Worldlink Share Discussion Threads

[apfindley] 20/12/2016 09:34

Could possibly loosely fall under'dividends paid in the form of securities'So if the mybets shares can be classed as a sort of dividend, there could be a glimmer of hope in your question.Can't look too much into it at moment as I'm only on mobile.

[apfindley] 20/12/2016 09:22

Don't know anything about that Warwick, but its an interesting thought.Can't think of any other examples where that may of happened with any other stocks who were suspended and then gave shareholders shares in a new spinoff.I would expect the short position would stay with wgp and not be carried over to mybets, so I wouldn't expect a short squeeze on mybets when trading starts.Be fun if it did though, considering there will be a very low number of shares in issue. Would love to see that happen.

[warwick69] 20/12/2016 07:51

News on the papillon reverse takeover progressing so the opportunity to be able to trade the Myclub betting shares gets closer we will be able to recoup some money from the Worldlink days? What do shareholders who were short of Worldlink have to do do they have to buy the myclubbetting shares to give back to the shareholders they borrowed the Worldlink shares from? Anyone know!

[hugosamuel] 19/12/2016 12:12

Not superior knowledge, just reading everything issued by the Court and Pacer. Plus guess work.

[warwick69] 19/12/2016 11:36

Thanks Hugo appreciate your superior knowledge on these matters

[borgny] 19/12/2016 10:58

I would hate to be part of the jury on this case. It's not exactly simple to understand.

[hugosamuel] 19/12/2016 10:20

Not sure on timing. From what I can see, things like Mediation conferences and Summary Judgement Motions always happen around this time so I would imagine it is taken into account in the timeline. The issues in the Summary Judgement will be part of the trial anyway I guess, it is just whether the Judge thinks there is enough for a Jury to decide on. We will know pretty soon anyway.

We have seen a lot of time extensions on both sides this year but even so, it will be slight delays of days/weeks not months/years.

[warwick69] 17/12/2016 10:46

Hugo Do you think the trial will be delayed because of this summary judgement side show???Do you have any new thoughts what will happen next as the trial is scheduled for 9th Jan there must be frantic goings on, on both sides so I am sure it will all become clear very soon It's been quite a saga but 4 and a half years in suspended animation will end one way or the other shortly ??

[peterblok] 14/12/2016 19:15

Well thanks for those pieces of encouraging news Hugo and cromarty! I'm happy to report my understanding that Neil and his family still live happily in their upmarket five bedroom detached house in Caterham, and seem to be enjoying a good lifestyle, so that makes me feel a lot better . . . . .

[hugosamuel] 14/12/2016 19:14

Our response is in but it's Sealed so can't read it. Lots of Exhibits uploaded though. Hopefully a redacted copy will be uploaded in a few days.Fingers crossed.

[cromarty] 12/12/2016 11:34

Myclubbetting.com Limited is a reincarnation of Worldlink Group plc which listed on the Standard list (surprise) in late 2011 at a share price of £2.50 and was in liquidation a year later with over £4 million of debts and the shares suspended down at 8p. Its performance, however, clearly merited a bonus of over £1 million to its CEO, Neil Riches!

Upon liquidation, the assets were acquired by the CEO and others for £180,000 plus a future potential revenue share and that company is now called Myclubetting.com.

It enables local sports clubs to run betting services; however, this is a hugely competitive market. It was so when Worldlink went bust 4 years ago and is even more so now with recent consolidation in the online sports betting market.

On the plus side, it has had some recent press as Sam Allardyce, one of its brand ambassadors, had to step down from the role on taking on the England manager role. I guess all publicity is good publicity, right?

The recent abbreviated accounts of Myclubbetting.com Limited for the year to 30 April 2015 show losses to date of £2.7 million. I am interested to see more up-to-date financial information in the forthcoming prospectus but would be very surprised if the business is profitable at the moment or will be in the near-term.

By now, Papillion will have less than £700,000 in cash and once costs of the RTO are taken into account, it is highly likely that it will need to raise further funds to fund Myclubbetting.com. I can’t fathom why third parties will provide additional funding for a business and a management team that took a very similar business into liquidation a few years ago. Guess this is the Sub-Standard List though so anything is possible.

I feel for the shareholders locked in here as I reckon the share price is only going one way, as and when it comes out of suspension. I’ll review further once the prospectus comes out with a more definitive view on the RTO.



- See more at: hxxp://www.shareprophets.com/views/23633/papillon-holdings-a-shocking-deal-even-by-the-sub-standard-shockers-xi-standards#sthash.IFE8eVHR.dpuf

[warwick69] 02/12/2016 17:35

Once again thanks Hugo I'm glad someone understands all this court jargon !It could go either way then

[hugosamuel] 02/12/2016 00:18

Our best bet is to try to push the fact that the exclusion of basic referencing static data is nonsensical. That was our argument before and they appear to be trying to block that off in their opening brief already.

Either that or by pushing the Judge that the alleged facts are still disputed by us and a Jury must decide. A Jury means uncertainty for them, uncertainty means mediation might still work.

