DOCSLIB.ORG

Case 1:19-Cv-00377-CFC Document 24 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 1 Pageid #: 230

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case 1:19-Cv-00377-CFC Document 24 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 1 Pageid #: 230 Case 1:19-cv-00377-CFC Document 24 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 230 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE VERITION PARTNERS MASTER FUND, ) LTD. and VERITION MULTI-STRATEGY ) MASTER FUND, LTD., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 1:19-cv-00377-CFC ) COHERENT ECONOMICS, LLC, ) Jury Demanded W. BRADFORD CORNELL, and ) SAN MARINO BUSINESS PARTNERS ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS W. BRADFORD CORNELL AND SAN MARINO BUSINESS PARTNERS’ RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants W. Bradford Cornell and San Marino Business Partners, LLC move to dismiss all, or in the alternative, certain of the claims brought by Plaintiffs Verition Partners Master Fund, Ltd. and Verition Multi-Strategy Master Fund, Ltd. in the Complaint filed in this action for the reasons set forth in Defendants Cornell and San Marino Business Partners’ memorandum of law accompanying this Motion. OF COUNSEL: CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP Peter M. Spingola /s/ Ryan P. Newell Robert J. Shapiro Ryan P. Newell (Bar No. 4744) John M. Owen Shaun Michael Kelly (Bar No. 5915) Chapman Spingola, LLP 1201 North Market Street, 20th Floor 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3850 Wilmington, DE 19801 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (302) 757-7300 (312) 630-9202 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Bradford Cornell and San Marino Business Partners, LLC Dated: March 25, 2019 Case 1:19-cv-00377-CFC Document 24-1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 231 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE VERITION PARTNERS MASTER FUND, ) LTD. and VERITION MULTI-STRATEGY ) MASTER FUND, LTD., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 1:19-cv-00377-CFC ) COHERENT ECONOMICS, LLC, ) Jury Demanded W. BRADFORD CORNELL, and ) SAN MARINO BUSINESS PARTNERS, ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS W. BRADFORD CORNELL AND SAN MARINO BUSINESS PARTNERS’ OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS OF COUNSEL: CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP Ryan P. Newell (Bar No. 4744) Peter M. Spingola Shaun Michael Kelly (Bar No. 5915) Robert J. Shapiro 1201 North Market Street, 20th Floor John M. Owen Wilmington, DE 19801 Chapman Spingola, LLP (302) 757-7300 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3850 [email protected] Chicago, Illinois 60603 [email protected] (312) 630-9202 [email protected] Counsel for Bradford Cornell and [email protected] San Marino Business Partners, LLC [email protected] Dated: March 25, 2019 Case 1:19-cv-00377-CFC Document 24-1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 232 TABLE OF CONTENTS NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 3 A. Verition Engages Defendants as an Expert Witness in the AOL Action ............................ 3 B. Verizon Argues that Cornell Should Be Discredited Because of His Alleged Bias ........... 4 C. The Court of Chancery Determines a Share Price Based on a DCF Analysis in Between the Two Prices Advocated by the Opposing Parties’ Experts ............................................ 4 D. The Court of Chancery Explains Why It Utilized a DCF Model ....................................... 4 E. The Court of Chancery Uses Fischel’s DCF Model as a “Starting Point,” But Carefully Weighs Each Party’s Arguments and Each Expert’s Opinions on the Appropriate Inputs and Assumptions to Utilize in the Model ........................................................................... 5 1. The Court of Chancery Adopts the Cash Flow Projections Favored by Verizon/Fischel ............................................................................................................. 6 2. The Court of Chancery Adopts Verition/Cornell’s Arguments for Including a Pending Deal in AOL's Valuation ............................................................................................... 7 3. In Agreement with Verition’s Position, the Court of Chancery Applies a Higher Growth Rate than the Rate Proposed by Verizon/Fischel ............................................ 7 4. The Court of Chancery Agrees with Fischel’s Position that $150 Million in AOL’s Cash Reserves Should Not Be Included in the Valuation Since It Constituted Working Capital ........................................................................................................................... 