Karaoke Forums

The lawsuit finally settled on December 11, 2013 with CAVS receiving $375,000 payment

While it is interesting to know that the pending lawsuit was settled is there more information concerning the details, rather than the dollar amount agreed to by both parties? When CB was ordered to pay CAVS they simply went into foreclosure to avoid paying a court award. The question is will SC do the same thing, and then morph into a group of companies still trying to make product, and press the legal process? The example has been set and it would seem a further erosion of the morale high ground for SC. I still would like to see more details if they are available.

That's ALL?? Chump Change I declare!!

SC really marred CAV's reputation with some pretty disturbing imaging and ads....

It would appear from the settlement document that CAVS sent out to email recipients that the settlement has already been paid.

This may upset you Lone Ranger, but Sound Choice is still in business.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

http://cts.vresp.com/c/?CAVSUSAINC/987f ... 16adf3610e

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

LR, I'm not sure what detail you are looking for but the contention was phrasing by SC as they had said in their e-mail "illegal CAV machines". Had they said "CAV machine containing illegal SC material", they would have been safe. This is why one must be careful when writing. A dropped word, failure of clarification, etc can cause trouble for you whether you intended or not.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yes timberlea, the wording could have been different which would have avoided the issue.

I'm not sure, but I believe Steve Brophy was the one who wrote, & sent, that email originally.

Again, I am not sure, but I recollect that he was involved.

On another note, my opinion is that CAVS machines suck!

_________________
-- Mark

Shouldn't be long now before we see a new company called The Karaoke Shroud.

This decision came down over a month ago and Mr. Harrington never mentioned it. Hmmmmm

I believe this is the document that APS & Associates / Steve Brophy distributed.

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/09/18/t ... stigation/

_________________
-- Mark

The settlement includes a non-disparagement clause that restricts the parties and their attorneys from speaking ill of the other parties.
Would you expect him to have anything nice to say?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

It wasn't a "decision." It was a voluntary settlement agreement. It carried no admission of liability, and the retraction is, to the letter, exactly the same wording we offered early in the suit.

You might have noticed that I tend not to make announcements on this board. I respond to specific questions and comments. That is what I said in the beginning that I would do. There have been numerous developments in other cases that I have not publicized as well, and this case is no different.

you said
It wasn't a "decision." It was a voluntary settlement agreement
if sound choice did nothing wrong why pay ????

I'm sort of amazed how much peoples opinions have changed. I can remember a few of the responders on this thread saying CAVS machines are illegal as well.

The "DECISION" to settle was made over a month ago. When Sound Choice has a good day in court, the cheerleaders can't post about it quickly enough. When Kurt has to shell out $375,000, these same people are as quiet as a bunch of church mice.

$375,000 is one hell of a (@$%&#!) "Slep" but leave it up to a lawyer to paint it as an agreement and not a loss.

It seems you are trying to make it look like Sound Choice was simply a victim of APS & Associates and their wild west ways.
If that were the case, certainly the defense team at Sound Choice would have brought APS into the mix as a third party defendant. After all, Sound Choice protected themselves from that type of thing in their contract with APS in section 7.
Indemnity
Perhaps the reason APS did not get the blame has something to do with the rest of the Indemnity clause:


Of course if it were the APS letters on APS letterhead that was the concern from the beginning, I would have expected CAVS to have listed APS as a defendant from the beginning.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

CAVS initially asked for 16 million in damages so they came down a bit. Sometimes people decide it is cheaper to settle than fight.

And when Sound Choice sues a KJ they initially list millions in damages in hopes of settling for a $5000 purchase of discs.
Fear is a real motivator.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

What people don't seem to understand is that most cases are settled out of court. It is in fact the norm in most cases. It is not nefarious, it is not duress, but a way to conclude contentious business. In a lot of cases the two entities involved will continue to do business with each other.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I don't think it is any secret that this was covered by insurance. Kurt didn't have to "shell out" anything, so if that's your criterion, yes, it was an agreement, not a loss.

One big one down ( and I mean WAY down from 15+ million) and one to go.

Just a matter of finding out if EMI is in a "settling mood" or a "make an example" mood. I know that they have been in litigation with SC before, but things can change, especially with little birds whispering in EMI's ear about policy changes.

Let's see what happens...

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."