Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums :: Sound choice Had to Pay

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

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

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

Insane KJ wrote:

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

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

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

APS agrees to indemnify and hold Client harmless from all liabilities, losses, and expenses, including reasonable counsel fees, Client may suffer as a result of claims, demands, actions or judgments against Client arising as a result of the negligent acts or willful misconduct of APS, it's agents or employees

except that APS shall have no liability to Client under this sentence to the extent that any act or omission of APS, its agents or employees was caused by or resulted from any inaccuracy or inaccuracies in, or any omission or omissions from information furnished APS by Client

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.

$375,000 is one hell of a <span style=font-size:10px><i>(@$%&#!)</i></span> "Slep" but leave it up to a lawyer to paint it as an agreement and not a loss.

Author:	MIKE D [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:19 am ]
Post subject:	Sound choice Had to Pay
The lawsuit finally settled on December 11, 2013 with CAVS receiving $375,000 payment

Author:	The Lone Ranger [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
MIKE D wrote: 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.

Author:	johnreynolds [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
MIKE D wrote: The lawsuit finally settled on December 11, 2013 with CAVS receiving $375,000 payment That's ALL?? Chump Change I declare!! SC really marred CAV's reputation with some pretty disturbing imaging and ads....

Author:	chrisavis [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
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

Author:	chrisavis [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
http://cts.vresp.com/c/?CAVSUSAINC/987f ... 16adf3610e -Chris

Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/

Sound choice Had to Pay https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29357	Page 1 of 9

Author:	timberlea [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
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.

Author:	Insane KJ [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
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!

Author:	BruceFan4Life [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
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

Author:	Insane KJ [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
Insane KJ wrote: I'm not sure, but I believe Steve Brophy was the one who wrote, & sent, that email originally. I believe this is the document that APS & Associates / Steve Brophy distributed. http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/09/18/t ... stigation/

Author:	earthling12357 [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
BruceFan4Life wrote: This decision came down over a month ago and Mr. Harrington never mentioned it. Hmmmmm 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?

Author:	JimHarrington [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
BruceFan4Life wrote: This decision came down over a month ago and Mr. Harrington never mentioned it. Hmmmmm 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.

Author:	MIKE D [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
you said It wasn't a "decision." It was a voluntary settlement agreement if sound choice did nothing wrong why pay ????

Author:	toqer [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to 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.

Author:	BruceFan4Life [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
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.

Author:	JoeChartreuse [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
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...

Page 1 of 9	All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	leopard lizard [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
CAVS initially asked for 16 million in damages so they came down a bit. Sometimes people decide it is cheaper to settle than fight.

Author:	earthling12357 [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
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.

Author:	timberlea [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
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.

Author:	JimHarrington [ Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sound choice Had to Pay
BruceFan4Life wrote: 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. $375,000 is one hell of a <span style=font-size:10px><i>(@$%&#!)</i></span> "Slep" but leave it up to a lawyer to paint it as an agreement and not a loss. 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.