SorryHey I corrected 5 seconds after I posted my message and reading it !!! No need to jump on the reply button like this
SorryHey I corrected 5 seconds after I posted my message and reading it !!! No need to jump on the reply button like this
Why does everyone call Jake by the name of Jack? His name is JAKE. Not JACK.
Sorry to single you out but there's so many people that call him Jack when it isn't his name
I demand he changes his name to that. That's an awesome name.I'm sure once or twice I seen him referred to as "Jack Bounce".
This is the last thing you'll hear from me.
DATED: October 15, 2012 ERVIN COHEN & JESSUP LLP
Nice try.
P.S. I'll never ever buy anything from IB anymore.
Thanks for creating a whole lot of panic with no basis whatsoever. The logic is so flawed it is not even funny.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.
"I" is Wendy Giberti, one of the lawyers representing vBulletin.Hi guys, sorry I haven't followed this thread recently. Who is "I" here? Grace is Kier's lawyer (as far as I remember) so "I" cannot be Kier? Is "I" IB's lawyer?
I assume you're unable to tell us what the settlement proposal consisted of?"I" is Wendy Giberti, one of the lawyers representing vBulletin.
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.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.
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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.