InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 3
Posts 138
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/30/2015

Re: 236T568 post# 20001

Monday, 04/20/2015 9:14:40 PM

Monday, April 20, 2015 9:14:40 PM

Post# of 79833
Cross Complaint Lawsuit Against Norman Brodeur, Shareef, ADTM and Media Graph Inc.


http://www.filedropper.com/pateladaptive

There it is. Atul Patel, the OneScreen CEO that stepped down for Norman J. Brodeur to take his place for acquisition, had some of this to say.


13. On or about December 2, 2013, the cross-defendants breached the employment agreement by terminating Patel's services based up false allegations of wrongdoing when in fact his termination was a pretext to financially enhance cross-defendants OneScreen, Inc, MediaGraph Inc, Adaptive Media and Norman J. Brodeur to the financial detriment of Patel.

Remember how often I've mentioned the fact that I believe OneScreen (repeatedly) broke the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act through the conspiracy with AdaptiveMedias? Well, here comes Fourth Cause of Action stated in the lawsuit:

Fourth Cause of Action: Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
35. Jointly and as co-conspirators, defendants Norman Brodeur and Qayed Shareef transferred OneScreen's assets, customer contracts, intellectual property, computers and employees to MediaGraph, Inc, which was later acquired by AdaptiveMedias, Inc, around or about March/June 2014 for $16.5 million dollars....

Goes onto explain that OneScreen and AdaptiveMedias were really the same company, using the same employees in the same office long before actual acquisition. By moving all assets from OneScreen to AdaptiveMedias, OneScreen can now claim to be unable to make payments to liabilities since all assets and cash have been moved over to a new name.

39. That Norman J. Brodeur transffered the aforementioned property to defendant Media Graph and Adaptive Media and incurred obligations therewith.

And, this has already been brought up (repeatedly) by other lawsuits and claims mentioned here:

41. That the transfer of said assets, customer contracts, intellectual property, computers, and employees to AdaptiveMedia, Inc., was done with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Patel and other creditors from payment due and rightfully owed.

42. The transferring of said property and employees was designed to conceal assets to make it more difficult for Patel to ever receive payment or to be able to satisfy a civil monetary judgment against OneScreen.

Concludes this fits the definition of fraudulent transfer of assets.

And let's not forget the bank records showing direct bank transfers to Gregg Templeton shortly before the acquisition along with cash transfers directly into MediaGraph, Inc, bank accounts shortly before passing these accounts into AdaptiveMedias. Other fraudulent transfers that could be discussed.

So, that makes another person, the top insider in fact, claiming that AdaptiveMedia has debts to liabilities that were never closed by OneScreen.

This is definitely true, as shown by the numerous lawsuits and accusations. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Where there's fire, there is definitely fire. Enjoy the read.

Now, has AdaptiveMedias mentioned this lawsuit, which wants over $1 million dollars mind you, in any of their earnings reports? If not, aren't they required to?

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.