If CGL retains the license, I believe it will be because the Topps employees handling the license renewal made the cold-blooded financial decision that the difficulties a new license holder might have in purchasing the existing SR4 material and getting new material published in a timely fashion would cost them more in lost revenue than any potential future malfeasance on the part of IMR. Assuming that IMR/CGL doesn't just collapse under the weight of previous corruption, the Topps personnel responsible for making the decision may be reasoning that a publicly chastened IMR is less likely to try to cheat them in future.

Besides, maybe much of it really was a complete lack of proper bookkeeping and a rather self-righteous but ultimatly not really malevolent LLC.

You are risking re-igniting the debate about whether the money was his, as majority owner, to do with as he pleased. None of us knows the details of their LLC management contract, if they even had one. If what LLC did in removing that much money from IMR's coffers was not "malevolent" then we are left with "phenomenally short-sighted" and "total disregard for the fiscal health of his company." Is that any better than malevolent? At least malevolent implies some competence.

Edit: Gah, it's annoying that Coleman's initials are the same as 'limited liability company.'

You'll never get your Cult of Frank membership card now.

I'm all tears and shudders.


Neither much better nor worse, but far more plausible. He is a game designer, not a business school graduate.

I maintain, that it is always a good idea to not see a conspiracy behind events which can be explained by any combination of ignorance, lazyness and stupidity.

This is Occam's Razor. Given a set of possible causations, that which is simplest is also most likely to be true.

Or it's just down to timing and Mr. Bills wording the statement to mention Topps. He certainly wants us to think that IMR is in Topps good graces. I'm wondering at this point if that has any basis or if it's simply his desire for us to assume that. Same situation as the logo thing a week or so ago. Topps requested that the Wizkids logo be removed and replaced with Topps, ok. Could be a show of support, could just be a formality someone noticed while they evaluated IMR's resources. I know what I'm inclined to believe.

Or flexing muscles to show off who's the boss. In three days' time we'll know for sure.

…and greed.

Certainly, but that depends on the business, really.

Since this is not an industry that habitually pools sociopaths and puts them on cocaine, greed actually is, I think, secondary, like with many garage industries (compare Silicon Valley). Not to say it'S impossible, but I'm still more convinced this is a case of lazy book keeping, ignoance of good business practice, and the idea he may draw from the company as he needs since he invested in it back in the day, not having any idea how much he screws with the operations of the company that way because the books were kept lazily.

But either is pure conjecture.

I just find this so hard to believe with all the other issues that sprang from it, i.e. the loss of so many freelancers and in house workers. I just find it hard to believe that the people who left left just because, especially since we know that they love the source material as much as they do.

Did I miss anything?

Funny thing about assumptions - we've all assumed that the license ends the same day the extension was announced. That may be true, but it may not be. What if the license actually lapses June 1, July 4 or something equally arbitrary that's not in three days and the extension was announced when a deal was reached rather than on the actual renewal date? I don't think anyone has actually confirmed the day the license dies. Mid-May is a weird time for something like this to come due; month's end or something tied to a fiscal quarter may be more likely?

I appreciate you mentioning this--everything I'm hearing indicates the license expires at the end of the month, not Saturday.

Jason H.

Well, CGL lost the license and it was quickly snapped up by the Trollman-Coleman Company which is planning to release Shadowrun 6 come GenCon. In a switch, the characters will now be hunting down shadowrunners, primarily on unicorn steeds.

Darn, and I missed it. Oh dwell.

So he should have not mentioned the license holder? I don't see how mentioning Topps one or the other makes a difference. They'll be mentioned either way. They're the license holder.

Edit: Nice ninja edit, Ancient.

Twirling Moustache Studios?


Why should Topps give a damn about what IMR's infantry likes and dislikes? They care about whether IMR can make them money. If they do this by printing their books in colors made from ground up kittens, they could care less so long as the bottom line is met.

