Hyperion takes bat, swings for McBill's head!

[Kronos]

adolescent wrote:

Funny that Itec/AI would think they would be stupid enough to accept the check after bringing them to court.   :crazy:

Offcourse they knew the check would come back, but what if the judge finds, that the OS was infact finished late last year, and that the old payments weren't for the buyback ?

Well now Itec could still say "we send them a check within 6 months".

[Kronos]

If the judge finds that OS4 was finished 2003 the check is irrelevant, cos the deadline long expired.

If the judge finds that Itec holds no rights the check is also irrelevant.

But the judge may find that OS4 was indeed only finished in 2006.

And he may also find Itec does hold rights.

In that case Itec can now claim that they have tried to "buy-back" before the deadline expired.

[Kronos]

@pixie

Problem is the whole "bancruptsy-clause" is just another part of AIncs "fraudulent way of doing things".

The last thing Hyperion should want is someone taking a closer look into AInc's past action cos one thing is sure if the IP goes up for auction the !whole! contract is gonna be voided.