[hugosamuel] 02/12/2016 00:03

That is an easy one to explain Warwick (easier that the technical jargon anyway)! It is because it is the Markman that appears to have been the killer, or more specifically, the Order Construing Terms issued by the Court. Then they needed the discovery process and expert testimony and rebuttals to nail it. That has taken the majority of 2016 to get to. It could not have been earlier than now.

This is it in a nutshell:

1) The Court has decided on the specific definition of changing data to mean "only changing data" meaning the data transmissions are exclusively comprised of data that has changed. Our patent cannot apply to data transmissions that include some form of static data. It is set in stone in the Order Construing Terms in March 2016.
2) They have used our own documents to show we specifically consider the stock symbol to be static data.
3) The fact that all the Defendants systems always include the stock symbol in all data transmissions was established in discovery and expert testimony and that fact is not disputed by us. Therefore some static data is always present so they cannot infringe the claims in our patent.

As none of these points are actually disputed between the parties, there is nothing for the Jury to decide on. It needed all expert testimony etc to get to this point and that has only recently concluded.

[warwick69] 01/12/2016 21:33

Thanks Hugo

[warwick69] 01/12/2016 21:32

Hugo if was that clear cut surely this would have been thrown out years ago why take it to just a few days before the trial to attempt to get it overturned and did they not already try that in an early hearing where they lost It's all a bit confusing as it seems both sides think they are going to win !!Well either way we won't have long to wait now and we have all written off our investments anyway Anything from here is a bonus

[hugosamuel] 01/12/2016 20:30

The motion is for judgement and dismissal before trial (no case to answer) so only goes to trial if we successfully defend the motion. The Judge granted leave to file the motion but that does not necessarily mean it will be granted. It does seem very clear cut though so I hope Quest have something up their sleeve.If the motion is denied, then trial I guess.

[warwick69] 01/12/2016 17:41

Hugo guess both sides still think they will win does this imply they go to trial in January now?

[hugosamuel] 01/12/2016 15:22

Several documents just appeared on the Court PACER system. They have just formally submitted their motion for Summary Judgement for Non-Infringement for all the accused systems.

“….(collectively, “Defendants221;) hereby move for summary judgment of non-infringement pursuant to the Court’s Order granting permission to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on the “changing information” limitation which requires that the accused systems receive and supply “only data that has changed.”

It includes a 21 page opening brief which sadly seems to be a rather compelling argument as the key points all hang off the precise definition and reasoning set by the Court itself in the Order Construing Terms. Quest are going to need to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one. Answering brief due on 16th.

[hugosamuel] 29/11/2016 16:45

No updates on Pacer except a time extension on the Summary Dismissal motion but that was dated 22nd. Not sure if the mediation conference still went ahead or not.

[warwick69] 28/11/2016 23:27

Hugo any news

[cromarty] 25/11/2016 10:25

NR Standing down from the board before Papilon deal. Obviously the only way he can do the deal.

[hugosamuel] 17/11/2016 11:06

Someone technical might know more about this but this is what I understand from reading the documents.

A key purpose of the Markman is to give a precise and literal interpretation to important terms so there is no ambiguity. The Jury will not decide on the terms, they will apply the specific definition of the terms to the disputed facts.

At the Markman, they argued a specific definition for transmitting “changing data” to have the word “only” inserted before it. The Judge agreed with them and in the Order Construing Terms issued by the Court, the definition of “changing data” is to be read specifically as “ONLY changing data”. I think this means our innovation is to send 100% changing data only (with nothing extra so as to preserve bandwidth) rather than changing data with some component of unchanging data. That is certainly what the commentary from the Judge seems to say.

They claim our own documents have stated that we consider the stock symbol itself to be UNchanging data rather than changing data. Therefore, they state we clearly do not dispute the fact that the stock symbol is unchanging data.

They go on to point out that after the technical discovery process, it has been shown that all the Defendants include the stock symbol in all data transmissions and that was not a disputed fact by us. Therefore, the presence of the stock symbol in all data transmissions means they always include some unchanging data and never send “ONLY changing data”. Therefore they claim there is no case to answer as these two points are not disputed between the parties and the case should be immediately dismissed for non-infringement i.e. there is no dispute for the Jury to decide on.

They also stated that our expert testimony ignores the “only” part of “only changing data”. We have argued back that not sending any static referencing data at all is a nonsensical interpretation of the term. We also stated they were trying to re-argue the Markman terms but they turned around and said they were interpreting the terms literally as per the Order Construing Terms and if anyone was trying to escape the definition, it was us. Seemed a bit childish at that point actually!

I had hoped the mediation conference was an indication that the Court did not want to go down this path but I now think it is a standard part of the patent case process (to have mediation conferences). They are obviously sticking to their guns but we should maybe consider that they are just trying to puff their chests out to strengthen their position in any mediation discussions. They have also since submitted a further expert testimony for the Court and Counsel eyes only.

The good thing is, they cannot get this motion granted without us having the ability to respond so we are still in the game. Admittedly worrying though.Maybe they are just trying to scare us ahead of the mediation.