% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

AOL Inc. AOL Inc. Common Stock Message Board

  • gggggwiz gggggwiz May 15, 2010 3:58 PM Flag

    Did AOL conceal material disclosures from the public?

    Looks like we current shareholders are the last ones to know! Same AOL...same corporate culture as before I guess?

    From another board...

    New Pacer Filing - second amended complaint against AOL based on Fraud and Inequitable conduct

    Based on the filing, the long standing question of how AOL may have successfully masked what appears to be blatantly material litigation during the prospectus period and subsequent spin-off of AOL, may have now been answered. How they and their auditors may have circumvented the public disclosure of possibly material liabilities during the AOL spin-off has long been a lingering question for many of us. Certainly there is subjectivity to what AOL considers material and what they believe the ultimate outcome of the case will be, but common sense alone and their fiduciary responsibility to provide absolute transparency to the financial marketplace should probably have dictated the disclosure be made.

    One must assume that the average investors decision to purchase AOL's public securities may have been influenced had they been made aware of this information. If one considers the $275M purchase price of Tacoda as a barometer of possible exposure, it's clearly material considering it amounts to almost 15% of the company's entire market capitalization. Yet, AOL never disclosed it or quantified potential damages for its shareholders. I can't recall the precise SEC rules as I speak, however as noted previously, I believe if a liability can be determined to possibly amount to more than 10% of the company's market value or if the disclosure would have affected an investors choice to purchase or not purchase the company's securities, then it is material and must be disclosed.

    I stated repeatedly, counsels job is to mitigate exposure for a company, it's officers and if public, its shareholders. Everything AOL's counsel has done to date appears to have done exactly the opposite. With this motion and allegations of fraud, AOL, it's officers and its shareholders may now subject to liability far in excess of what could have ever been previously expected.

    I continue to believe grave mistakes have been made by AOL's counsel in their handling of this matter. Specifically, their work product, not limited to their experts, continues to demonstrate a failure to fully understand the technology at the heart of the issue. Based on the motion and assertions contained within, one must wonder if AOL and possibly now even Time Warner may now have exposure to possible shareholder actions, not limited to a possible class action shareholder lawsuit.

    Ultimately, it's the company's officers who may be held accountable considering it's they who sign off on all public filings. Clearly the question of whether the disclosures were intentionally willfully omitted or sheltered in a shell corporation could be questions asked by both shareholders and securities regulators alike

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Why would MSFT buy AOL when AOL has a material weakness in that it doesnt even own its core technology their using in their ad platform. Good lord...a read of the legal documents in that case would scare the crap out of any AOL shareholder, it did me!

    • AOL sued for more patent infringement! The liabilites just keep growing. Wonder if they will actually disclose this one in their filings for the public to be made aware of?

      AOL and the NHL Sued for Patent Infringement by DDB Technologies

      Press Release Source: DDB Technologies, L.L.C. On Monday May 24, 2010, 10:53 am EDT
      AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--DDB Technologies, L.L.C. (“DDB”) continues to enforce its patent portfolio within the interactive sports broadcasting market. AOL, Inc. (“AOL”) and NHL Interactive CyberEnterprises, LLC, NHL Enterprises, L.P., and NHL Enterprises Inc. (collectively the “NHL”) have been sued in two separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin Division).

      The DDB patent portfolio consists of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,479; 5,671,347; 6,204,862; 7,373,587; and a pending continuation application (collectively, the “DDB Data Driven Portfolio”). The DDB Data Driven Portfolio discloses innovative sport broadcasting technologies such as, but not limited to:

      Live simulation of a sporting event
      Play-by-play text, graphics, and animation
      Generating information about the state of the game

      Since the settlement with Major League Baseball, DDB has filed six lawsuits against many of the major sporting leagues and sporting news content providers. The six outstanding lawsuits are against ESPN, the NFL, Yahoo!, the NBA, AOL, and the NHL.

      DDB is represented by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP (Chicago, IL) and Winstead PC (Austin, TX). IPinvestments Group (Atlanta, GA) serves as the licensing agent for DDB. If you are interested in a license to the DDB Data Driven Portfolio, please contact Michael McLaughlin of IPinvestments Group.

      The AOL and NHL lawsuits referenced above are case numbers 1:10-cv-00313 and 1:10-cv-00336, respectively.

      About DDB Technologies, L.L.C.

