California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
MJosh
Or more likely vBSI knew they would loose in the UK Courts
Click to expand...
Insy said:
It is also possible :( In many cases, the courts have favored local companies. Just look at the Apple-Samsung lawsuit.
Click to expand...

No they would lose here because in the UK a litigant has to satisfy the prosecution service that they have at least some solid evidence for their complaint. They can't just make lists of any old whinge like IB did in California.
I believe in some other USA Statues there are similarly tighter requirements like the UK.
But this is why IB was desperate to set the case in California because they had no evidence. Which is finally becoming clear to the Judge.
 
Morgain said:
No they would lose here because in the UK a litigant has to satisfy the prosecution service that they have at least some solid evidence for their complaint. They can't just make lists of any old whinge like IB did in California.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explanations :)
 
Morgain said:
No they would lose here because in the UK a litigant has to satisfy the prosecution service that they have at least some solid evidence for their complaint. They can't just make lists of any old whinge like IB did in California.
I believe in some other USA Statues there are similarly tighter requirements like the UK.
But this is why IB was desperate to set the case in California because they had no evidence. Which is finally becoming clear to the Judge.
Click to expand...

So much misinformation here...

There is no "prosecution service" for a civil case in the UK. Anyone can file a case here if you follow the proper procedure, and (in summary) as long as there is a prima facie case (that is, on first look, it seems like there could be a case to answer) it'll proceed along. Where the UK differs, in my opinion, is that they would have thrown it out by now as the judges here tend not to like people messing them around.

This is actually exactly what happened with the XF case in the UK. IB filed in the UK against XF before the USA. In the UK, in the vast majority of instances, the principal is very much that the loser has to pay the legal costs of the winner. As such, it got to a certain point where XF said "they have no assets, their case is weak, so please make them deposit money with the court to cover our legal fees if they lose". IB decided not to put that money up, and so the case (at last update) is paused.
 
tickedon said:
(in summary) as long as there is a prima facie case (that is, on first look, it seems like there could be a case to answer)
Click to expand...

That's it - what I said. It has to show a basic case.

tickedon said:
In the UK, in the vast majority of instances, the principal is very much that the loser has to pay the legal costs of the winner. As such, it got to a certain point where XF said "they have no assets, their case is weak, so please make them deposit money with the court to cover our legal fees if they lose". IB decided not to put that money up, and so the case (at last update) is paused.
Click to expand...

I thought they did deposit the £100,000 required? Otherwise the UK case would be defunct by now.
 
Morgain said:
That's it - what I said. It has to show a basic case.



I thought they did deposit the £100,000 required? Otherwise the UK case would be defunct by now.
Click to expand...

No, VBSI has not made the required deposit, if they wish to proceed with the lawsuit in the UK they must make it, however I imagine they are waiting for the outcome of the cali case before doing anything with the UK one.
 
Slavik said:
No, VBSI has not made the required deposit, if they wish to proceed with the lawsuit in the UK they must make it, however I imagine they are waiting for the outcome of the cali case before doing anything with the UK one.
Click to expand...

Thanks Slavik.
Is there a time limit on when they can make the UK deposit? Surely it can't just wait there forever?
 
Morgain said:
Thanks Slavik.
Is there a time limit on when they can make the UK deposit? Surely it can't just wait there forever?
Click to expand...

There are time limits, but I couldn't tell you what they are, it depends under what regs the case falls. At the moment theres just not enough information on the UK case.
 
The UK would be more difficult than US. If a judge tosses this out from trial due to lack of evidence. 'He said, she said' type case... it won't even get traction in a UK court due to lodging requiring substantial evidence to begin with for anything to even go ahead. You can't just sue people in the UK... If they have any evidence, which would have come out by now, and that obtained some traction in a US court, then they could shift that to the UK as well.

As already pointed out many times in this thread... no such evidence has been presented by IB to date asserting their claims. I honestly wouldn't even worry about the UK hearing. IB's parent company holding should step-in if they try for that if losing in US courts... as it will only be another loss of capital for IB and its parent holdings.
 
No I've never been bothered by the UK case as Ive done several cases here and I know the system is much much stricter. This case wouldn't even get started.
I was just interested to know a bit more detail. Still interested to know if the £££ deposit required has a date limitation on it. As in, must be paid by a certain date.
 
I wonder what XF could get for damages. I believe a lot of revenue has been lost. And with this lawsuit in the US where huge sums are often asked and given maybe the case could actually turn out to be a good thing for XF. Wouldn't that be nice, some poetic justice for IB. :cool:
 
dutchbb said:
I wonder what XF could get for damages. I believe a lot of revenue has been lost. And with this lawsuit in the US where huge sums are often asked and given maybe the case could actually turn out to be a good thing for XF. Wouldn't that be nice, some poetic justice for IB. :cool:
Click to expand...

Did XF win already? That's great news if that's the case :)
 
I think a FAQ summary would be good for this thread because a LOT of questions get repeated.

I'm willing to do the clerical drudge work going through the thread again to gather the standard answers. But I would want one of the legal people on here to read it over afterwards.
Then it would need to be posted up separately so other posts could easily link to it. How?
 
dutchbb said:
I wonder what XF could get for damages. I believe a lot of revenue has been lost.
Click to expand...
That's not really applicable at present though. The case would have to first be dismissed, lacking evidence. On that basis, XF would ask that IB pay legal costs / a percentage of legal costs.

XF would be lining themselves up for a much worse time trying to counter sue IB for alleged lost sales. You would have to prove that from a history... which doesn't exist, as IB got in before sales begun, not after a history was established, showing a decline in sales. Taking individual declarations would not necessarily hold much sway either, as each person could then be asked to swear under oath and be available for individual cross-examination. The costs would be enormous.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
That's not really applicable at present though. The case would have to first be dismissed, lacking evidence. On that basis, XF would ask that IB pay legal costs / a percentage of legal costs.

XF would be lining themselves up for a much worse time trying to counter sue IB for alleged lost sales. You would have to prove that from a history... which doesn't exist, as IB got in before sales begun, not after a history was established, showing a decline in sales. Taking individual declarations would not necessarily hold much sway either, as each person could then be asked to swear under oath and be available for individual cross-examination. The costs would be enormous.
Click to expand...

No person would be in their right mind when wrongfully taken to court to ask the plaintiff to pay a percentage of the legal costs.

Money could possibly be claimed for:
  • loss time
  • stress
  • emotional trauma
  • travel expenses related to litigation
  • slander/libel/defamation of character
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom