Replies to post #93967 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[long uoip]

Based on publicly available materials, the Non-Parties claim that they have a right to intervene in this action because certain alleged deficiencies
in Unified’s corporate governance allegedly leave ChanBond’s authority to act “open to question.”
(Mot. at 10-12.) The Non-Parties acknowledge that these alleged defects were publicly disclosed at least as early as 2015. (Mot. at 10.)
Yet, the Non-Parties took no action to address their concerns when Unified disclosed these alleged deficiencies in public securities filings, when
ChanBond filed patent litigation actions in 2015, or when the public settlement of those actions was announced in 2021.
Instead, having sat silently for years while Mr. Carter and ChanBond bore the risks and burdens of a hotly contested patent litigation campaign, the Non-Parties lied in
wait until March 21, 2022, to seek to intervene in this action to stake a claim to settlement proceeds to which they have
no legal right based on alleged corporate governance deficiencies about which they have known for years. The Motion is not timely, and the Court should deny it.

2. The Non-Parties’ Have No Interest in This Litigation
The Non-Parties contend they are permitted to intervene because Unified has a “legal interest
in the settlement funds at issue in this case.” (D.I. 34 at 14.) This argument is incorrect as a matter
of law. Unified does not have any cognizable legal interest in the settlement funds and the Non-
Parties do not identify any. To the contrary, this action is about ChanBond’s (and other parties’)
competing claims to the settlement funds. The Non-Parties concede that the interest they seek to
vindicate on behalf of Unified to the settlement funds is derivative of ChanBond’s claims to the settlement funds –
and exists only because ChanBond is its wholly owned subsidiary.

[zombywolf]

It will be interesting to see how the judge handles these arguments on the 25th. Deirdre is basically saying we arent being sued by the inventors and are not defendants, and have our own case in CA arguing the same points. Yet our side sees an admitted tenuous link by Rule 13(h) only. Here is Rule 13:

Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim
Primary tabs
(a) Compulsory Counterclaim.

(1) In General. A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that—at the time of its service—the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:

(A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and

(B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

(2) Exceptions. The pleader need not state the claim if:

(A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or

(B) the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim under this rule.

(b) Permissive Counterclaim. A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.

(c) Relief Sought in a Counterclaim. A counterclaim need not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party. It may request relief that exceeds in amount or differs in kind from the relief sought by the opposing party.

(d) Counterclaim Against the United States. These rules do not expand the right to assert a counterclaim—or to claim a credit—against the United States or a United States officer or agency.

(e) Counterclaim Maturing or Acquired After Pleading. The court may permit a party to file a supplemental pleading asserting a counterclaim that matured or was acquired by the party after serving an earlier pleading.

(f) [Abrogated. ]

(g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty. A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant.

(h) Joining Additional Parties. Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim.

(i) Separate Trials; Separate Judgments. If the court orders separate trials under Rule 42(b), it may enter judgment on a counterclaim or crossclaim under Rule 54(b) when it has jurisdiction to do so, even if the opposing party's claims have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.

[BrokeAgent]

"And as to the affirmative claims against Carter, permissive intervention cannot be granted because there are already two other proceedings by which Unified stockholders are pressing those very same claims – one in North Carolina (Leane v. Carter, No. 2021CVS5405 (N.C. Business Court, Guilford))..."

I wasn't aware that we were intervening in the lover's quarrel?

[shajandr]

How to know the settlement amount was chump coins and GTFOH shekels:



https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/5RBVCMI/CBV_Inc_v_ChanBond_LLC__dedce-21-01456__0073.0.pdf

So there is nott enuff munny in DaPott to even pay Deirdre's full arbitration award unless CBV pitches in. Nott much $$$$ in the Chanbond pot.

'There were two cautionary notes added by those two lawyers-need to pay attention to the amount of legals we bring, as the cost will reduce any payout'

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168673610

When the estimated legal fees are a significant part of the possible pay~OUTT, then that tells you that the potential pay~OUTT is small. Because estimated legal fees for a relatively simple accounting/contract dispute case like this is in the low single digit millions - at most. And prolly realistically under a million even with an appeal.

If there was a pile of munny left post-Bentham and IP lawyers, any subsequent legal fees for resolving the final disbursement dispute would be negligible in comparison. Trivial.

So it appears that there is nott much left for these parties to quibble over.

Which is as expected. Chump coins and GTFH shekels were the settlement of the IP nuisance suit once it became clear that the case would make it to the jury. Standard nuisance suit payoff coins. Enough to pay the lawyers and the financiers and leave a few million left over for the plaintiff(s). Defendants simply payoff the Plaintiffs the amount that Defendants would otherwise have to pay lawyers and experts to put on its case-in-chief and then potentially pay for appellate work.

Not material amounts and therefore none of the 13 even bothered putting it in any of their SEC filings.

Now, as to why the Cali folks filed in CA state court and not in a Federal District court or DE court- I explained that in an old post of mine - so the SoCal lawyers could make bank off the plaintiffs.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166014005

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166083959

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166084093

And a reminder: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166086601