8 F. Verition Threatens Suit against Defendants, and in Response, Defendants File a Declaratory Action Asserting that Verition’s Claims Are Barred by a Settlement Agreement Between the Parties .......................................................................................... 8 G. Verition Files the Present Action in Delaware ................................................................... 8 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9 I. Verition Fails to Allege Facts that Demonstrate that a Plausible Causal Link Exists Between the Alleged Wrongdoing and Verition’s Purported Injury .................................. 9 A. A Plaintiff Must Plead All Necessary Elements Including Proximate Cause in a Manner that Meets the Iqbal and Twombly Standard ................................................. 9 ii Case 1:19-cv-00377-CFC Document 24-1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 233 B. Verition Fails to State a Plausible Theory of Causation Connecting Its Allegations about Defendants’ Credibility Issues with Its Purported Injuries ............................. 10 1. The Court of Chancery’s Opinions Make Clear that Its Reasons for Its Ruling Had Nothing to Do with and Were Not Affected by Any Credibility Concerns Raised By Verizon at Trial ............................................................................................... 11 2. Verition’s Counsel’s Trial Decision to Accept the Fischel DCF Model as a Starting Point Likely Improved the Outcome in Verition’s Favor and In Any Event that Strategy Did Not Harm Verition ......................................................... 13 II. Verition’s Fraudulent Inducement (Count I), Fraudulent Concealment (Count II), and Professional Negligence (Count IV) Fail Because the Alleged Misconduct Underlying Those Claims Is Not Separate and Distinct from the Alleged Misconduct and Damages Sought in Its Breach of Contract Claim (Count III) ......................................................... 15 A. Verition’s Fraudulent Concealment and Professional Negligence Claims are Barred by the Economic Loss Doctrine and Should Be Dismissed ...................................... 15 B. Verition Fails to Allege the Existence of a Misrepresentation Independent of the Contract, So Its Fraud Claims Fail ............................................................................ 16 C. The Complaint’s Alleged Fraud Damages Rehash Verition’s Breach of Contract Damages and Must Therefore Be Dismissed ............................................................ 17 III. Verition’s Professional Negligence Claim (Count IV) Should Be Dismissed Because Delaware Has Not Recognized an Expert Witness Malpractice Cause of Action and Defendants’ Actions Are Protected by the Absolute Litigation Privilege ........................ 18 IV. If the Court Does Not Grant Defendants’ Pending Motions to Stay and to Transfer, Verition’s Claims Should Be Dismissed under the Prior Pending Action Doctrine......... 20 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 20 iii Case 1:19-cv-00377-CFC Document 24-1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 234 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases AFH Holding Advisory, LLC v. Emmaus Life Sciences, Inc., 2013 WL 2149993 (Del. Super. Ct. May 15, 2013) ........................................................................................................................... 18 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................... 9 Barker v. Huang, 610 A.2d 1341 (Del. 1992) .............................................................................. 19 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................... 9 Brasby v. Morris, 2007 WL 949485 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 29, 2007) .................................... 15, 16 Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 9 Cornell Glasgow, LLC v. La Grange Properties, LLC, 2012 WL 2106945 (Del. Super. Ct. June 6, 2012) ............................................................................................................................... 16, 17 Del. Open MRI Radiology Assocs., P.A. v. Kessler, 898 A.2d 290 (Del. Ch. 2006) ...................... 6 Delaware Art Museum v. Ann Beha Architects, Inc., 2007 WL 2601472 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2007) ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Glob. Event Driven Master Fund Ltd, 177 A.3d 1 (Del. 2017) ........... 5, 14 DFC Glob. Corp. v. Muirfield
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Omnichannel Demand- Side Platforms, Q2 2017
    FOR B2C MARKETING PROFESSIONALS The Forrester Wave™: Omnichannel Demand- Side Platforms, Q2 2017 People-Based Data, New Paths To Inventory, And Even More Transparency Drive Innovation Amidst Consolidation by Richard Joyce and Samantha Merlivat May 30, 2017 Why Read This Report Key Takeaways In our 36-criteria evaluation of omnichannel MediaMath, DataXu, Turn, Rocket Fuel, Adobe, demand-side platform (DSP) providers, we And The Trade Desk Lead The Pack identified the 11 most significant ones — Adform, Forrester’s research uncovered a market in Adobe, AOL, AppNexus, DataXu, Google, which MediaMath, DataXu, Turn, Rocket Fuel, MediaMath, Rocket Fuel, The Trade Desk, Adobe and The Trade Desk lead the pack. AOL, Turn, and Viant — and researched, analyzed, AppNexus, Adform, and Google offer competitive and scored them. This report shows how each options. Viant lags behind. provider measures up and helps marketing Marketing Pros Are Looking For Differentiated professionals make the right choice. Omnichannel DSPs Omnichannel DSPs continue to evolve because marketing professionals are challenged by omnichannel digital media buying. While differentiation is subtle, it’s clear that some vendors are better equipped to meet marketers’ increasingly complex needs. Data, Inventory, And Machine Learning Are Key Differentiators As competitive technologies approach product parity and equal scale, people-based data, nonstandard system access, and flexible and transparent machine learning will determine market leaders. Vendors that can provide these for marketers
    [Show full text]
  • Adtech Ecosystem Overview David Judd, 3Rd July 2015 the Evolution of Display Advertising Buyside
    02 – AdTech ecosystem overview David Judd, 3rd July 2015 The Evolution of Display Advertising Buyside . CPM and Direct to Publisher . Growth of publishers led to Ad Networks . The birth of fragmentation . Decrease in CPM and birth of CPC . Further decrease in CPM and CPC . Networks enabled clients to reach multiple . Concerns around buying the same audiences (unique users) audiences (unique user) 2, 3, & 4x . The birth of the Ad Exchange . Birth of the DSP and Agency Trading Desk . Mature RTB ecosystem ₋ Manage Audiences ₋ Ability to manage ₋ Bid on media • Audiences ₋ Manage multiple publishers • Bidded Buying . Ability to buy media w/o speaking to pus • Campaign Goal The Evolution of Display Advertising Sellside . Birth of the SSP allows publishers to: . CPM and Direct to Advertiser . Birth of the DSP and Agency Trading Desk adds new ₋ Allows Publishers to plug inventory into Publishing pains: multiple ad exchanges/DSP’s ₋ Greater Fragmentation ₋ Manage Yield ₋ Harder to Manage Yield and eCPM’s ₋ Manage and monitor eCPM’s ₋ Audience Buying makes booking and deliver ₋ Adjust inventory outlets more challenging The advertising space has become increasingly complex..... 4 .....followed by mobile. 5 The landscape complexity is borne out of the demand for programmatic targeting on the buy-side, and yield optimisation on the sell-side Landscape architecture 7 Value Chain: DSPs Ad Tech Platform / Channel Capabilities Shortfalls Key Players - Attribution concerns: Cookie synching - Most of the the key players in the DSP and device ID matching
    [Show full text]
  • For Public Inspection
    FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION July 17, 2000 Ms. Royce Dickens Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Division Cable Services Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Applications of America Online, Inc., and Time Warner Inc. for Transfers of Control (CS Docket No. 00-30) Response to Document and Information Request of June 23, 2000 Dear Ms. Dickens: This letter sets forth the narrative responses of America Online, Inc. (“AOL”) and Time Warner Inc. (“Time Warner”) to your letter of June 23, 2000, requesting certain documents and information. In accordance with the instructions set forth in the letter to us from To-Quyen Troung, Associate Chief, Cable Services Bureau, dated June 9, 2000, and the Protective Order adopted by the Cable Services Bureau on April 6, 2000, the parties are filing the documents which accompany these narrative responses under separate cover letter. * * * AOL-TV 2.1 Please explain AOL-TV’s business plan for offering its services to multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) subscribers. On June 19, 2000, AOL announced the launch of AOLTV, a new interactive service designed to enhance the television viewing experience and make the TV more entertaining and useful for consumers. It should be understood that AOLTV is not a programming service that is “carried” by an MVPD in the way that HBO or ESPN are carried. Instead, AOLTV operates independently of the user’s existing video programming source. The elements of the service consist of: · Navigation—AOLTV features a state-of-the-art program guide and navigation features designed to help viewers quickly and easily navigate to any channel carried by their cable operator.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentadas 17 Enero 2018
    PRESENTADAS 17 ENERO 2018 Nro solicitudSubtipo solicitud Denominación Clases de NIza Tipo signo Regiones 1 1277517 Marca de P&S LLEVAPYME 35 Mixta 2 1277518 Marca de P&S Defensoría Nacional del Deudor 35 y 45 Denominativa 3 1277520 Marca de P&S PERRA VIDA 41 Denominativa 4 1277521 Marca de P&S ITSANI PLASMA MARINO 3 Denominativa 5 1277522 Marca de P&S Açai 43 Mixta 6 1277523 Marca de P&S GEO SUSHI 30 Denominativa 7 1277524 Marca de P&S COMUNAL 35 y 36 Mixta 8 1277525 Marca de P&S GEO SUSHI 39 Denominativa 9 1277526 Marca de P&S GEO SUSHI 43 Denominativa 10 1277527 Marca de P&S Mamá Terapeuta 41 Denominativa 11 1277528 Marca de P&S JMOVIL 9 Mixta 12 1277529 Marca de P&S UN ARBOL UNA VIDA 45 Mixta 13 1277530 Marca de P&S Óptica Everest 35 Mixta HORTIVINYL PRODUCTOS PARA 14 1277531 Marca de P&S HIDROPONIA 19 Mixta HORTIVINYL PRODUCTOS PARA 15 1277532 Marca de P&S HIDROPONIA 35 Mixta 16 1277533 Marca de P&S MC LIFE 32 Denominativa 17 1277534 Marca de P&S CAPRIOLI 32 Denominativa 18 1277535 Marca de P&S los rancheros del lago villarrica 41 Denominativa 19 1277536 Marca de P&S Dog Factory 45 Mixta 20 1277537 Marca de P&S INPHARMA 35 Denominativa 21 1277538 Marca de P&S SANDIA 30 Denominativa 22 1277539 Marca de P&S RDC 29 y 30 Mixta 23 1277540 Marca de P&S CREAM KISS 30 Denominativa 24 1277541 Marca de P&S BALLA STIXX 30 Denominativa 25 1277542 Marca de P&S BRUNAPOLI 43 Denominativa 26 1277543 Marca de P&S GINKGO 36, 37 y 42 Mixta 27 1277544 Frase prop.
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon Privacy Policy
    Privacy Policies | Verizon Full Privacy Policy Español Protecting our customers' privacy is an important priority at Verizon and we are committed to maintaining strong and meaningful privacy protections. The privacy of your information is a significant responsibility and we value the trust you place in us. Our Privacy Policy is designed to inform you about the information we collect, how we use it, and your options regarding certain uses of this information. This policy also describes privacy rights you have under certain federal laws. This policy applies to website visitors, app users and Verizon customers in the United States. It applies across the Verizon family of companies and the products and services we provide. The Verizon family of companies includes the companies and joint ventures controlled by Verizon, including the Verizon telephone companies, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Wireless, Verizon Online and Oath. Certain services we offer such as go90, MapQuest and Verizon apps have additional privacy practices that are presented separately. Verizon has acquired Yahoo and combined it with AOL to form a new company named Oath. Oath consists of over 50 digital and mobile brands globally, including HuffPost, Yahoo News, Yahoo Sports, Tumblr and AOL, as well as advertising platforms such as ONE by AOL, BrightRoll, and Gemini. Oath and Yahoo each have their own privacy policies. In the event of a conflict between the Verizon privacy policy and the Oath or Yahoo privacy policies, the Oath policy will control when you use a site, product or service that links to the Oath privacy policy and the Yahoo privacy policy will apply when you use a site, service, or technology that links to the Yahoo policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Verizon Communications
    The history of Verizon Communications Verizon Communications Inc., based in New York City and incorporated in Delaware, was formed on June 30, 2000, with the merger of Bell Atlantic Corp. and GTE Corp. Verizon began trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the VZ symbol on Monday, July 3, 2000. It also began trading on the NASDAQ exchange under the same symbol on March 10, 2010. The symbol was selected because it uses the two letters of the Verizon logo that graphically portray speed, while also echoing the origin of the company name: veritas, the Latin word connoting certainty and reliability, and horizon, signifying forward-looking and visionary. While Verizon is truly a 21st century company, the mergers that formed Verizon were many years in the making, involving companies with roots that can be traced to the beginnings of the telephone business in the late 19th century. Government regulation largely shaped the evolution of the industry throughout most of the 20th century. Then, with the signing of the Telecommunications Act on February 8, 1996, federal law directed a shift to more market-based policies. This promise of a new competitive marketplace was a driving force behind Verizon’s formation. Verizon’s formation The mergers that formed Verizon were among the largest in U.S. business history, culminating in a definitive merger agreement, dated July 27, 1998, between Bell Atlantic, based in New York City, and GTE, which was in the process of moving its headquarters from Stamford, Conn., to Irving, Texas. GTE and Bell Atlantic had each evolved and grown through years of mergers, acquisitions and divestitures.
