California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't said anything on this thread yet, and didnt intend to.
We, much like Kier, will have to wait for the out come.

Kier obviously can not say much, but he has simply quoted facts:
35708

Kier said:
View attachment 35708

(doc 131-1)
Click to expand...


This settlement was rejected, so hopefully any speculations above about the settlement should be ignored
 
This does have some rough language, you have been warned.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Both IB and the law company representing them, should be ashamed of themselves.
God what a world we live in.
 
Goodspeed said:
DATED: October 15, 2012 ERVIN COHEN & JESSUP LLP

Nice try.

P.S. I'll never ever buy anything from IB anymore.
Click to expand...

Wow...Internet Brands has continued to fumble and drop the ball not only on developing vBulletin, but the lawsuit itself.

Fred Sherman said:
Not according to the most recent documents.

Anyone with their eyes open around June knew something had changed and that there had to be some type of settlement being discussed. What I observe leads me to believe the weight of the case on their personal lives is greater than the value of XF to them and the agreement was likely to simply shutter XF in return from dropping the case.

Who can really blame them? its not like you can say they made a quick buck and disappeared. XF is probably a loss for them at this point.

If thats a deal they can cut, then go for it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for creating a whole lot of panic with no basis whatsoever. The logic is so flawed it is not even funny.
 
Thanks Kier. So I understand that IB made a settlement demand which was rejected. That sounds very good, if IB thinks they cannot win this and settlement is better for them.
 
sadikb said:
Thanks Kier. So I understand that IB made a settlement demand which was rejected. That sounds very good, if IB thinks they cannot win this and settlement is better for them.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely accurate - it's always in the parties' interest to reach a settlement that is acceptable to both sides, rather than take a case right the way to trial - it saves everyone time, effort and money. A huge proportion of civil cases end that way. In this case, all we did was ask the opposition what it would take for them to settle the case (their settlement demand) and as you can see from the filings, we could not accept their terms for settlement in that instance.
 
Kier said:
That's not entirely accurate - it's always in the parties' interest to reach a settlement that is acceptable to both sides, rather than take a case right the way to trial - it saves everyone time, effort and money. A huge proportion of civil cases end that way. In this case, all we did was ask the opposition what it would take for them to settle the case (their settlement demand) and as you can see from the filings, we could not accept their terms for settlement in that instance.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. However it is encouraging that the demand came from the opposition instead of Xenforo. (Though I do not know if XF had also made a settlement demand or not). Also it is very encouraging for the community to know that XF is fighting hard which quells all rumors of "abandonment". Thanks again for making this clear.
 
Also reading the last few pages of this thread, there was a doubt whether Mike is also being represented by the same laywer as Kier and Xenforo Pvt ltd. (Pamela, I believe). So if Kier or someone who is well versed with the posted documents clear that, it would also put an end to this speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom