "docs filed in Texas," wherein I was referring to Dierdre's Request for TRO, which is a matter of public record (and the catalyst that prompted shareholders to retain counsel) and they assumed I was referring to "docs filed with the American Arbitration Association." And, btw, I know that she filed with the AAA because that is also mentioned in the Request for TRO.
Wouldn't we all like to know. I believe that information was requested in the California filings, no? If it was "accidentally" released on the same day I posted the info about Dierdre's TRO, the irony is not lost on me. Malicious?
No. They're just grasping. I suppose my post was a bit ambiguous. That in itself should discredit their pathetic attempt. They know perfectly well Dierdre's intentions became a matter of public record when she filed the request for TRO. And they're obviously monitoring the board, so they know perfectly well it is posted here. My point was, there was no reason to believe the information Dierdre provided in arbitration was any different than the info in the request for TRO -- that there were no other parties involved or impacted other than her, Carter and CBV -- so no one should be surprised that she won "something" in that arbitration.
LOL. The docs I was referring to in Texas were publicly filed in Dierdre's Request for TRO and posted right here on IHub.
IDK, I guess I just have some questions. Can Plaintiff's decide to drop the derivative suit altogether? That's my only concern...
IDK, Cases are dismissed all the time. Sometimes they're dismissed and the plaintiff walks away. Can they be dismissed in favor of something else?
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how to interpret the remainder of that article.
I don't honestly know, I can see both sides of that argument. But I understand the court has "broad discretion" in such matters.
You're correct. This is a derivative suit, and that will be the case should we prevail in court. I believe if there is a settlement out of court, however, the derivative suit will be dismissed. Make sense?
We don't know how much they received. Dierdre states that the lawsuits "generated" millions, but since CBV's filing is so heavily redacted, we have no idea if they "received" millions.
More than 5% if you calculate the increased capital gains tax.
Ah, but the docs she filed in Texas list Carter as the CEO and as the person who incorporated "Unified" in Delaware.
Well, arbitrations are "private matters" and shareholders were not mentioned in the docs filed by Leane in Texas. Indeed, the only shares accounted for in the Texas filings were Leanne's and Carters for the most part. Since Carter was the only one listed in docs filed in Texas listed in the docs as "CEO" of "Unified," and was listed as the founder or incorporator of "Unified" no less, and Carter and Leane's shares were basically the only shares accounted for in the docs filed in Texas, that would pretty much preclude intervention in the arbitration by anyone else.
Is Zachary "Santee" Kramer from Pueblo, CO. If so, it seems he is affiliated with Advanced Mobile Training Solutions, LLC, a defense contractor. https://opengovco.com/business/20091122776
I'm just checking back in here after noticing some movement.
Good thing we took legal action when we did, contrary to the opinion(s) of some, so we could be prepared. As you can see from CBV's filing (though heavily redacted) and the shareholder cross-complaint, it appears CBV is trying to invalidate the contract between UOIP and Chanbond and cut shareholders out. We need to see this through, since we are now battling Carter, Leane AND CBV. I'm sure shareholder representatives will appreciate every contribution, since they and a small handful of others having been carrying the burden so far.
The filings in Delaware state that Leane received an award in arbitration. Specifically, her filing to intervene. Though it doesn't state how much. It may come out, however, since she is asking the Delaware court to confirm the award for IPNav.
Your post points out that there is no intervention by UOIP in CBV's case. "WE" shareholders are UOIP. Carter is being sued in California for overstepping his bounds and making POOR decisions on behalf of shareholders without proper board approval, and you have been telling shareholders for MONTHS now that there's no point in shareholders taking legal action until Carter, Leane and CBV have divvied up the proceeds of the settlement. So, who, in your opinion, should file on behalf of UOIP?
I'm not talking about just your recent posts.
Where are shareholders mentioned in any of these lawsuits outside of California, Zomby? They weren't mentioned in the arbitration docs either. Dierdre's exhibits reflected the 1 billion shares in UOIP at the time the contract was signed to acquire Chanbond. The 617 million diluted shares that most of us own are not mentioned anywhere. I'm sure the arbitration panel didn't go digging through old filings, so they are probably still not aware there are a few hundred other people impacted.