      DDB Technologies, located in Austin, Texas, is an intellectual property holding company established to capitalize on the value of its patented technology. The technology described in the patents supports a variety of interactive media services related to sports events. The company’s President and Founder, Dr. David Barstow, has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Stanford University and is the lead inventor of the technology. Dr. Barstow is an internationally recognized authority in Artificial Intelligence and Software Engineering.

      IPinvestments GroupMichael McLaughlin,

    • Augme Technologies (OTCBB:AUGT) New Wrinkle in Patent Dispute

      Date: May 18, 2010 12:08 PM
      Publisher: Editors Desk
      Tags: AOL, AUGT.ob, Bloomberg, Litigation, MSFT, Patent, VHC

      I have been following this story since 2006 and it is beginning to remind me of the movie “A Flash of Genius” with Greg Kinnear (a true story) who plays Robert Kearns an Inventor who patented the Intermittent Windshield Wiper only to have Ford and Chrysler pilfer his idea and take it for their own. They ran him around the courts, attempted to destroy his family, discredited him, and took it to jury (he defended himself with the help of his children) where he was awarded about 30 Million dollars.

      Anyone who follows patent litigation stories knows too well the extent which behemoth companies will go to win, so they can send a message to others who want to sue them and every battle has a turning point where the hunter becomes the hunted and in “Flash” there was a poignant moment where the intermediary comes to the house of Kinnear the night before the final decision of the trial and offers $30 million, almost the exact number they knew the jury would award. Kinnear’s character tuned them down in front of his children because they refused to admit that they stole his idea. This was more important to this inventor…it’s always more important. I think this is what AOL will never get…until of course it’s too late.

      AOL would like everyone to believe this little company that actually uses their patented technology in their ongoing growing mobile business is little more than a “patent troll”. This could not be further from the truth. If one researches the origin of their patents, they’d find a world famous patent attorney Jack Brown who was involved in their origin. Mr. Brown was the attorney who represented Apple in a landmark case against Microsoft regarding the Macintosh operating system, had Mr. Brown not passed in 2001, we may not be having this conversation. Odds are Augme’s patent portfolio would currently be a part of one of the Internet titans IP arsenal.

      Last Friday, Augme stood up for all the little guys when it filed a motion alleging AOL committed fraud by failing to notify the court that Tacoda was no longer a going concern. In other words, they took the assets from Tacoda, now a mere shell corporation, but left it with the liabilities including two known patent infringement suits from ValuClick and Augme. Nothing like a bit of lawyer sleight of hand to avoid public disclosure! This certainly has ramifications for parent AOL, and opens up the question about what they disclosed to shareholders in filings (including the prospectus) for their recent spin-off.

      I reviewed the filings and found nothing close to what is occurring in the current dispute disclosed to current shareholders (I am not a shareholder and am not paid by the company). I believe we will look back at this as the lynch pin misstep as this case evolves, keep in mind we are three years in and Augme has hung on and is not going away.

      I expect AOL will have some desperation moves coming up..It’s not like they are setting the world on fire. I dumped my AOL account in 2005 because it wasn’t useful to me, or worth the money and it seems the company is fighting so many battles they lose rational judgment. If you are following these MicroCap Litigation stories certainly you need to also know about (AMEX:VHC) and the recent settlement with Microsoft for $200 Million yesterday, and that is not the end of the story, it is only the first award for VHC and this is what large companies fear most.

      I suggest you go rent Flash of Genius so you can view this case of Augme vs AOL from the prospective of the little guy. It will help you understand that it’s not about the size of the dog in the fight – it’s about the size of the fight in the dog!!

      • 1 Reply to gggggwiz
      • Do you know why this pumper of highly unprofitable penny stocks did a copy and paste, and failed to provide the link?

        Because the copy and paste pump article is from Worldmarketmedia.

        Yes, THAT worldmarketmedia....

        Google it. Steve Kanaval Modavox.... Google, Steve Kanaval Augme. Google, Steve Kanaval Qualitystocks.

        Google, Steve Kanaval Knobias Supreme Court.

        Google, Steve Kanaval Worldmarketmedia.

        It's close to not only a bust in the court room, but a bust in the impending AUGT.OB financials. As AUGT.OB is days away from posting up the late, but current 10-K.

        Expect more massive losses. And massive more shares printed up out of thin air, Just to keep the lights on.

        Yes, friends, The pump of those highly unprofitable shares of AUGT.OB/Modavox continues.

    • Thanks AOL Management! How could Armstrong be buying shares in the market with this not being disclosed? How is that not insider trading?

