InvestorsHub Logo

Cougar6

10/10/12 3:44 PM

#58523 RE: downsideup #58522

I believe the fact "that he WAS allocated the 1/10th of 1% interest in 923" is proof of the fact that the deal went through. Diac had an interest in the patent prior to the final settlement. He gave up all of it as part of the deal. But in order to not go rounds again over being a "real party in interest" in the litigation he was granted a nominal share to allow him to remain an active party. I am not really sure how you are interpreting that any other way.

litton51

10/10/12 6:17 PM

#58527 RE: downsideup #58522

I say again: nowhere in the judge's order do I see Skippy having the power to pick and choose what past agreements and settlements of which he approves and disapproves.

wooden

10/11/12 7:29 PM

#58545 RE: downsideup #58522

All I am saying here is, I remember the outrage on this board by most, if not all here when that deal was struck. We already were in great disagreement about what part turinni played as a diac puppet, prior to this deal, which in my opinion, sealed the deal that "yes" he was in diac's camp all along and lied to shareholders in every way. I deep sea fish as a hobby since childhood. I know the smell of fish!!