Replies to post #1691 on DSS Inc (DSS)

[coolerheadsprevail]

"—not repeated a few months apart, especially now that plaintiff has the same counsel in all three cases, which involve the same patents."

And there is the reason for change in counsel.

I don't follow. If the intent was to streamline and have one legal counsel across all homogenous cases, then this still doesn't explain why DSS/Bascom didn't simply retain Kramer Levin to file the Saelsforce suit, instead of having new guy file the Salesforce suit and then suddenly boot Kramer Levin, who already had familiarity with the OTHER FIVE pre-existing suits.

In addition, Kramer Levin is a very reputable firm. I know nothing about the new guys. If someone can provide data/links/articles that suggest that the new guys are supposed to be better than Kramer Levin, then that would explain a lot. Otherwise, something else is at play here that triggered this change.

And one more thing: With new guy on board, this opens up several other questions w/financial implications:

(1)
Whose idea was it to dismiss Kramer Levin? If it was DSS/Bascom's idea, then what financial penalties are due to Kramer Levin (assuming the dismissal was not for cause)? Add this to the burn rate for the quarter...

(2)
What are the terms of the new agreement w/the new guys? Same contingency terms? Or no contingency at all? We need confirmation from Mgmt on this (assuming they will answer this question!), as this could either increase/decrease the net monetary awards DSS receives from settlements/verdicts (if contingency terms are different) or -- if no longer on contingency -- it raises the question of how DSS/Bascom intend to pay for this legal representation (i.e. impact on burn rate? Need for dilution?)