Given what I do for a living, yes, I really am that paranoid about certain entities.

-M&P

For ease of reference, these are today's documents from PACER:

1. Motion For Entry Of Order For Relief In Involuntary Proceeding (requested on Shortened Time)
2. Declaration of Diana K. Carey in Support of Motion for Entry of Order for Relief in Involuntary Proceeding
3. Motion to Shorten Time to hear the Motion For Entry Of Order For Relief In Involuntary Proceeding (Requested hearing set for Friday, May 21, 2010 @9:30 a.m.)
4. Ex Parte Received UNSIGNED Order
5. Objection
6. Declaration
7. Another UNSIGNED Order

I would be surprised if the court bounces this; missing a filing deadline is a move that is guaranteed to bring a malpractice suit. Judging by Mr. Santucci's Wa State Bar number, he's been doing this for a while.

edit: I hate civil law!

Did you forget what the main topic of the board is?

Granted that years of engineering school have eroded my ability to do basic math, but there's a receipt on PACER that shows the debtor's attorney mailed the summons on April 19th and IMR received the summons on April 22nd. I count 21 days from the 22nd as May 12th - last Wednesday. Now, I don't think IMR's new lawyer was hired until last Thursday, but the math still doesn't make sense to me.

If I am reading the #2 correctly, the letters were taken on April 22 10. Would that not mean that someone had them on that date, not that they were in the mailbox? I am thinking that twenty-one days later would be a Thursday, but if I am reading these rightly, it says the deadline was a weekend.

I think there was a changing above in Octopii. There was a mailbox rule listed.

I think it's interesting that the petitioners want to move the hearing forward to Friday the 21st and are loath to wait until June 18th.

Interesting in that it implies that they have a vested interest in seeing IMR/CGL put into Chapter 7 prior to the expiration of the license. Ergo, putting them in a position that would kick the last nail into any effort for them to retain the license.

Methinks they want the license(s).

But like I said, it's just business, nothing more. Nothing less.

Clutch

The mailbox rule is for contracts, not for filing. I went into crime... er, criminal law, for a reason.

I wouldn't be too quick to ascribe interests on the part of the parties based on what their attorneys file. The attorney's job is to win, so they'll go for every loophole they can imagine and conceivably argue with a straight face.

Alternatively, they may be operating under the good faith belief that IMR is losing the license, therefore it is imperative that they act now before the company loses any value worth going after. Kind of like how Washington Mutual (the holding company) now has no assets after the government seized their banking business.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure's time computation rule includes a three day extension in the event that service is by mail. FRBP 9006(f) provides, in part, "[w]hen there is a right or requirement to act or undertake some proceedings within a prescribed period after service and that service is by mail . . . three days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire . . . ." I don't know what the local rules in Washington provide for, but it appears that someone didn't calculate the deadline correctly. Either the petitioners failed to account for the extension or IMR's counsel failed to check the local rules and assumed they got an extension that they actually didn't. Someone's going to have egg on the face.

Can someone bring me up to date on this thing? 1) why is this in bankruptcy court? 2) who is wildfire LLC?

Wildfire LLC are the creators of CthulhuTech (CGL/IMR was only the publisher).

Is there any reason why CGL would deliberately miss the deadline. E.g. It's worse in the long-run, but the beauracracy buys you more time in the immediate future to rush books out or something.

Also, on a side note, just how much faith are the new freelancers putting in CGL by working on spec when they know CGL just lost their predecessors en masse due to non-payment and the company is missing bankruptcy deadlines? That's some trust.

K.

Well, to be fair, the freelancers wouldn't have known about them missing such a deadline until well, very recently. So that wouldn't factor in for anybody except those that just became freelancers since that deadline was missed. What it means for them in the future will probably not matter overly much. The upcoming end of the license, waiting for word on the renewal status, and the actual resolution of the court case (possibly months down the road) will have more direct impact I'd guess. As for the rest, well, it sounds like a number of the "new" freelancers are not new as CGL freelancers, simply new to being SR freelancers. I'd imagine if they already chose to stay as CGL freelancers, for whatever their reasons were (which start to make less and less sense to me as this goes on, but then I'm not them), they're probably sticking it out.

After looking at the Local Rule for the Wa state western district bankruptcy court and then referencing the relevant Federal bankruptcy rule (which is substantially similar to FRCP 6(d)) I don't think CGL missed the deadline. The time doesn't start until the day after receipt, you get 3 extra days if you give service by mail if you're allowed that option (almost always), and if that ends in a day court is not open it falls to the next day.

Thanks, that info is definitely helpful. Makes me think that someone screwed the pooch really badly then, since for $2,900 they possibly could have put a quick end to the bankruptcy filing. Considering the other payments being made recently, it would have been a small cost compared to a bankruptcy lawyer.

In light of that information, and how the petitioning attorney misrepresented the day of delivery, it sounds like the IMR lawyer might be a little more on the ball. I think if things don't go IMR's way it's going to be their own fault and not a mistake by their attorney.

I think the issue might be, as they said, that they did not have an employment contract on file. If Sugarbroad
refused to sign an employment contract where CGL was saying they would pay him,, but needed the contract
signed first, then would that not demonstrate good faith attempts on their part? I do not think a lawyer would
make claims without the paperwork to back things up.

You're wrong. There are lots of claims made that lack the paperwork to back them up. Not all of them are made in bad faith though - sometimes lawyers get lied to by their clients, sometimes there is just a verbal agreement, no paperwork.

That's a valid point. I hadn't looked at it from that angle.

Of course, the question then comes in: who is telling them that CGL is losing the license?
I mean, they would have to have insider information on that, and, well, let's face it,
right now, with the recent new approval of the Hero Labs sublicense through CGL,
it is unlikely that CGL is losing the license.

I take it you missed the part where the founder of facebook is on record as

A) Offering to give anyone's contact details he had at the time under the table to a friend of his - whatever infomation they wanted; and

B) said that users are, and I directly quote "Fucking Stupid" for giving him the information.

Google has just confessed to running a wiretapping operation operation across Europe 'accidentally' - and it's not clear from their statements if it actually was an accident.

It's not paranoia, the services are openly on the record for doing nasty stuff.

I really don't think you need insider information to see that the chances of IMR hanging on to the license are slim and getting worse. Pointing to an agreement that has finally be reached after years of delay isn't exactly a slam dunk, even if Bills got to say "Catalyst", "Topps" and "License" in the same blog post.

According to CGL, they did try to pay Sugarboard but he refused to sign a contract. Who can say why exactly, but I will note that you need at least three parties for the legal action that Wildfire et. al. are bringing.

from HeroLabs forums, sounds like Topps was the major stumbling block, and I'd hazard a guess that was to make sure any agreement didn't infringe on Microsoft's ownership of the electronic rights (as similar to BattleTech's Heavy Metal software licensee), and thus invoke ninja attorneys. The S&T stuff probably slowed it down too.

At this point I'd read no more into it than it's a piece of positive news the company can put out.

It would be kind of ironic if the contract requirement was one of the safeguards put in place after the financial review.

"I'm sorry we haven't paid you, but to fix that problem we now have new policies in place to assure timely payments. But we still can't pay you because of them."

Though I imagine IMR's lawyer will show up at the hearing with a copy of the contract and a check already made out.

Of course, in a situation like this, would you want to have the contract, whereby the person agrees in writing that that is the amount they owe you? Or would
you just cut them a money order(which can be tracked and banks have on record that you, indeed, got the money order), and hope they cash it(or at least, sign for
the certified letter with return receipt)?

Mind and Pen, how, generally would a person refusing to sign the contract to be paid be seen? If they are one of the petitioners in a situation like this, what
would happen if there was documented evidence that the person was sent the contract, the letter saying "We just need you to sign this standard employment
contract so we can pay you"? From my uneducated, lay person perspective, it would seem like CGL made good faith effort to pay, but that Sugarbroad rejected
the effort.

Mind and Pen, also, does the company have to send documentation in with their response to the petition? Or does the petitioner have to produce data to
counter the defense of the target of the petition?

Positive for the line, not necessarily IMR.

Breaking this down for folks:

1) The time counting provision of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure is rule 9006. 9006(e) tells us that service is "complete on mailing", and there's a declaration of service saying that the summons went out via first class and certified mail on 4/21/10.

2) 9006(a) tells us "exclude the day of the event that triggers the period" (here, completion of service triggers the time ), so we ignore 4/21/10 for counting purposes and begin running the 21 clock on 4/22/10.

3) 9006(f) says that "[w]hen . . . service is by mail . . . three days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under Rule 9006(a)." The language is unambiguous. Since service was by mail, the 21 day clock becomes a 21+3 day clock.

4) Count your days! 4/22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 5/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 = 21 days. Add three days under 9006(f): 5/13, 14, 15.

5) But wait! 5/15 was a Saturday. What happens? 9006(a) says that "if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday." 5/16 was a Sunday. The next working day at the court was Monday, 5/17/10.

6) IMR's answer was entered by the clerk on 5/17/10.

I've not looked at the local rules for the Western Washington Bankruptcy Court, but it appears per the generic federal rules that IMR's filing was timely. I'm going to repeat my previous comment - someone miscounted (or blatantly misstated) the time here. This is basic stuff. The attorneys involved are all at firms based in western WA. If there was a local rule, they should know about it and act accordingly. This isn't the kind of thing that local counsel get wrong often, in my experience. It's really, really surprising.

This kind of mistake/misstatement isn't looked on kindly by courts. Judges are busy and have crowded dockets to deal with. Burning time to resolve counting disputes isn't the sort of thing that makes them happy. Even if this is nothing more than excusable neglect (as opposed to malpractice or frivolous filing), whoever is in the wrong is going to make a pretty bad first impression.

Urgru's right. Maybe it's unique to the NJ bar, but in my paralegal training I'm taught that you extend every possible courtesy to your opponent within reason that doesn't prejudice your client's rights. Why? Because in the months or years that the average case takes to go through the courts, everybody's going to need those courtesies extended to them. Including you.

You don't file a motion to dismiss as your first option, you send a reminder letter. You only then move for relief.

