InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 737
Posts 76063
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/01/2012

Re: Specialneeds post# 87999

Thursday, 06/03/2021 7:20:21 PM

Thursday, June 03, 2021 7:20:21 PM

Post# of 96905
How did you arrive at the following:

"As Specialneeds declared - the lawyer fees could be closer to 20% in the end. Not to mention Bentham could be negotiated further... In the end there is plenty of upside with already a decent return on the table."

Bentham has provided is almost $6 million - so why would he negotiate for less money.

In the Carter waterfall:

"Litigation Financing:
100% of principal S5,9501000

Litigation Financing Return:
Greater of 5x deployed or 25% of gross (less principal)"

UOIP didn't consummate the Chanbond deal - so for shareholders it doesn't matter. The lawsuit is about patent infringement - how the settlement or Judgement is divided would be another lawsuit - and most seem to ignore the fact that Common equity holders are last in line to be paid.

Why would the attorney fees be closer to 20% - this is more pinkyland wishful thinking.

In the Carter/Chanbond waterfall the Attorney fees are 25% of total or gross. And IPNav is to receive 22% of total or Gross.

Since the lawsuit is Chanbond as the Plaintiff - shareholders don't have a seat at the table.

IG


So..we're throwing that spinning shit now!

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.