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.
Actually, Carter was acting on behalf of Chanbond when he accepted the settlement agreement. As VP of Chanbond, and per the ISA, I don't believe he needed board approval to act on behalf of Chanbond. It's those of his actions on behalf of UOIP that are in question.
I don't know if the hearing is public or not. Board members are not assigned, they are voted on by shareholders. Carter is holding 55% of the outstanding shares, so he could potentially control the vote -- unless, with a default judgment of ultra vires plaintiffs can ask that his shares be excluded from the vote.
I honestly think Carter believes he is not doing anything wrong. I think he believes he is entitled to do what he wants with the settlement proceeds.
I don't think anyone here can really say. We would no longer have a civil case against him. That would be resolved. If he has engaged in criminal activity, that's another matter that would have nothing to do with shareholders.
I think he's just guessing based on Teece's testimony a couple of years back, before the ISP providers had produced all of the data.
I don't know, since this is no longer publicly traded, I'm not sure it would be the SEC or the U.S. AG. No matter, as long as someone ends up in a 9x9 cell wearing an orange jumpsuit if shareholders are stiffed.
Well, Carter's may or may not be included. We'll have to wait and see...
It's a derivative suit. Derivative lawsuits are typically filed by a director of the company, on behalf of the company, but shareholders can bring derivative actions against a company as well. Essentially, a derivative lawsuit is filed to stop the company or it's director(s) from doing something that is or will be detrimental to the company and/or shareholders.
The lawsuit is a derivative lawsuit -- it's filed on behalf of the company, for the protection of all shareholders.
Makes sense, since they'll be splitting the remainder with common shareholders.
Anyone still in the "trust Billy" camp after reading his response to Dierdre needs a full psych evaluation.
It's true no one knows more about the case that just settled against the 13 than they do. As far as the case against Carter, and his machinations, they are likely just as much in the dark as we are. Perhaps more so at this point.
And they will. They'll split amongst the 3 of them the same amount shareholders will split amongst more than 170 shareholders. It's Carter's fault they have to wait longer.
I'm not a fan of the patent creators being on the board either, since Billy seems to have them in his pocket (I'm basing this on info others have shared after speaking with them, of course). They have much more to gain with Carter's waterfall than without.
He knows more about what's going on because he appointed himself "sole director," changed the company address to his address, and cut everyone else out. Not only should he not be a director, he should not be allowed to vote his shares.
Can't this be addressed by a vote by shareholders? If a director of the company is ultra vires, I believe shareholders can hold a special meeting and vote on whether to rescind or accept such action or actions taken by the director that were ultra vires.
Dierdre's filing in NC is on Pacer. I believe this would be filed in a Federal District Court in California, since the Plaintiffs are in two different states, and Carter and UnifiedOnline, Inc. are domiciled in a third state.
Cisco likes to bury all of the bad news in the note section. Still leaves too many questions. It doesn't say how many of the 13 or which of the 13 asked Cisco for indemnification. Some were expecting indemnification from Arris, so CommScope would be on the hook for those providers that Arris agreed to indemnify. It could be that Arris and Cisco are splitting the costs for 12 of the 13. I would be surprised if either agreed to indemnify Comcast.
I'm sick, too. After the shenanigans of CDEL and Jane, I sold most in July when it popped and I've been scaling back in. I didn't get filed yesterday or today either. But I do still have a small position.
IDK. I was trying to load in .007's. I'm not thrilled.
I think Chanbond would need close to a billion to get .20 per share after lawyer fees, Bentham and costs, i.e the $5.2 million to Dierdre, costs to wind down the business and distribute funds, any other costs Carter and the lawyers can dream up.
I dont think it's completely unrelated. Chanbond isn't the only plaintiff suing Comcast.
I believe out expert witness also mentioned it was difficult to calculate without accurate data.
I'm going to presume RPX is one of the insurers for one or more of the 13, Cisco or Arris, since they challenged the patents and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, where they stated they were an "injured party in fact." We have no idea, however, who they insure(d) or what type of coverage they provide(d) exactly.
Comcast? IDK, they have more subscribers than the other 12 combined. I'm thinking they owe more than a few hundred million. And we have no idea if or how much insurance companies are paying.
Obviously, the immediate benefit to Comcast is nowhere near $15 billion.
That's what they're restructuring. That's not how much will be freed up. I need to go over it in a little more detail.
Comcast filed an 8K yesterday, notifying the SEC and shareholders they are restructuring billions in notes.
It looks like this is for the complaint Dierdre filed in North Carolina June 22 regarding the $280k+ Carter owes her.
In no way did I mean anyone shouldn't. People are free to do what they want. What I meant to say was that it wasn't as simple as some on here might believe.
I guess I don't understand why you and Zomby haven't already taken care of everything -- gotten a custodian and hired accounts -- since you both seem to think it would be very easy and inexpensive.
I've done enough research on Delaware law and spoken with a lot of lawyers in the last 10 months Thanks.
So give us a comparison of DE against, say 5 other states besides Nevada.
Again, you're comparing Delaware to one other of the 50 states a company could incorporate in.
There are 50 states in which a company van incorporate. There's a reason two seem to be most popular.
Is it? Is it someone else's responsibility? You're just the critique?
Unlike some might have you believe, Delaware is NOT a shareholder friendly state. You can't just file a request for custodianship. You have to show malfeasance. There is a process we have to go through, through the courts, before we can request a custodian.
No. He was initially given preferred shares, but they were converted to common. There are no preferred shares.
The filings aren't really clear, but it looks like he was owed that money on a lease for some patents. I don't think he paid out of pocket. He had 3 patents in UO!IP, and I believe he received the 904m shares in exchange for the outstanding balance owed on the lease.