InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 104
Posts 43502
Boards Moderated 4
Alias Born 02/13/2010

Re: cabel post# 38839

Tuesday, 11/09/2010 2:08:21 PM

Tuesday, November 09, 2010 2:08:21 PM

Post# of 60938
Calypso has sued Daic for interferences and breach of the 2008 agreement. Daic has counter-sued Calypso for default of the 2008 agreement. Default and breach are not the same thing. If Daic wins, he gets the patents as they were collateral defined under the default terms of the agreement. If Calypso wins, then the 2008 agreement would be in place with NO default and any damages sustained by Calypso would be deducted from monies owed on the 2008 agreement. If damages exceed $25M +/-, Daic/Williamson would owe Calypso money.

There is a third option, that the judge rules BOTH parties breached the agreement and awards both parties appropriate damages for their respective breaches but does not rule a "default" occurred. A default and a Breach are not (necessarily) the same thing. I don't see this occurring.

Clear as mud...but that is the case as I read it.

According to the filings, it has been Williamson who has been crying about the previous Judgment, not Calypso, and that is why Markle has said to the judge that the case should be in the 151st district then per the rules of the court. (I admit I haven't read the exhibits of the last filing)

I have no humble opinions, but I do have opinions and those are what I express in my posts. BUT...I have been wrong before and likely will be wrong again so do your own research and don't blame me if you are too lazy to do so.

Join InvestorsHub

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.