Why mention the license owner at all? By having the license, the holder is authorized to publish books and act in the owners stead to promote and advance the properties. Topps hasn't gotten too many mentions before. Hell, they weren't even on the main website until recently. But now that the license and it's future is forefront in everyone's mind we see Randall name dropping Topps? It might just be a formality, or sucking up, but for my money it's just Mr. Bills hoping that people get the impression that IMR and Topps are business partners in good standing. Takes the mind away from the mass exodus of talent, lack of product and forced audit following allegations of embezzlement and mismanagement.

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven

And Topps is also mentioned at the bottom of a lot of other news posts in the whole little legal ramble at the bottom. So they're certainly mentioned just about every time the license was mentioned in press releases going back to 2008. That's not a recent development. All that being said, do I think the most recent news entry is meant to give a particular impression to the reader? Yes, you're spot on with that, and I don't disagree. I think it's meant to give hints of positive news for CGL, in regards to the license renewal. Do I think it's some kind of lie or mistruth that Randall is trying to insert CGL into an agreement they have no hand in? No, I don't. The press release seems pretty clear. The license is between Lone Wolf and CGL, hence a sub-license. Topps approved it. I don't see any reason Topps would approve such a sub-license, if they weren't renewing the license. Could Randall be lying about it or misrepresenting it? Surely could. But I'd guess that Lone Wolf would probably mention so, if that were the case. I'd think it's fair to guess that CGL probably did most of the legwork of making this happen, along with Lone Wolf. I don't believe Topps would be out there actively pursuing licenses, when they can simply sit back and let other make the money for them. So until there's information to the contrary, I don't really see anything that would indicate a need to assume there's lies or mistruth in the press release. Sure, the press release is going to be positively spun for the company. That's sort of the point of public relations and press releases. Get information out there, with a positive spin for the company. To me that just seems like normal business operations, in terms of this specific press release.

For the rest of your post? Well, that's personal opinion, and more than valid. I might not agree with it all, but I certainly understand it. I just think that there's a bit too much being read into this particular press release. It doesn't confirm the license renewal (regardless of whether I think it hints at that) and it doesn't "name-drop" any more than other press releases related to the license or changes regarding the license. It just gives the info, while hopefully giving the public what it considers good news regarding the company. I don't see a conspiracy here. Just normal infotainment.

That's three years. Most communications I recall from CGL didn't mention Topps. You are correct though that issues of the license between IMR and Topps included mention of Topps. But there were quite a few people coming here when this broke asking about why the baseball card people were involved in Shadowrun.

As to the section above I bolded, I have a reason. Topps approved the license because it's good for the line. Not IMR necessarily, but the Shadowrun line is benefited by the license. It's also something that has been in the works for years, and stopping it now would have been foolish. Looking at it that way, the wording is either unintentionally misleading; or Mr. Bills is a clever guy and left it mildly ambiguous. I tend to believe that Mr. Bills is a clever guy, and that IMR is being careful with their press releases, so I tend to think he knew the implications of his wording. Full disclosure: I am a suspicious bastard.

I know what you want this to look like, but ask yourself this. If IMR had the license renewal in the bag, why would they need to hint at it? Why would they want to? Just breath a sigh of relief, give it a few days and announce it. Being secure in your position means not having to show it. PR flexing is a sign that you don't feel things are as secure as you'd like. Insecurity and it's little tells work for companies as well as people.

More than likely things are still up in the air and this points to an ongoing effort to keep it in our minds, to hint to us. It's not a conspiracy, it's spin. There isn't even anything wrong with it, necessarily. You're right that it's infotainment, someone is telling you a story. It's just that my suspension of disbelief is shot and I keep seeing the zippers.

Agreed. And I should make that a bit more clear. I don't know whether it hints at the license renewal. But I think it certainly hints at the fact that Topps hasn't denied the license to CGL. That things are still up in the air. It would be really foolish on Topps part to NOT stop this license between CGL and Lone Wolf, if CGL isn't retaining the SR license and Topps has already made that decision. Again, until there's more information, the license is claimed to be between CGL and Lone Wolf. So it's good for the line, only if it transfers. I have no idea if it does. So, more accurately, not really positive just more "wait and see."



No, you don't. Because I don't know what I want this to look like. I have yet to decide how this impacts my future as a CGL customer, and I've been a big consumer of their products. I'm still pretty up in the air on how I feel about it and how I want to see things, so I'm pretty confident you don't know how I want to see them, and hence how I want them to look.