    [Show full text]
  • Sao Miguel: an Enchanting Island for Whale-Watching and Horsing Around
    Sao Miguel: An enchanting island for whale-watching and horsing around Sao Miguel: An enchanting island for whale- watching and horsing around Animal magic in the Azores: Sao Miguel is an enchanting island for whale-watching and horsing around By Laura Powell Updated: 14:03, 9 March 2011 Sea-sickness tablets swallowed; waterproofs on. We stumble into a glorified dinghy, straddle an inflatable bench and cling on for dear life. ‘Everyone ready?’ asks Skipper. Well, no. Not really. Then we’re off, accelerating from 0-to-50 knots as fast as you can scream: ‘SOS!’ Twenty minutes later, the boat is tossing around black Atlantic waves and the island is a green smudge on the horizon. Tranquil: The Sete Cidades Lakes on the island of Sao Miguel in the Azores offer breath-taking views 1 of 45 Sao Miguel: An enchanting island for whale-watching and horsing around Locals call it ‘Green Island’, but it’s actually Sao Miguel and is the largest and most populous of the nine Azorean Islands. It’s somewhere north-east of Bermuda, west of Lisbon, too eastern to squeeze on a North American map, and probably too far into the Atlantic to appear on a European one (even though the Azores is technically a Portuguese archipelago) — and four hours by plane from London. Until the early 15th century — when Portuguese families emigrated there with sheep and goats in tow — Sao Miguel was a Robinson Crusoe-type outpost. Early sailors en route to the New World used it as a stepping stone, but today its population is 140,000 — plus one cow to every person.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Online: an Industry Broken by Design and by Default
    EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS Targeted Online An industry broken by design and by default 2 Targeted Online: An industry broken by design and by default Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Booklet written by Laureline Lemoine, Ella Jakubowska, Andreea Belu and Diego Naranjo. Reviewed and edited by Sarah Chander, Chloé Berthelemy, Frederike Kaltheuner, Jan Penfrat and Gail Rego. This booklet was drafted based on the work of European Digital Rights’ members and other partners, and it would have been impossible without their thorough revisions, comments and edits: Access Now Europe Open Rights Group Panoptykon Foundation & Karolina Iwanska,´ Mozilla Fellow 2019-2020 Privacy International Norwegian Consumer Council Rigo Wenning Vrijschrift EDRi / European Digital Rights 3 “We don’t need to own everything. Using the data we already have, there is a good chance that we know you are moving, changing jobs, having a baby, getting married, etc. — and we can really help you with the queries that you should have asked but didn’t. We have a value proposition that nobody else has.” Internal email from Google, 20121 4 Targeted Online: An industry broken by design and by default ‘Ad tech’ is a catch- all term used to describe the industry of buying and selling the attention of internet users via targeted advertising or promoted content. 1 https://globaldatareview.com/ competitionantitrust/googles-early-data- strategy-revealed EDRi / European Digital Rights 5 Introduction This handbook is intended for curious internet users who want to understand the internet’s dominant business model, how tech companies use (and abuse) data, why some ads are eerily creepy and others so foolishly wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • ~ ... --- . -- Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-12
    DOCKET FILE COPY OR'G'NAl Federal Communicadons Commission FCC Nffif ~1-12 DOH Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington. D.C. 20554 200/ JAN 2'1 .4 1/: 53 In the Ma:ter of ) ) Applications for Consent to the Transfer of ) Control of Licenses and Section 214 ) CS Docket No. 00-30 r Authorizations by Time Warner Inc. and America ) - Online, Inc., Transferors, to AOL Time Warner ) Inc., Transferee ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 11.2001 Released: January 22. 200 I By the Commission: Chainnan Kennard and Commissioner Ness issuing separate statements; Commissioners Furchtgott-Roth and Powell concurring in part. dissenting in part, and issuing separate statements; Commissioner Tristani issuing a statement at a later date. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION I II. PUBUC INTEREST FRAMEWORK ]9 III. BACKGROllND 27 A. The Applicants 27 B. Other Proceedings Relevant to the Application to Transfer Licenses 47 C. The Merger Transaction and the Application to Transfer Licenses 50 IV. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL PUBUC INTEREST HARMS 52 A. High-Speed Internet Access Services 53 I. Background '" 62 ., Discussion 68 3. Conditions 126 B. Instant Messaging and Advanced 1M-Based High-Speed Services 127 I. Background 133 1. Discussion 145 3. Condition 190 -~ ..._---_._-- Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-12 C. Video Programming 200 1. Electronic Programming Guides 203 2. Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues 207 3. Cable Horizontal Ownership Rules 209 D. Interactive Television Services 215 1. Background ; 217 2. Discussion 233 E. Multichannel Video Programming Distribution 240_ I. Common Ownership ofDBS and Cable MVPDs 243 2. Program Access Issues 248 F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aol/Time Warner Merger: Competition and Consumer Choice in Broadband Internet Services and Technologies
