I hope he pulled a Herb. Herb's posts about who can talk about what on the classicbattletech forums are legendary.

BlueMax

No, I did not tell freelancers to post defending CGL/IMR. I view freelancers as noble cheetahs on the savannah, running fast and free, meaning that any efforts to control them would likely be both futile and frustrating. Besides, they are individuals with their own opinions, and I don't feel comfortable dictating opinions to them just because I occasionally hire them for stuff. While the normal stuff about not sharing confidential material remains in place, I haven't (as far as I can recall) given further directives to the freelancers about communications. I view the PR stuff here as my responsibility.

Jason H.

Tara's just emailed me to confirm that the change of address is in place and now that I know she's aware of it, I consider this resolved.



Initially, back last May when I put in the change of address, I got the following automated email (personal information redacted with ####'s):

This was acompanied by a personal email from Troy explaining that their system doesn't allow the listed delivery address to be changed once the order had been placed, which is why the new address was added via the Order Comments section. (In fact, when I look my order up on Battleshop, it still lists the old address under the Delivery Address section at the top.)


The update email I had gotten from Tara was as follows:


Apparently, when these automated update emails get sent out, they only list what's been added to the Order Comments for that particular update, and not the entire Order Comments section, which is where the confusion came in.

I share a lot of your sentiment, but I'm trying to look at things from Topps perspective.

AH has a point about insolvency. It's a fact, either they are or they aren't. If they are insolvent, an audit will determine that eventually and the body will just keep shuffling along until the brain says it's dead. If they aren't insolvent now they will be if they don't get the license.

I just figure that right now Topps is interested in CGL being solvent. If CGL wants to flaunt that and leave LLC at the head of negotiations with Topps, that's up to them. It's a ballsy move, one in a million kinda thing, but Coleman is no hero. I can only speculate on the reasoning of those "titans of the gaming industry" who spoke to Randall. But there is someone on the other side of that negotiating table who needs to be representing the best interests of Topps, and I'll bet he isn't going to be impressed.

I haven't been following much for a few days, but I was wondering if there's been any changes or updates on books becoming available again?

Has anyone with access to the database seen any changes with regard to the Chapter 7 filing?

Topps has had some relatively recent experience with selling game properties with the selling of WizKids to NECA. Initially, BT/SR seemed to be part of the package, and what IMR put a bid in on, until Topps separated the licenses from the package. It's possible that Topps has a list of 'interested parties' from that initial offering, and would be inquiring with people on that list to see if they have an alternative to IMR.

Ultimately, I think Topps will be judging the situation based on a combination of what IMR owes them, whether IMR can demonstrate to them a workable plan to turn things around, and whether there is anyone else waiting in the wings to buy or license the properties. If there's no one else waving money around, I can easily see Topps granting IMR a soft renewal, conditional on stricter oversight and prompt payments. It would mean that things would continue to be touch-and-go for IMR for a while, but it's probably the best chance they'd get.

I agree. While I'd love to think that my beloved Shadowrun has any number of interested parties bargaining over the chance to pick up the license, I can't think of anyone who's come out and stated they have made an offer. Even when IMR was in talks to buy the IP outright, I don't recall hearing about anyone else who wanted it as well.

The problem isn't folks who are interested. The problem is folks who are interested and could possibly lay down the kind of money required for the license, let alone to start working on a new game line.

Interested without funds and ability to work don't count. If someone gave me the license and 10 skilled people came to me and told me how they would love to work on it full time without pay I doubt I could fund the printing....

Well, with the WizKids sale, I know of only two parties who openly bid: IMR and Pinata. Both sales of WK properties went to bidders who were less public, the first sale was going to be to someone setting up a new entity but that sale fell through and the second sale went to NECA, who didn't say anything about the purchase until Toy Fair.

It's pretty rare to come out publicly and say that you're trying to acquire a license or property. There are other companies looking to acquire the licenses -- I'd say at least a handful.

