First of all, let's me state this loud and clear: all legal disputes that end up at the court are usually disputes that started from previous years. Rarely you would hear a dispute between 2 parties that are less than 1 year old that would be filed at a court. Most of time the 2 parties would be arguing and/or negotiating back and forth until they exhausted their will to agree to some sort of settlement before they decide to file a case at the court. Secondly, most of cases that are waiting for hearings at the court end up in some sort of agreement between the 2 parties before the court case hearing even started. Thirdly, the judges always encourage the parties to agree between themselves to some sort of settlement before the hearing date. Fourthly, most of court cases initiated by one party is to gain some agreement and payment (settlement) from the other party.
Ted has mentioned many times through both ASX announcements and the firechat videos that the company owed money to some previous publishers and those payables have been in dispute and EN1 has been negotiating with them to resolve those disputes. And many of them have been resolved at significant discount and that is why we have seen shares issued to creditors to pay for legacy debts. In the latest firechat videos Ted did mention that the company always negotiated with those publishers to resolve those debts. He also specifically mentioned a particular case where the disputed amount was $300000 but was finally agreed to $10000 and the company was happy to take the opportunity to write off that legacy debt. He also mentioned many other cases where we ended up paying them 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or a fraction of the disputed amount. (On this note, I say this: well done Ted).
Any one who has been in business dealing with customers, partners, suppliers..... will know that all disputes are open to negotiation and most of them will likely end up with no payment or partial payments. Ted also explained in the firechat videos that to pay a small percentage of the disputed amount and have the opportunity to clear the liability off the balance sheet is a great thing. If we don't pay it, it will stay there as liability forever whether in effect you don't end up paying them at all. I absolutely agree with Ted.
The overwhelming majority of the cases that the band of trolls (@Hashimoto, @Warnie, @Plooto, @Icarus) have been making noise about, let's me say this: first and foremost, are all about the disputes of the past years that Ted has mentioned about. They have nothing to do with 2019 which is what many of us shareholders really care about and have bought into EN1 because we see the turn-around in this company which started only a few months ago. Take a look at them closely, the hearing date of most of those cases were in 2016, 2017, 2018. This means those proceedings must have been heard in court and must have been concluded and must have been settled. The results could be no payment from EN1, or full payment, or partial payment and importantly many of them could have been settled out of courts between the 2 parties. This is the most common results of many legal disputes: out-of-court settlements. This is exactly what Ted has mentioned about that we continue to be able to settle many of the disputed amounts at a fraction of what they were and we were be happy to take the opportunity to settle it and clear it off the balance sheet (great work Ted, and that is smart work!).
The great thing about all of these disputes is that it helps Ted and his team tremendously in learning the hard lessons about ad frauds and that is why the company is now smarter using AI technology and deploy new software to prevent these mistakes. This will no doubt help EN1 becomes stronger and smarter in eliminating revenue loss due to ad frauds. The new software has blocked more than 300000 creatives that are fraudulent and unfortunately also genuine but the team is learning about it and has fixed it. Every technology company has always had technical challenges but most importantly we learnt and overcome those challenges.
Of the case between EN1 and DRISS QUAZZANI that @Hashimoto brought up, look closely everyone, the PLAINTIFF is ENGAGE BDR and the DEFENDANT is DRISS QUAZZANI. So, it means Ted is suing DRISS QUAZZANI to claw back some money regarding past deal involving TIVEO, not the other way around as the devil hopes to get you get tricked into. Also, as far as I understand, it is a matter between Ted and 2 other directors versus DRISS QUAZZANI. They want to claw back some money from DRISS QUAZZANI. It has nothing to do with EN1. Also, this is about the purchase of TIVEO back in 2016. It has nothing to do with how great EN1 is performing in 2019.
Of the 57 cases that @Warnie try to get you scared into and sell cheap shares to him, it looks like the only recent one is filed on 28/05/2019 between a Collection Agency and ENGAGE BRD. So, what does it means?
- All most all of them have been resolved, done and dusted (no payment, or full payment, or partial payment or settled out of court) and EN1 has moved on to do what it should do which is focusing on building the business better and better with more and more customers (as we have seen with the latest 12 major integrations including some big whales like StartApp and AppLovin and higher and higher revenue at great 40% gross profit margin compared the standard industry of 20%).
The funny things about all the dirty tricks that this band of trolls bring up on this forum to throw mud at the company and to cheat other holders is that it does make me believe more in what Ted has been saying for months now that we owe money to many publishers due to ad frauds from previous years (yes), and many of these payables have been in legal disputes (yes), and we have been negotiating with them to settle those disputes (yes) and we will continue to negotiate with them to settle at a small fraction of the disputed amounts (yes) to clean up the liability off the balance sheet (yes) and help us able to negotiate the new debt facility to help EN1 enter the hyper-growth stage (yes). Now I know the scrips issued to pay creditors are genuine.
Ted did tweet last week the article from AFR titled HC TROLLS ON BORROWED TIME where it mentioned Flinder Mines was requesting the court to order HC to provide details of 23 individuals who have manipulated its share price by organizing and coordinating some defamatory rumours and accusations on social media. The way you guys whipping up crazy amount of posts hours after hours, days after days is no doubt in my mind very well organized attack on this company. But it may backfire big time.
By the way, Ted is coming to Sydney and Melbourne in September. I challenge you guys to come and meet him in person to throw those accusations at him. Make sure you tell him your HC nicknames and don't wear masks.