    S. HRG. 106–1003 THE AOL/TIME WARNER MERGER: COMPETITION AND CONSUMER CHOICE IN BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGIES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 29, 2000 Serial No. J–106–66 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 72–845 WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 31-AUG-2001 07:16 Sep 08, 2001 Jkt 072845 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\B845.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B845 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 31-AUG-2001 07:16 Sep 08, 2001 Jkt 072845 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\B845.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B845 C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................ 5 Hatch, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Main Demand Side Platforms: Descriptions and Analyses
    Main Demand Side Platforms: descriptions and analyses Evgenia Afanasyeva Bachelor’s thesis March 2017 International Business Degree Programme in Business Administration Description Author(s) Type of publication Date Afanasyeva, Evgenia Bachelor’s thesis March 2017 Language of publication: English Number of pages Permission for web publi- 40 cation: x Title of publication Main Demand Side Platforms: descriptions and analyses Degree programme International Business Supervisor(s) Kujala, Irene Assigned by Pixelads Media Abstract The objective of the thesis is to suggest the most suitable demand-side-platform partners for the case company, Pixelads Media. The research task is to analyze the key features of demand-side-platforms: their interfaces, reporting, optimization capabilities, support teams’ efficiency and integration possibilities. In addition, short descriptions of the de- mand-side-platforms are provided. Desk research is implemented and secondary data is collected from reliable sources. This method is chosen as it is considered the only way to obtain reliable information about the topic before dealing with the companies. Feedback reviews are analyzed, and information concerning the needed features is extracted and transformed in a convenient form in or- der to see their strong and weak aspects. After this, a quantitative approach, descriptive statistics, is used in order to calculate the results in such a numerical way that would clear- ly present the outcome. The results show which demand-side-platforms have the largest set of features that were reviewed in a positive way. In addition, the results are summarized in a table presenting the strong and weak components of the platforms. The information collected in the study can be used when Pixelads Media wants choose which demand-side-platform they would like to cooperate with.
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. Marsha J. Pechman UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    Case 2:11-cv-00712-MJP Document 2 Filed 05/03/11 Page 1 of 35 1 Hon. Marsha J. Pechman 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 INTERVAL LICENSING LLC, Case No. C11-712 MJP 12 Plaintiff, LEAD CASE NO. C10-1385 MJP 13 v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT NETFLIX, INC., 15 JURY DEMAND 16 Defendant. 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 18 19 Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC, files this first amended complaint for patent 20 infringement against Defendants AOL, Inc., Apple, Inc., eBay, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google 21 Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., OfficeMax Inc., Staples, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and 22 YouTube, LLC. Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC alleges: 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. INFRINGEMENT 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Case No. C11-712 MJP Seattle, WA 98101-3000 Page 1 of 35 Tel: (206) 516-3880; Fax: (206) 516-3883 1544594v1/011873 Case 2:11-cv-00712-MJP Document 2 Filed 05/03/11 Page 2 of 35 THE PARTIES 1 2 1. Interval Licensing LLC (“Interval”) is a limited liability company duly 3 organized under the laws of the state of Washington, with its principal place of business at 4 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98104. 5 2. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant 6 7 AOL, Inc. (“AOL”) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state 8 of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 770 Broadway, New York, NY 10003.
    [Show full text]