Wildfire's lawyers made a pretty bad first impression by jumping so quick, I'd wager.

Urgru--Date of Service was 4/21 via mail, the certified letter was signed for on 4/22. The Three-Day rule is to accomodate for mailing. It should also be noted that the definition of "Mail" in those same codes is for First Class mail, not Certified mail. The notes and previous cases related to those codes make for interesting reading.

Not good.

Well, whoever it is, they've registered their location within the WHOIS data as Funchal, Madeira wherever that may be. The rest of the information is hidden (paid service). Now that location doesn't necessarily mean anything either. It's not hard to set your location information to whatever you want. The only issue with incorrect/false information is violation of ICANN rules which can potentially get your site in trouble.

I think Wildfire feels they didn't jump quickly. CGL continued to sell cthuhlutech books up until a cease and desist order was given despite there continued un-public communication to pay up. From what I figure based roughly on internet rumor and speculation Wildfire tried for over 6 months in good faith to get paid. Now I could be wrong about how long they tried and Wildfire could also be wrong in assuming 6 months was enough but either way they havent been paid for awhile.

I wasn't talking about filing the initial action - I was talking about filing for what seems like summary judgment.

At least things are moving now.

As I've noted several times, I'm not familiar with WA rules, procedure or precedent. It's possible that local rules provide for the handling of certified mail, just like it's possible that they provide for something other than the usual extensions. In my experience, certified mail is treated as a subset of first class mail, which is how the USPS bills it - you pay for first class or priority postage, then you pay an additional fee for the certification service. It's not offered as a distinct product. What's important is that someone had an epic lawyer fail. Who that someone is will be clear on Friday, it seems . . .

Looks like the judge signed the request to have the hearing on Friday. I guess Mr. Santucci is going to have to change his plans for the day.

^^LINK

Any forumgoers who live in WDWA and would be available to attend the hearing?

If only it was in the afternoon!

Short answer, it depends on the judge and the local rules. I'm not a lawyer, or a judge, so I can't answer definitavely. In my experience, if they can document that they tried to pay Sugarbroad, but Sugarbroad refused payment, then it will depend on why payment was not accepted. The bankruptcy attorneys around can better answer how a judge should/would look at that.





Depending on the claims, it could be both. Generally, I would expect each side would produce documentation to prove their point.

-M&P

Unless you don't expect the company in question to exist/have assets after this month is over, which happens to coincide with when the SR license would nominally run out if it didn't get renewed.

I believe using a gmail account for business opens them up to all kinds of legal issues actually if not handled very carefully.

Remember, by federal law (thanks to Enron) they must archive all those emails and have them available for years after they've been sent. If any of the gmail emails disappear, and there is a subpoena for them, Catalyst suddenly has a very large issue. In this particular case, I believe that google archives every one of those emails automatically, indefinitely, to comply with their own federal regulations.

Splitting company email up amongst different providers is unprofessional and looks legally dubious. Note, I'm NOT accusing Catalyst of engaging in dubious behavior due to changing around emails. It's just... sloppy looking. For 100 bucks you could hire your web designer to forward on email to said gmail address and we'd be none the wiser.

Well, off the top of my head, it sounds like Sugarbroad already had an agreement with Catalyst. He was sending invoices to them already. This is established.

The documents filed stated that CGL wanted Sugarbroad to sign a standard employment contract, and he refused.

So either Catalyst wanted him to alter his agreement in order to get paid (which is not legal), or Sugarbroad was charging interest on late invoices and CGL wanted him to pound sand, or there was something in the contract that Sugarbroad found unacceptable.

The problem is that the work was already done. If Sugarbroad already has a copy of his original work agreement, CGL is in a bad place. Holding someone's money hostage in order to change their work agreement is looked down on.

Unprofessional and sloppy, exactly. I can't see any reason behind that decision.

IMR's "dog ate the homework" answer isn't the best thing ever, but a creditor's refusal to provide reasonable documentation in order to facilitate resolution of a creditor/debtor dispute is also looked down on. If IMR made clear it didn't have adequate records and Sugarbroad refused to provide copies of documents within his control (like invoices or a copy of his non-standard contract) that would have allowed payment, he's holding IMR "hostage" (your word). If he doesn't have the documents and they disagree on the amounts due, there may be a bona fide dispute as to the amount in question that would knock him out as a qualifying creditor for purposes of the involuntary petition.

I'm arguing for argument's sake here. Why assume anything about the underlying factual scenario when there's a hearing set for Friday? Tossing around hypothetical situations like "they may have tried to change the contract . . ." is a stretch. All we have now is he said / she said, and we can gin up any number of hypothetical situations that would support any number of possible outcomes.

$100 ??
It takes about 30 seconds to do and requires no real ability...
...And if you're ok to pay that money, I'll do all all your forwarding at $100 a time.

That's correct. David and I typically split those sort of duties based on whoever was available when such duties needed to be performed.

I don't understand much of this at all. However, I am still curious. Has the rights to Shadowrun been moved to another company? If so, do you think we'll see a SR5 sometime soon? I ask because I'm planning on picking up a few of the source books, though I'd rather wait if they will be out of date in a year or so.