CBV contends in their filing that they were not aware Chanbond would be sold to UOIP and would not have agreed to the sale of Chanbond to UOIP. Carter's waterfall with the 20% to IPNav leaves nothing for UOIP anyhow.
Why do you keep telling shareholders they don't need to protect their own interests?
Why do you feel like shareholders should wait until the funds are divided up between CBV, Dierdre and Carter before we take legal action? Seems like it would be a bit too late at that point.
What is the point in going to the trial next June, if you and shareholders are not a party to the case and there will be no benefit to you?
But I thought you said there was no point in shareholders taking action until CBV's case is decided. If CBV doesn't win, we don't have a chance. Isn't that what you've been telling everyone on the board?
It appears she, or IPNav, was awarded something in the arbitration in Texas. The intervention she filed in Delaware has nothing to do with the NC case.
That's what we don't know. We need to find out what the settlement/sale amount was, how much has been disseminated and to whom, and to ensure shareholders are paid fairly.
I would think it would be clear by now, based on court filings in Texas and North Carolina alone, that Carter has no intention of compensating anyone fairly.
Documents filed under penalty of perjury, by both Dierdre and Carter, in the state of Texas suggest that CBV and UOIP shareholders are aligned. We have it in writing -- CBV and UOIP split the "remainder" after lawyers and Bentham.
You're assuming there are only two states in which a company can incorporate. In fact, there are 50 states in which a company can incorporate. There are a couple of reasons companies choose Nevada and Delaware primarily. Taxes. And other states are a bit more shareholder friendly. In California, for example, a shareholder need only request documents from a company in writing and those documents -- articles of incorporation, by-laws, financial reports, etc. -- need to be produced within 24 hours. Whereas, in Delaware, demands for documents need to be requested through the court, and the investor needs to show cause for requesting said documents.
He probably already made his money out of it on the pump last summer. Like the rest of us. Nothing to see here, folks.
It doesn't appear GM is up to the task here.
If you had a private company you wanted to take public, what would appeal to you about this particular ticker?
Doesn't matter. The judgment is against CUBV, and the threats are against CUBV. Even if GS doesn't file for custodianship, it doesn't seem CUBV would be a particularly appealing candidate for a company looking to go public through an RM. Who would knowingly RM into a ticker that had a judgment against it and a lunatic determined to destroy it?
Something odd here...
[/img]https://twitter.com/OilviaTangos/status/1484350530809831430[/img
I thought the hearing was today? How is it that the summary judgment was posted to Twitter yesterday? @OliviaTangos posted it at 5:47pm on 1/20/2022, but it's dated 1/21/2022.
It didn't stop the deal. According to GM, the deal is still on. There will be a period of due dilligence anyhow. GM can resolve the issue with GS while the merging company is performing due dilligence.
The "waterfall agreement" was something Carter and Leane negotiated outside the scope of a written agreement prior to the purchase of Chanbond by UOIP. The agreements those two worked out while they were in bed together are the problem, essentially.
They are fully aware of all of the convoluted machinations. That's the reason the costs have been so high. Countless hours of very thorough research. Lawyers are always going to perform their own due diligence, and this case is very convoluted. I'm sure that was the intention from the outset.
There is no "waterfall agreement." There is nothing but a bunch of back room deals between Carter and Leane, and since termination of registration of UOIP between Carter and Bentham apparently.
And in October 2020 Leane produced a copy of the advisory agreement. Why didn't she just produce a copy at the time of the deposition?
The lawsuits in San Diego are not the only lawsuits Sharp has filed. He has filed in other counties as well. Recently, he filed a suit against Santa Anita.
And Stubhub? I'm not a psychologist, but I just don't think GS has the ability to negotiate anything with anybody. He's a narcissist.
This is more or less what George Sharp does for a living. He sues people. He has/had 26 cases in San Diego Superior Court. He sued CUBV in 2011.