Again, in terms of the rest, I can definitely understand why you'd feel that way, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. In fact, the longer this goes on, the more I tend to fall on the side of some pretty negative thinking towards CGL. There's a whole lot of points in this whole mess that some quick application of honesty and transparency would have made a big difference in public reaction. CGL has largely failed in that regard, and I think that's a big discredit to the fanbase. They're certainly under no obligation to, but my personal interactions with some of the folks involved with the company led to me mistakenly assume better of them. I think my point, which should have been made clearer from the get go, is that this really isn't doom and gloom or positive yet. It's got some hints that could be interpreted a lot of different ways. I guess we'll see which interpretations were right down the road.

To be fair, I certainly think your interpretations are solidly backed in most respects. But without some more information, it still really just seems like more "wait and see" news to me.

I'll disagree, Traditionally the RPG industry has had a high percentage of coke heads, much more so than the average population but less than people in the "art" industry (movies, music, etc) granted when the stories leaked of yet another coke head it was the 80s. But I think there is still significant drug use in the RPG market because writers and artists tend to use more drugs than accountants. Its just more acceptable among their peers to smoke a little weed and what not. My experience with small companies would say greed is no more or less prevalent in the employees and owners. People will steal pens anywhere or write off their car on the company when possible or sell out without giving anything to the people whos backs the company was built on. Thats not to say there are not plently of good owners and employees but I don't think small company in anyway makes people less greedy. I new guitar shops that were honest and help you get the best deal and I knew those that were ripping people off. I've known owners who gave up shares of their stock to the employees when they sold the buisness and I have known owners who took their money and ran while the employees got pink slips.

You're right, sorry for assuming. It looks like we can both look forward to more waiting and seeing. At least the seeing will be relatively soon.

Yes, weed, but coke is more of an uppermanagement kind of thing?


Yes, but I see the gaming industry as being primarily carried by people with convictions and ideas and artistic spirit rather than the intent of making money first and foremost, more like silicon valley companies (used to) work. Of course, there is massive hipocrisy in especially this industry about ideals and never being evil, now. But my point is, the games industry was founded primarily by enthusiasts and artists, not businesspeople. Among such a crowd, business decisions are hardly 100% professional.

Neither one of these stereotypes is an accurate reflection of the reality of drug abuse. Cocaine is abused by a whole lot of people, from all walks of life. Sorry to nitpick, but the former addict in me has to object.

Crack isn't. It has some bad connotations, but for a majority of users it works just as well. Add in that it simulates the effects of some ADHD and anti-depressant medications and you end up with people self medicating with a substance that really does help them function better. You might be surprised by how many normal every day individuals have a pipe on them.

Edit: Ah, I just noticed that my statement sounded kinda like it came from your friendly local drug dealer.

I should note that my observation comes from a job that puts me in view of many situations where people are in the final stages of their addictions destroying their lives. People who don't have anyone to turn to. I get a lot of insight into the decisions that brought them to that stage and that has illuminated for me the reasons why it happens. The stuff that we didn't get when the cartoon animals told us not to do drugs.

I don't condone the use of drugs, aside from those that have been found to have a real medicinal benefit and only then under the direction of an accredited medical professional. And to those people who have faced this problem in your lives and continue to stay on top of it each day, I commend you. I hope I would be so strong in your circumstances.

Just when I thought we couldn't make this whole line of discussion more depressing....

What's happened about the Chapter 7 bankruptsy? It seems to have fallen off the radar.

Lawyers are involved with all their lawyer-talk and lawyer-timelines.

I'm checking for updates on PACER. When I know, you know.

Still no word yet. The filing deadline was Tuesday. Does anyone know if that deadline has anything to do with when the court will actually review the filing? Or was that date just a due date for IMR's end of the proceedings?

I think people are a little over sensitive to licensing related stuff at the moment because of the looming question of renewal.

Topps ordered IMR to replace the WizKids copyright notice because they no longer own WizKids, a different company does.

