InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 56
Posts 4355
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/06/2017

Re: imp82 post# 94429

Sunday, 05/01/2022 5:26:51 PM

Sunday, May 01, 2022 5:26:51 PM

Post# of 96904
I already understand why there are people here opposed to it. The actions taken thus far can be very simple to understand for anyone why they have been taken and why they were required to be taken in regards to protecting shareholder's interests. Anyone pushing the idea of a $100 million or less settlement has a hard time comprehending what has transpired here over the last 5 years - or they are pushing that message by design. No party would ever take this case as far as they did with the right pieces in place that were accepted as credible information as presented in the trial and settle for $100 million or less. This is a preposterous notion. As I stated prior - the valuation experts testimonies presented factual information that referenced a value on these patents well above $1 billion on the low end of the range. And yet we have people here telling us that the settlement was definitely less than $100 million (10 digits) and others using examples of $100 million to present some scenario that might discourage shareholders from continuing their action as the value would not be worth fighting for. It's interesting that $100 million was the chosen number in some long drawn out essay for an example of what shareholders might be entitled too - not some more realistic number.

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.