UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[long uoip]

carter's revised patent waterfall
as per your request TonyJoe1957

every shareholder needs to view the revised patent waterfall page 38
https://www.docdroid.net/EpstiDr/1-pdf

hmm, pensive eaddy "CHAMELEON"

So Carter, in addition to his 900+ million shares, opened a company UO!IP in NC an gave himself 22% right off the top.

so they diluted over 500 million shares before they allowed the company to be revoked knowing full well that UOIP would never see a dime. (this is deemed illegal)

What happened to the $9+ million UOIP made off of dilution? Why did Carter borrow another $5 million from Bentham and offer him 25% of the proceeds for it?

6. Pursuant to notice of updated addresses given by Unified and ChanBond under the ISA, Respondents should each be contacted at [e-mail], and by mail, to the attention of William "Billy" Carter, at 4309 Hoke LN, Greensboro, NC 27407. Upon information and belief, Unified is not yet represented by counsel in connection with its breach of the ISA.

35. On September 2, 2020, Ms. Leane's counsel emailed Mr. Carter a demand letter asking Unified to make the payment due on the Note. Ms. Leane asked for a response by September 8, 2020. To date, Ms. Leane has received no response.

8. The parties tentatively agreed to a consulting fee of 22% gross revenue.

22. IPNav was entitled to 22% of the proceeds.
the inventors were entitled to 50% of the proceeds, net of payments to Bentham, Mishcon, and IPNav.

23. As of the time the parties entered into the ISA, and pursuant to the terms of the agreement Ms. Leane had struck with ChanBond's patent counsel ("Mishcon"),3 Mishcon was entitled to up to 28.5% of the proceeds of the ChanBond Patents.4 In addition, pursuant to the terms of the agreement Ms. Leane had struck with ChanBond's litigation funder ("Bentham"), Bentham was entitled to as much as 20% of the proceeds.

24. Thus, at the time that the parties entered into the ISA, Unified's potential interest in any recovery on the ChanBond Patents was limited to a maximum of 24% of any recovery (if proceeds were recovered at the lowest possible interest for Bentham and Mishcon) and potentially as little as 14.75% ( or less) of any recovery (if Mishcon and Bentham each received the maximum recovery)

28. The terms of the twice-amended Bentham litigation funding agreement now provide Bentham with a minimum 22.5% interest in the gross proceeds - 2.5% more than their maximum recovery under the prior agreement - and a maximum percentage of 25%. Moreover, to the extent that it would result in a larger payment to Bentham, Bentham is now entitled to recover as much as five-times the amount it loaned ChanBond, which payment, depending on the size of the recovery, might exceed 25% of the proceeds.

very concerning ~
The parties can easily be returned to the status quo ante by Ms. Leane's tender of the Unified stock to Unified in exchange for the return of her membership interests in ChanBond, and Ms. Leane is prepared to, and hereby offers to, make such a tender in connection with a recission of the ISA.
93. Ms. Leane stands ready, willing, and able to return the parties to the status quo prior to execution of the ISA.
94. As such, Ms. Leane is entitled to recission of the ISA, in addition to an award of her litigation costs and attorneys' fees as the prevailing party.