Replies to post #93968 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[papa p]

We believed as shareholders that we had a manager to run things...not to COLLAPSE the company to what is being stated right now??...It's like third world scenarios whereby people come in built a factory get people on board to invest ...only to realize later that those individuals were only "cleaning their money" as they soon collapse the company and return overseas....JMHO

One surprising thing though is, again my opinion only Bayard seems to want to control the funds and distribute them as they wish?? for chanbond Just something I think I observed in the response. Brings me to the same feeling I got when our lawyer asked who Bayard were in trying to intervene between a lawyer and a client....bit bossy in my opinion....again just my opinions

[TonyJoe1957]

"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..."

There is plenty of evidence on IHUB that some shareholders "trusted Billy" and were waiting for him to have the TA contact UOIP shareholders.

Attorneys can cite these posts if they like. Not really reasonable to cite a source, selectively.

I suppose, alternatively, Billy deceived shareholders so that he could use the above argument.

Stay well.

[BrokeAgent]

Well, I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that some shareholders trusted "Billy" implicitly, and the rest of us obviously gave him the benefit of the doubt, does not absolve him, UnifiedOnline, Inc. or Chanbond of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

Carter and Leane's filings might even suggest that Carter's malfeasance was intentional, which is particularly egregious since more than 60% of the outstanding shares were dumped into the market AFTER Chanbond filed suit against the 13. If the corporation issues an additional 600 million shares, and the CEO purchases a block of shares from that issuance, why wouldn't shareholders have an expectation of fair dealing?

Leane's opposition to the intervention points out the action in California, which contradicts the statement below. Not to mention, we know, and the court now knows, they follow the board, so "lied in wait..." might be a bit of a stretch.