Sure, but now Topps knows that IMR has attempted to defraud them. People have run topps and communicated on the matter directly Plus secondary sources indicate that IMR has, infact, defrauded Topps in whole or in part for some royalty payments (e.g. if stock has been sold twice).

I prefer to stick to Tiger Eyes statements, because when she makes a personal attack on Coleman/Randall it's totally okay and no-one will call me a pure citation of her statement that she was asked by IMR to defraud Topps.

Awesome to hear. I appreciate the info.

StratOps...I'm looking at you for that last line.

Is it too much to hope Posthuman is one of them? Never mind don't answer that!

it's unlikely that posthuman has the kind of money needed to make a bid, unless they've got some investors we don't know about.

I'd rather Posthuman focused on their flagship product, Eclipse Phase, and put all their effort into making that as awesome a game as they can (and it indeed already is very awesome.) Shadowrun is in a bad place right now and I'd hate to see them taking time away from original IPs to clean up the mess that's being made of it.

The product "Shadowrun" is solid. Though that could be because a big part of the recent and future main releases (Vice and Corp Guide) still was mainly the work of Synner (Peter Taylor). The "mess" so far seems limited to the company that currently produces Shadowrun. There wouldn't be that much to "clean up" that mess.

The runner's companion is pretty crap.

Well, I'd say it needs a lot of "GM Customization", but it's not completely useless.

Okay, let me try that again. Compared to the much, much, much higher standard of quality of the core book and street magic, it is very poor.

I'd disagree here.

Topps cares about the continued profitability of it's intellectual property. It's under a legal obligation to it's shareholders to vigorously protect that profitability.

If, say, Mustache Twirling Publishers LLC (I refuse to use a real company for this example) decided to use the Shadowrun brand to, say, openly advocate Sedition of the real-world USA, or openly and actively advocates say racism in a real world setting, or details how to actually commit crimes in the real world for money, you can bet your sweet ass Topps would pull the license regardless of how much MTP LLC might be paying them.

Extreme, unrealistic example? Absolutely. But my point is there *is* a line there. I don't know where Topps draws that line, but at a certain point, they have a vested interest and a legal obligation to protect the reputation of Shadowrun and Battletech as IPs, since they will be around a lot longer than IMR or Catalyst.

If Topps has a choice between IMR and another entity willing to pay the license fees, and the other entity can say "we haven't shorted you on royalties, and we don't have a reputation that IMR has right now", then IMR is going to have it's work cut out for it.

Yeah.

That is such a great name for a company !!
Or even Twirling Moustache Publishing !!

I can see that, but from Topps perspective they weren't slighted by Coleman's actions. As a business entity that has a contract with another business entity, they are guaranteed certain royalties that have apparently not been delivered. The audit is to assess what those royalties are. They will then either expect a check from IMR, or take them to court to seek restitution.

Timing is everything here as the end of the contract is coming up in May. Topps doesn't care if Stalin is publishing Shadowrun, as long as they are getting their royalties. If they aren't, you won't see any statement of outrage; there will be lawyers and they will get the money.

This is the time for other companies to come in and make another offer. If Topps believes that IMR has a shot at meeting the financial requirements for retaining the license, Topps can use that to expect higher bids. If IMR is insolvent and basically a corpse at the bargaining table, Topps will want the appearance of IMRs solvency to raise any possible bids.

Looking at this from Topps perspective, I would guess we won't hear anything in May, and maybe not until after GenCon. They really don't have a reason to hurry, they know how much Shadowrun is worth and they will be getting a good chuck of money up front. I'm sure they want to make sure that IMR is in a position to pay their dues before Topps let's them off the hook. IMR or anyone else coming in will most likely have to show strong financial controls are in place as part of the new contract terms. And contracts aren't quick. Even a simple back and forth over a line can take weeks as lawyers on both sides review changes and reach an agreement. Frequently the legal teams never speak to each other, and the contract may never be in the room with both parties until they are ready to sign. Even then it may be handled remotely and simply mailed back and forth, or faxed if both parties agree. Whatever happen I'm less sure we'll get a resolution in May, but we'll most likely hear something.