If you look at just about any BT/SR sublicense prior to the WK sale, the WizKids brand was on everything because they're the ultimate license holder. Since their branding is going to be attached, they probably get final approval.

I could very easily imagine the same press release being written under better circumstances and no one really taking notice of the 'Topps approved this license' part.

I agree that neither really shows that Topps definitely plans to go with IMR. I think both Heavy Metal Pro and Iron Wind originally sub-licensed with Fanpro around. There could even be clauses in place so that if another company got the license and wanted to take over those sub-licenses, it would be possible.

Are you Loren L. Coleman, Randall Bills, or Catalysts' attorney? Do you receive IMR's mail? No? Ok, then you don't know what's due, when, or whether it's late. The movants' attorneys served by mail, both regular and certified. In most jurisdictions, the response clock doesn't start running until a party actually receives service physically. If mail is returned as undeliverable, for example, the service failed and you try again with a process server or sheriff's service. As with everything else at issue here, whatever happens is going to happen when it happens. Jason's indicated that IMR has a bankruptcy attorney working on a response. Failing to file on time would probably be malpractice on his part, so we should assume we're going to see something. Probably sooner rather than later. AH is checking PACER, as are others. We'll know when the response is docketed.

As for the deadline, that's when IMR's answer is due. What happens next will depend on what's in the answer and what IMR asks for - if they make cross claims, ask to be moved to a different chapter, ask for dismissal, etc. will impact both what the next step actually is and the timetable.

Yes, actually. I am and do.




Just kidding. No, I'm not.

But the official court records show that the notice was served on April 20th and the notice that was served indicated 21 days from date served, which was this past Tuesday.

So, I only know what the court knows.

And I didn't say or imply that IMR's response was late. It's much more likely that it won't go into the system until it's processed, which could be well after the due date. It could also be that the court's comptuer system is backlogged or otherwise slow to update.

It's possible I'm misreading the docket entry, which is publicly available...



Now does this entry indicate that the proof of service was entered on 4/20, or is it saying that the summons was issued on 4/20 and they expect proof of service by 5/4?

If it's the later, then there certainly could be more time on the clock.

However, the blog/news post on 4/21 also implies that they had been served by that time...


So, it seems pretty likely to me that they were served on 4/20 or 4/21, which would have put the deadline this week.

I'm not saying IMR hasn't responded officially. I'm just saying that there should be some sort of update on it real soon.

You said, unequivocally, "[t]he filing deadline was Tuesday." A missed deadline = a late filing. I only looked at the documents and not the history, so I'd not noticed the "by 5/4" bit before. PACER isn't in front of me at the moment, but I'm reasonably certain that's the date by which the moving parties were supposed to demonstrate that the mail service was effectuated. USPS gives you a nice return slip when you send something certified mail and someone actually signs for it. Submitting that would prove that the package got to IMR and satisfy the court that the mail service worked. Without that, the court has no idea that IMR was actually served.

IMR's awareness, anecdotally, of the suit and its receipt of service aren't related. I'd think Wildfire and the others repeatedly told them that they needed to settle up or they were going to resort to bankruptcy. I'd suspect they told IMR as a courtesy before filing. We know IMR would have, at the very least, heard it from Jason after it was posted here. But none of that really matters - physical delivery of the court's responsive demand to an appropriate party is what's important.

Okay, so the earliest possible filing deadline was Tuesday.

What I said still doesn't relate to any sort of claim that they missed anything.

Presuming the court's 5/4 deadline was satisfied, it's possible that they could have been served any time up to just before then, so the deadline could be as late as prior to 5/25.

Less than two weeks, but I guess it's going to be a long two weeks.


As a total aside, I once worked at a pack and ship store with private mail box service. You'd get people thinking they could get away with all sort of sleazy stuff there using the PMBs. Part of the whole point of the PMB service is that they'll sign for any packages or letters that arrive and require confirmation. So you'll have people thinking they can avoid a summons that arrives by registered mail because THEY didn't sign for it. However, it WAS signed for by whoever was on duty at the store when it arrived. So getting the PMB only assures that they'll be seen by the court as having been served. You'd get the occasional customer who would want us to not sign for stuff, but there was no way to guarantee that it wouldn't be signed for.

