...we go, go go:
"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. :
CIVIL ACTION NO.
AMERICAN ARBITRA TON
Defendant. SEPTEMBER 7,2011
REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
Defendant AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION ("AA") requests that
a status conference be scheduled in the above matter. Simultaneous with the filing
of this motion, AA has also filed a Motion for Extension of Time seeking a thirty
(30) day extension, up to and including October 10, 2011, to file a motion to dismiss
or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint.
This case concerns an arbitration arising from an employment contract
between Plaintiff and John B. Nano. On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Complaint
and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Among other things, Plaintiff sought
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in the form of the removal and
replacement of the arbitrator. According to the Complaint, the arbitration was
scheduled to continue on June 9 and 10, 2011. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order on June 8, the same day it was filed. (Dckt. No.
9). Simultaneously, the Court issued a scheduling order, which requires AA to file
a motion to dismiss by September 8,2011. (Dckt. No.6).
On June 28, 2011, the Court sought to schedule a telephone conference to
discuss the case. Then counsel for Plaintiff, Robert Mitchell, responded that it
would be preferable to wait until new counsel appears on behalf of Plaintiff, which
he expected would occur shortly. On July 13, 2011, Robert A. Horowitz appeared
on behalf of Plaintiff. On August 25, 2011, Mr. Mitchell filed a Motion to Withdraw
Appearance, which the Court granted on August 26. There has been no additional
activity and the status conference has not been rescheduled. On August 17, 2011,
Lissa J. Paris, counsel for AA, wrote the Court to request that the status
conference be rescheduled.
AA requests that the Court reschedule the status conference so that the
parties may discuss the status of this case and the underlying arbitration with the
Court. AA believes that an award was issued in the underlying arbitration. This
matter may be moot."
...my, my!!...I wonder how CTT will respond...well, let me guess -- they won't!...we're now approaching FIVE MONTHS since CTT made a TOTAL FOOL of itself by filing suit against the "AA" and they STILL haven't seen fit to say ONE WORD publicly about it...
...and they still haven't indicated their plans now that Nano has been awarded his dough...maybe Johnnie needs to get a new public relations person on the job...
Looks to me like CTT had a valid beef against the arbiter. But here is what else it looks like.
Nano won the arbitration. The $700k or so that the company put aside is still there to pay Nano. It is already expensed.
The lawyers fighting to preserve the $700k or so accumulated a lot of bills, probably approaching that same 700k amount. The company expensed that and paid those bills.
The company probably has a good argument on getting the AAA (not AMA) judgment set aside, but they dont even want to hire (pay) attorneys to do that. Therefore, they go unrepresented in an ongoing lawsuit. The prior attorneys probably thought they could get paid with the Nano money - since the chance of it disappearing has increased, they want cash now. Who wouldn't?
The company is sitting on a major opportunity. It might be a major distraction to defocus. Calmare clinical studies and thoughtful analysis of the costs of competitive therapies for each clinical market segment might yield a far greater return for shareholders than legal efforts against the awful former CEO.
No way Nano deserves a penny, and he might use some of that money to try to damage the company. But the company's charter is to enhance shareholder value, not provide justice. If shareholders object, those that bought during the Nano era can file a class action. They have a case.
The court took the approach that it would not interfere until the process ended since there might be a possible outcome that would lead CTT to withdraw the suit.
I suspect you are naive about court procedures other than traffic tickets and maybe, if we are to believe what others have posted about your persona in rating women of the night, an expert on what happens to johns (customers) when caught in the same net as the girls.
...the arbitrator said CTT had to fork over the $750,000 they owed him for firing him without cause...dimwitted CTT decided -- in the MIDDLE of arbitration -- to sue the AA to replace the arbitrator that was assigned them...the judge probably fell over laughing when he saw the suit...