Not being able to show at GenCon will hurt whoever is publishing Shadowrun this year, but there's always next year; Shadowrun is a strong enough brand that has been around a while. It will most likely be another six months or so before we see books. I'd estimate that as fast, but I'm pulling that number out of my ass. There are so many other factors that can effect this.

But you forget that it's not just the ability to pay that counts, it's also the willingness to be honest and to pay that plays a factor. If you have to possible offers, one from a company without a record of financial mismanagement and alleged withholding of royalities, and one that has such a record, you weigh that in. If you cannot trust your partner and have to exert more control over them that's costing you money and manpower.

Another thing is "payment history". In Switzerland we have an official "debtor" databank of sorts, which allows people to check if a prospective business partner has outstanding debts that people want collected by the government for them, or defaulted on debts and such. It also lists those "suits" who were not pursued to court, but paid off. Generally, it allows you to check if you are about to do business with someone broke or unwilling to pay his debts without being forced to. The idea is that you know you too may have trouble getting paid, and may reconsider doing business with them.

Freelancers having to withhold copyright to get paid, and others going to court does not look well for CGL/IMR from that point of view.

Now, in terms of not paying Topps (or future inability to pay), yeah, Topps will probably factor that in heavily. Honest book-keeping, yeah, definitely that as well. Not paying freelancers? Doubtful it'll have much impact on the decision making process at Topps. To be honest, it's just too small of an issue. I know that sounds harsh to freelancers, and it isn't meant to be. But you're effectively talking about sub-contractors here, and not a sub-contractor of the "other huge company" variety. License Holder doesn't much care what Licensee is doing with their sub-contractors, so long as they are getting their checks.

I have to take issue with that comment. Mostly with the generalized and ambiguous nature of it.

In general terms, this statement is not true. License Holder can get in a lot of legal hot water for what Licensee does with or to sub-contractors if it violates a country's (or even a city's) laws. For instance, if MTP LLC subcontracts out people to put a hit on a rival publishing company and there's any sign that the License Holder knew or approved of it, even circumstantial evidence, License Holder will be in deep do-do. Better yet, let's apply that to money laundering which is a more realistic example.

Though in this case, the case of Topps & CGL, you're probably correct.

It does give some sort of gauge for the partner to judge their chances of being paid off though. If the partner can't pay small debts, then the chances of them paying off the larger ones is lower.

It'd also be more of an issue for Topps because whether those payments are made ties into copyright on the content, which Topps is supposed to own. Topps could demand that IMR pay off freelancers first because ultimately the content might be considered more valuable than any licensing fees. The last thing Topps would want is to have another company take over the license, print material that IMR did not properly secure or pay for, and start some sort of legal wrangle.

I suppose that's another possible outcome. Topps could demand oversight to make sure the freelancers are paid and once the existing content is secured, pull the license in favor of another company.

I do think that if IMR manages to keep one or both licenses, it will not be an X year contract, and will have options for Topps to intervene or pull the contract.

Well, I was going for brief, not defending in front of the court. But you're right. It's definitely overly generalized. I still think it applies in this particular case, but that's only opinion.

Possibly. Or it could simply be that they are choosing not to pay smaller debts, so they can actually pay the bigger "more important" ones, ala royalties/license fees. I'm not saying it's necessarily the best decision to be made, but I really wouldn't know. I don't have all the facts there, in terms of which debt is outstanding longer, higher balance, which has the greater direct impact, etc.

This is definitely a good point. It's going to vary company to company a great deal, but the point still stands. I don't know enough about Topps to guess, but I can certainly think of some companies out there who focus more on the money side than the honesty side, and vice versa. I think it's fair to say that there are also companies on the other end though, that focus more on the fact that "Yeah, they didn't pay us what they should, but they are now. And this other group has never made any money for us. These folks have made us money. Stick with them." Whether that's a wise way to focus things or not, I'll leave up to the business-minded folks to discuss.

