Replies to post #87999 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[long uoip]

I prefer 20% assertion for lawyer price tag, more for us & the inventors

we'd rather get justice & fair share price than have someone gloat about being right about some low prediction
(unless this info comes straight via the inventors)

[I-Glow]

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