It's funny how people think that it creates some sort of legal firewall for them. Every box rental requires a contract that clearly lays out what the shop is allowed to do and isn't liable for, and if they don't like any part of that contract, they're simply not getting a box rental. You'd even get people who want to rent a box but don't want to leave any contact information. Not going to happen. It can be used to create a layer between the renter and the public, but the shop is going to do everything in its power to make sure that the rental is used safely and legally, and insulate itself from any crazy complaints that come from the customer's own misdeeds.

Not sure if your including my post to but I felt the need to clarify I was more talking about when I worked at a recording studio if I said I was going to go shoot some Heroin no one would have cared (and possibly even joined me, there was a lot of open drug use at the studio) where as when I was working at Office Max my co-workers may have been accepting of weed but I think the mention of Heroin would have got a lot of looks and possibly loose my job. This is all academic though as I have never been a drug user. So while there are some people who abuse drugs in all walks of life, some career paths are more accepting of open drug use than others.

I am not a lawyer, but I know quite a few of them. My understanding of the deadline is that is the date IMR's rebuttal / filing was due into the court. Now the paperwork is processed, the lawyers find seconds and pull their sabers, figure out that dueling is actually illegal in the U.S., go back to the court system in which a judge sets a date for an initial hearing on the process while holding everyone present in contempt so he can go back to his golf game.

Depending on jurisdiction, the initial hearing determines whether or not there really is a case that justifies a whole proceeding or a dismissal. Then lots of legal things happen in which there isn't really a trial by Mattlock standards, but a series of small hearings (quite probably) until everyone gets sick of the mess and someone caves. Whether it's one of the sides of the case or the judge himself.

Aside from the humorous cracks, I'm pretty sure that's how everything will play out. Chances are, we won't know anything about a hearing date for another month or two unless someone pushes for an emergency judgment.

Oh, and CGL could have filed for an extension before the filing due date. And if it was approved, they'd have longer to actually send in their rebuttal to the case.

The RPG industry?? Huh, what, huh?

Not that I've ever heard of and I come from a theatre background as well as a writing background.

But then, I don't live in Hollywood, "the land of nose candy."

I thought that might be a possibility. There was talk a few days ago that IMR no longer had a lawyer listed, though I'm not sure where that information came from. The indications seemed to be, based on Jason's response, that IMR got themselves a lawyer who's area of law is bankruptcy. I'd think the first thing he'd likely do in that situation would be to file for some sort of extension so that he's got a full 21 days to prep.

I think I got spoiled by the initial dockets, since they were the first sort of third party non-hearsay proof of what's going on, aside from freelancers who have let us know about being owed or paid. I want to know more! More legal filings please!

Aside: Wager of Battle.

Damn, why have they not handled this on Law and Order? Or is that going to be the series finale?

Also, that short story is hilarious.

If the court receives and grants a motion to extend time to file, we should see it in PACER. Nothing to that effect when I last looked, but I checked well before COB.

Thank you!

::begins statting his first attorney-at-law PC::

Man, if I ever need to go to court, I'm demanding a Trial by Battle

Any word from anybody who has been looking into PACER?
I was expecting some info on that by now.

Long time Lurker, first time poster....

Rojo

Frank Trollman says there was a response, but has no details as to what it was or if it has any bearing on the time table.

Honestly the bankruptcy filing may end up being a red herring as far as SR news goes. The way I understand it things could get drawn out to well after the license deadline. But I've never been accused of lawyering, I'm sure someone else can speak with more authority than me on that subject.

appearantly, an inside source got a bit too drunk and basically confirmed about 90% of what Frank has said and calculated. It's the last 10% that could be important though . .

The bankruptcy can become OBE. If CGL keeps the license, and they make a crap load of money to pay off all debts, and they restructure to show they are a "going concern", and that the problems can not happen in the future, and they solve the Loren L Colman money issues, and they basically fix all their problems by the time they actually GET to the bankruptcy judge, then it could be dismissed since there no longer is a case.

That is my read on how it could go and based on a general read of the law (IANAL) and some experiences with this type of stuff.

-M&P