Rhythmone Share Discussion Threads

[leluot3] 29/9/2017 07:28

BARKBOO
28 Sep '17 - 10:07 - 9528 of 9532 0 0

I think RTHM is just what Yume need at this moment in time - cant see any complaints from the Yume bod's.

the SP's on both parties are a steal - and easy to take advantage of.


Oh yes - £24 isn't Barkpoo!!!

Go and hang your head in shame

[stocky] 29/9/2017 06:58

Loaf, I think the investigation is to determine whether R1 are underpaying.

[sikhthetech] 28/9/2017 21:11

Nielsen to Buy Visual IQ as Adtech Acquisition Spree Continues

[loafofbread] 28/9/2017 20:57

About time they looked into it.

$5.25 is much to expensive!

[sikhthetech] 28/9/2017 19:45

150k buy after hours...

[sikhthetech] 28/9/2017 19:28

Monteverde & Associates PC Announces An Investigation Of YuMe, Inc. - YUME

[lance corporal winstanley ash] 28/9/2017 19:11

All getting a bit like ppi really isn't it, Sikh?

[sikhthetech] 28/9/2017 19:08

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Notifies Investors of an Investigation Concerning Whether the Sale of YuMe, Inc. to RhythmOne plc for $5.25 Per Share is Fair to Shareholders

[1gw] 28/9/2017 18:58

F4 timetable.

I've just noticed that according to page 5 of the merger agreement R1 is supposed to file the F4 by 5th October (on a "reasonable best efforts" basis). This doesn't quite gel with the response by Ted at the GM that it would be issued "later in October". So perhaps despite R1's reasonable best efforts, the logistics of getting the relevant accounts audited will push them beyond 5th October, but worth looking out for next week.

"Parent shall use its reasonable best efforts to prepare and file with the SEC by a target date of October 5, 2017, a registration statement on Form F-4 to register under the Securities Act, the offer and sale of Parent Common Stock pursuant to the Offer and the First Merger (the “ Registration Statement ”), which shall include a preliminary prospectus containing the information required under Rule 14d-4(b) promulgated under the Exchange Act (together with any amendments thereof or supplements thereto, the “ Offer Prospectus ”)"

[andydangerous] 28/9/2017 17:48

Another large trade- 150k @ 324.50, reported after the close today.

[sikhthetech] 28/9/2017 15:31

another ad tech firm suing for non payment... this time Phunware suing Uber...

Ad Tech Firm Sues Uber for Breach of Contract
Lawsuit by Phunware follows Uber’s suit against mobile ad agency Fetch

"Phunware’s complaint alleges that Uber failed to pay Fetch for five invoices that were needed to then pay Phunware. Phunware is suing Uber for what it says is the unpaid balance of $3.09 million plus interest."


"Uber disclosed in its lawsuit against Fetch that it had withheld about $7 million in payments to Fetch “since learning of the extent of the fraud.”

Fetch Chief Executive James Connelly denied the allegations, which he claimed were “purposefully inflammatory” to distract from Uber’s failure to pay more than 50 small business suppliers.

Phunware’s complaint was filed this week in state Superior Court in San Francisco and adds to the growing tensions between marketers and their agencies and technology vendors as they confront concerns about widespread fraud in digital advertising."

[gustafssonj] 28/9/2017 15:08

One could believe as a new exchange itemisation was not built in and may have cost Brian. I would expect this to be remedied under TH's watch.

[sikhthetech] 28/9/2017 14:55

Gustafssonj, agree..
The invoices referred to were issued under BM's watch... also ex-CFO and if Yume deal goes through, ex-Chairman...

The lawsuit was issued 21st July, under TH's watch...
It may explain BM's 'hasty' leaving...

[stocky] 28/9/2017 13:48

Does anyone understand that counterclaim? R1 charged just 2% over, but most other exchanges would be between 15% to 53% over? Anyone know how exchanges work? Wouldn't that also be Richard's domain?

[gowlane] 28/9/2017 13:26

Wow Sikh, there is going to be huge interest in this.

Un-itemised bills sound like a terrible idea, you wouldn't want it from your local supermarket.

1R say that they 'deny the material allegations in DataXu's counterclaims'.

Seems to suggest that they are not contesting everything?

[gustafssonj] 28/9/2017 13:20

One would hope Brian/R1 to have verified that this was not the case before initiating a lawsuit. Önly a fool would pursue the legal route without such checks. Though one cannot rule this out and it could be the reason for Brian's departure.

[lance corporal winstanley ash] 28/9/2017 13:14

I'd just tread carefully Sikh discussing court cases. Yes we all get youre desperate to make a point but all the same tread carefully. One question for you. How can a dsp(dataxu) and a predominately ssp(1r) be competitors?

[sikhthetech] 28/9/2017 13:01

The point here is that they are competitors and it's the Ad Companies suing each other - not Publishers or Advertisers...

I would have thought DataXu would therefore, have a clearer idea as to how the auctions are supposed to work...

From the article, DataXu's example...

"Regardless, dataxu’s evidence for RhythmOne’s auction manipulation is that the difference between dataxu’s actual winning bid was often very close to the clear price – aka the value the exchange placed on the inventory.

Which was odd, dataxu claims, because the difference between its winning bid and the clear price in other exchanges was substantially higher.

In March, for instance, the average difference between dataxu’s winning bids and the clear price in nine other exchange partners ranged between 15% on the low end to 53% on the high end.

By contrast, the average difference in March between dataxu’s winning bids on RhythmOne’s exchange and the clear price was 2%. So dataxu concluded that RhythmOne was manipulating the auction, such that dataxu wasn’t actually paying the second price as one might expect in a second-price auction, but in fact was paying RhythmOne’s clear price.

And if that’s the case, it violates the pricing agreement which dictates that dataxu would pay 1 cent more than the price offered by the second-highest bidder."

[wheeze] 28/9/2017 12:52

Ask @ 315 yet sells reported @ 321 whats going on ?

[phil140158] 28/9/2017 11:27

I guess the uncertainty over yume and the 'unpaid invoice' are a downward pressure on the share price. That and the pitiful volume traded.

[gowlane] 28/9/2017 11:06

Sikh/Ken, that was what I was thinking too. They have to go all the way with this court case for the sake of their reputation.

But then, hang on a minute, this is 1R/Blinkx we are talking about. No way will they want their dirty linen washed in public. And heaven alone knows what they will find with these acquisitions.

They will settle out of court and try to keep their heads down is my guess.

[sikhthetech] 28/9/2017 10:49

thanks Martin...

[barkboo] 28/9/2017 10:07

I think RTHM is just what Yume need at this moment in time - cant see any complaints from the Yume bod's.

the SP's on both parties are a steal - and easy to take advantage of.

How many "if only's" will I hear from in future months - either from the timid, or less understanding?