Loophole
First let me say that what I post comes from the heart and is what I believe to be the truth. If those who read my post want to get out then don't let the door hit them in the rear.
Second if in 1999 you received a e mail from the CEO stating something in effect that next year should be even better, would you have sold or added on? I dumb azz me added on and blew many many millions, enough to live comfortable for the rest of my life for sure.
Now back to the 8K, if someone had enrolled you to represent them vs IDCC and you went to court I guarantee you would make IDCC bring out a signed paper showing where they could justify making a public proclomation in the form of a 8K. You would quickly tell them that anything that isn't signed is not worth a damn and has no validity whatsoever. I am sure the judge would agree with you. Having then said that you would challenge IDCC to why they produced this 8K when it was not even standard practice of the company to ever inform the shareholders via SEC governed documents as to progress in regards to any negotiations. I think if IDCC has a signed agreement stating a deal has been consumated contingent on X happening you would have been provided said document in discovery and advised your client to withdraw the complaint.
You see as you well know hear say is inadmissable and talk about anything tha isn't signed is inadmissable in a contract, and has zero teeth in it as it is just that talk.
You don't reveal information about talk in a 8K or the 8K'S would be steadily coming out not only from IDCC but from all the companies every day almost as every day even IDCC is probably in talks and progress is being made on negotioaions.
Put yourself in the attorney position representing your client, and I bet you would do one damn good job and if they didn't have a signed agreement, what do you think a judge would say? How about well do you have a precedent setting history of reporting in this form to shareholders? Then are you aware that unless it is agreed and signed then in reality no proven progress has happened it is only suppositon till it is identified as reality, and you report on reality not suppositon. I think you win. As I stated earlier if they have a signed ageement with a contingency which is perfectly legal and binding I presume, you would withdraw.
Now would you agree that if a contignecy agreement has been reached and signed that this is material, and must be released as at least SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS, as by God that is progress. Neither Nokia, or IDCC knows when they can finalize what they have agreed to do since the rate established by Samsung is most likely what the contingency or the signing of Samsung the contingency. Once that hurdle has been met, then the parties write the final terms predicated on what they had signed and agreed on using those figures to arrive at the settlement.
My personal opinion.
Mickey