      Augme Seeks to Add AOL, Inc. as Additional Defendant to Augme's Pending Patent Infringement Case Against Tacoda, Inc., Filing "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Joining Claims Against AOL Based Upon Fraud and Inequitable Conduct"

      Press Release Source: Augme Technologies, Inc. On Monday May 17, 2010, 9:15 am

      NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Augme Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB: AUGT - News) announced today that on Friday, May 14, 2010, it filed a “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Joining Claims Against AOL Based Upon Fraud and Inequitable Conduct” related to its pending patent infringement action against Tacoda, Inc. Augme’s action against Tacoda is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:07-cv-07088 (CM).

      The Tacoda action was filed in August 2007 shortly after Tacoda was acquired by AOL, Inc. in a transaction that contemplated Tacoda continuing its business operations as a wholly owned subsidiary of AOL. Later, in mid-2008, Augme filed a separate trademark infringement action against AOL, which is now pending before a different judge in the same court in New York. Augme’s action against AOL was later amended to add additional claims for patent infringement and to add as additional defendants Time-Warner, Inc. and Platform-A, Inc.

      To date, Augme’s patent infringement claims in the AOL case have been “stayed” (suspended) pending resolution of the Tacoda action. Due to the historic segregation of the Tacoda and AOL infringement cases, premised upon the understanding that Tacoda was continuing to operate its business as a separate legal entity, Augme’s action against Tacoda has focused on Tacoda’s alleged patent infringement for the period of 2004 through 2008.

      Augme’s May 14, 2010, Motion alleges that, based upon new evidence discovered by Augme, it would unfairly prejudice Augme to continue to stay the AOL infringement case pending resolution of the Tacoda action, given that Tacoda is no longer operating as a separate entity and that AOL, as a matter of law, is responsible for Tacoda’s liabilities in this matter. Among other things, Augme’s Motion specifically alleges that Tacoda is currently a mere “shell” company with no apparent assets to satisfy a judgment against it. Further, Augme alleges that, based upon recently discovered evidence, AOL has been dominating and controlling Tacoda during almost the entire period this action has been pending, with Tacoda operating as a “division” within AOL, and that as a result AOL has become the alter ego of Tacoda and thus should be directly liable for Tacoda’s alleged patent infringement.

      Augme’s Motion seeks to add AOL as an additional defendant in the Tacoda action and to hold AOL liable for Tacoda’s infringement of Augme’s patents during the time that Tacoda was under AOL’s control. The Motion further argues that AOL should not be permitted to use the Tacoda “shell” as a liability “shield” while simultaneously using Tacoda’s technology and goodwill. Permitting Augme to amend its Complaint against Tacoda to include AOL as an additional defendant will avoid any possible fraud or inequity upon Augme in its pursuit of remedies against Tacoda for alleged infringement of Augme’s patents.

      • 1 Reply to ertyy5y
      • The best of hype always starts out with a dash of truth. And then leaves out the most important facts.

        How do you tell who the professional pumpers of highly unprofitable penny stocks are?... They will never tell the full story.

        Augme Technologies, Inc.
        formerly: INNERSPACE CORP (filings through 2003-07-30)
        formerly: SURFNET MEDIA GROUP INC (filings through 2005-10-17)
        formerly: MODAVOX INC (filings through 2010-03-03)

        Files yet another,.... Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K?

        AUGT.OB/Modavox Reporting in their most current 10-Q,...

        "nine months ended November 30, 2009, the Company incurred a net loss of $4,979,030 compared to a net loss of $1,284,295 in the comparable prior year period".

        " We recorded revenues of $15,520 from the Augme division during the six months ended August 31, 2009",

        "We recorded revenues of $56,028 from the Augme division during the nine months ended November 30, 2009",

        Acorn Management. AUGT.OB/MDVX.OB

        Statements made in this Report which are not purely historical are forward-looking statements with respect to the goals, plan objectiveIMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
        This stock profile should be viewed as a paid advertisement, to enhance the public awareness of Modavox Inc. and its securities through the distribution on this report. Acorn Manage-
        ment Partners LLC. has been paid the sum of $7,000 and 10,000 un-registered shares of common stock a month for a 3 month contract by the company.

        Larry Oakley, the Wallstreetcorner guy, who says right on the top of his AUGT.OB blurb....

        "Note: The editorial I did on Augme in my “Bold Ventuures” column on 4/25/10 at www.WallStreetCorner was done at no charge to the company so covered, as are all of my editorials,.... but a third party paid us $500 cash to do this email distribution to our special readers in 96 countries".

        -Larry Oakley. Wallstreetcorner dot com.

49.99+0.03(+0.06%)Jun 22 4:05 PMEDT