From the perspective of the bidders, pointing out the problems at IMR would be calling Topps buff if they were treating IMR as a viable bidder. At least, it would if all cards were on the table (to stretch a metaphor).

The issues at IMR are, I'm sure, well known to Topps; and most likely well known to any other bidder because of the insular nature of the industry. However they aren't yet a matter of public record outside of the attempt to push them into Chapter 7. That might be the only wedge a bidder has to come in with low ball offer. Unless Topps really thinks that IMR will right itself, or they are willing to chip in to help, a bidder has a much better chance engaging Topps on a level that maintains IMR as a solvent bidder. It would be foolish to assume that Topps will be willing to hand the license off for a song just to replace IMR.

Not unless IMR completely collapses in the next week or two. Like; Coleman and Bills incommunicado and all management functions shut down, collapsed. So sort of like now, but even more so.

Here D&B do that. You query their DUNS.

I don't think I'd like to see that. CGL will know before anyone else does whether they are viable or not. If they have a three month window then what would be their (Loren's) motivation? They are in financial trouble so their aim is to make as much revenue as fast as possible. We know that they're having to re-do upcoming books. If they've got a three month window in which to operate their course is to push this stuff out as fast as possible whilst they're still allowed in order to make money / prove profitability. End result of a company in trouble with three month reprieve: rushed, probably inferior work.

Management companies can be replaced, but a bit of stupid metaplot or bad stupid inconsistent setting material, is with us for a long time.

K.

What, you don't want Lone Star cops riding unicorns in your books?

Quick question: What books were supposed to be pulled from the market but still ended up in in some stores?

Is.

Not.

Funny.

*grinds teeth*

K.

@Tsuul: To the best of my knowledge, only a few books had already been released and had payment issues. I believe these to be the 2 SOTA modules, Vice, and Running Wild. Supposedly, all of the writers have since been paid and the selling freeze on them will be removed presently. All of these books will be maintaining their current form. (According to JM Hardy, who seems like he's pretty on the ball)

If I'm wrong on that list, or something is actually changing, feel free to correct me.

Seattle 2072 was also on that list (and it's the DotA books--no SOTA books at the moment!). And yes, those books should be moving soon (I know I've said that before, but some checks had a long way to travel, and we have to wait for them to clear, etc.), and nothing had to be rewritten for them.

Jason H.

Actually -- if Licensee isn't paying the people creating the content, the copyright for that content is not the Licensees to transfer to the Licensor, and that creates a problem, both in terms of the Licensor knowing exactly what it owns, and in terms of a plain-and-simple contract violation between Licensee and Licensor.

Such an issue could create situations much like the "Unseen" in BattleTech, where some books/sections of books cannot be referenced as they aren't actually owned by the Licensor.

Does a generic Licensor specifically care about the freelancers? No, probably not, but they care about their property not becoming encumbered with loopholes and just-plain-holes.

Thank you for the quick replies and updates CollateralDynamo and JM Hardy.

QFT. Talking about Barsaive at War is about the only way to start an edition war on Earthdawn.com.

Got a notification my Dota Midnight is being prepped for shipping and should be here by 2nd or 3rd. Been waiting long, now for rest of the em!

Me neither, I merely postulated it as a possibility.

I was going to use changelings as an example, but I figured there could theoretically be people around that liked their arrival in Shadowrun.

Maybe.

K.

Lets not open the gateway for other flamewars. I say this because I was half tempted to list my complaints.

BlueMax
/only half tempted

Well I did put in smilies to show humour. Perhaps we're better off sticking with the (hopefully) hypothetical unicorn-mounting Lone Star officer.

I still think that would be wicked if it was the blood drinking, flesh eating Pre-Scourge variant from Earthdawn. Nothing would scare the punks straighter than having a unicorn eat their friend's face off.