Replies to post #95857 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[VC3]

I agree....what is supposed to have happened simply makes no sense. If the $125M was really the whole UOIP pay-off, which I doubt because of the greed factor of those involved, then, by all means, unseal the decision. No harm would come from that, no legal exposure that doesn't already exist. If, however, the actual UOIP pay-off was significantly more than $125M, potential legal exposure (and loss of funds) exists as does a motivation to refuse to unseal.

[long uoip]

3 DAYS until oral arguments

let me get this straight.. .the guy that REFUSES to pay back an IOU is willing to settle for 10% of what Dr. Teece evaluated ? (economic/business/financial consulting professional with over 30 years of experience)

so the assumption/assertion is that the lawyers (who betrayed their own firm) alongside Carter fought for HALF A DECADE for chanbond.. .then completely CAPITULATED to companies that are raking in tens of BILLION$ annually ?

it's obvious that Cisco's Financials DID NOT & DOES NOT mention EVERY company they are embroiled with via patent infringement cases, only the ones they predict Cisco can NO LONGER SUCCEED in contesting

indeed, the "southern gentleman" gave cox a steal of a deal for $125M instead of the $133 Million they were in court for

..now the REAL DIGGING is HOW MUCH did the southern gent SETTLE the REMAINING 12 ??

link > Ciscos financials re: Intangible Asset increase

TIME FOR INTERVENTION to be GRANTED

..reading the Rader filings, it seems like billy's lawyers invested in a great deal of energy trying to bait Rader, trying to slap him with any sanction to THWART further shareholder ACTION !!

link > page 3/8

10. We held our Rule 7.1.1 conference with Mr. Brauerman, who has been retained to represent ChanBond in this action, separately. Although we had already served our motion, both counsel presented a laundry list of questions which illustrated only that they had not read our motion. Counsel seemed outraged for some reason that we would even bring our request for intervention before the Court. Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of email sent by my Delaware co-counsel reminding Mr. Cohen and Mr. Brauerman of the purpose of the Rule 7.1.1 conference, and their duties of professional civility. I think that no one could honestly state that we did not endeavor to address opposing counsel’s questions regarding our motions, even when repeatedly threatened us with Rule 11 sanctions. I further note that, although the motion to intervene was filed nearly six months ago, no Rule 11 motion has ever been filed or served.