QUANTUM & WOODY IN JULY!!!

[BugsySig]

Asmus is a white writer. After talking to him at length yesterday I think he does have a grasp of the characters. He absolutely gets the humor of what Priest was doing and his pitch is pretty cool. We will get a new origin and it will spread out over the first story arc. Was told that would be 4 issues. I;m sure we will get more info at the panel this evening.

-Brian

I think the assertion that a white writer wouldn't understand the racial dynamic that Priest was going for, is exactly the type of thing Priest would deride. Considering he spent most of his career trying not to be known as just "the black writer who writes black characters", I'd think he would preach color blindness as long as the characters and the dynamic were treated with respect. Just my opinion, though.

I agree with that, but the fact remains that there are some things a black writer can do that a white writer would be chastised for.

Of that, there is no doubt.

[Dr. Solar]

I gotta say, after having the pleasure of talking to James Asmuth for a bit, I am stoked for Quantum & Woody now.

[grendeljd]

I gotta say, after having the pleasure of talking to James Asmuth for a bit, I am stoked for Quantum & Woody now.

He definitely sounds like a really good non-Priest choice for the book based on all the interviews I'm reading.

I'm getting keen on seeing more of Tom Fowler's pages for this too, I'm already a fan of his Valiant work so far.

[Shadowman99]

As a new fan everything is pretty much unknown to me. But Valiant hasn't had a misstep yet so I will give this a chance.

Good to see another new fan here on the boards

I've never come across Q+W before, but I've read a couple of good things about it, and will most likely give it a chance, because I think it could be a good laugh

I also think that it might be a good draw for new Valiant reader too, encouraging people to pick up the brand with a lighthearted comedy read amongst their same-old, same-old Marvel and DC.

[Elveen]

I gotta say, after having the pleasure of talking to James Asmuth for a bit, I am stoked for Quantum & Woody now.

I 100% agree. We had the pleasure of spending some time with him last night. 1st off, the dude is hilarious! He had the the entire table rolling more than a few times.

2nd, he has real tangible passion for this book and what he is doing with it.

3rd, so did the other VEI guys and especially Dino.

I am looking forward to this book more than I ever thought possible.

[manga4life]

For those wondering, Dynamic Force and Dynamite Entertainment are one in the same. I'm actually really good friends with the guy who runs the DE forums and their Twitter feed, we go waaaaay back.

[MoonChild]

For those wondering, Dynamic Force and Dynamite Entertainment are one in the same. I'm actually really good friends with the guy who runs the DE forums and their Twitter feed, we go waaaaay back.

Tell him I said "HOW DARE YOU!" And Thanks for holding up the release of the greatest comic universe since the original Marvel.

oops my bad, I thought you meant the guy who runs DE, not the forums lol

[ireactions]

I just wanted to share some selected quotes from the thread at the Comic Book Resources forum.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/pr ... =40&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When a creator makes a character for a comic book company that character (or characters) are owned fully by the publisher that releases the title, the ONLY way that this wouldn't be true is if the creators have signed a "CREATOR OWNED" deal much like Chris Claremont's "Sovereign Seven" or the Cliffhanger imprint Image put out back in the late 90's.

For instance, Scott Snyder created a character in the recent New 52 Batman titles called The Talon that was popular enough to warrant his own series (that Scott also writes). The Talon does NOT belong to Scott Snyder, he belongs to DC. Just because a creator creates a character does not mean he owns that character, what part of that do you "readers" not understand? I mean really.....it's black and white, haha.

We Acclaim creators signed contracts before we started working on our projects that had a clause saying we could buy the rights to the material back for half the profits the material made in the previous 3 years. Several years after Acclaim went under, Priest and Bright tried to get the Q/W rights and were told that the contracts we signed were never submitted to a different division of Acclaim and were thus considered invalid. Someone else came in and bought up all the Valiant/Acclaim leaving us with nothing.

They have no rights, Q&W is owned fully by Valiant Entertainment. End of story.

Get over it people, I've never seen such whining in my life, lol.

Today's Valiant owe those creators nothing, plain and simple.

And guess what, Valiant owes those creators nothing and there isn't anything you can say that can or will change that. Period. Your precious creators got nothing and are getting nothing......and that's pretty much all there is to it.

I'll be buying at least 20 copies of this just to support Valiant and I will enjoy handing them out to friends and family, merely because I love that fact that some fans believe the creators should get something when they are owed nothing (just like every creator who creates for a major publisher).

Ah, the joys of being right always love to shine upon me.

This is such a silly debate and topic, who freakin' cares about the original creators anyway, they don't even own the property and never have. Does Scott Snyder own The Talon for DC comics after creating him? No. Does Claremont and Liefeld own Cable (X-Force) after creating him? No. And Chris and Bright don't own Q&W. Period.

So yeah, turns out I was right (as per usual) so I'm done here, the winner as I always am. But yeah, Chrissy and Bright are out of the picture and the only thing they can really do now is hope that Valiant gives them work, which I actually hope they don't.

Valiant Entertainment has 100000% legal ownership to Q&W and Chrissy and Bright don't. It's simple as that. Google it or ask someone you know who's in the legal system and they'll tell you. Acclaim is actually the company that made the agreement, they lost the rights and it went to auction and then they were purchased legally by a separate entity. Once Acclaim lost the rights to the coffers any and all binding commitment between Chrissy and Bright were lost. It's true, look into it. I asked 2 people I know in the legal field and I looked up the bylaws and guidlines online and it's true. So no matter what any of you say, you're wrong.

Being right (as per usual) feels so damn good. Good day, kiddies!

Too bad for Chrissy and Bright.

The problem comes when ignorance breeds ignorance. That is what worries me. People going around claiming VALIANT has wronged these creators, robbed them of their property and rights, and deserve to be blacklisted (hasn't hurt Marvel or DC by the way) when there is no proof or reason to believe so. Then others think its true. Like a bunch of damn "Truthers" getting off on ruining people's reputations.

Sorry, but no. VEI purchased the IPs and library from Acclaim at auction, then fought the battles in court over the rights to publish. There were issues over that particular facet of the bankruptcy because certain publishers claimed they had licensed the publishing rights from a now defunct company.

You can attack Manga for his snide comments, but he is right that any contract that may have existed with Acclaim are not now VEI's responsibility. The law is the law, and by your own admission, this has not been pursued in court.

Anyone who says VEI owes anyone who worked for Acclaim anything except a "thank you" is absolutely wrong.

Bull$#!t.

VEI owes those of us who worked for Acclaim whatever the contracts say they owe. If they bought the assets, and the assets come with contractual strings attached, then they're bound by those same strings, as surely as DC is bound by the ASTRO CITY contract I signed with Wildstorm. They bought both assets and obligations. And I say that as someone who signed Acclaim contracts, and went over them carefully at the time.

Kurt is just taking the side of the creators because its guild-like to do so, I can't blame him in this situation but he is technically wrong. And buying an intellectual property directly from a company (which isn't the case here) is also completely different legally than buying them at auction, whether they want to believe it or not. Its a brick wall for the creators, which sucks for them but laws are laws and nobody can change that no matter what they believe.

Think about it: If bankruptcy simply voided contracts, the publisher wouldn't own anything after bankruptcy, because the contract that gave the publisher any ownership in the first place would have been voided. Bankruptcy doesn't simply void contracts. It does trump termination-on-bankruptcy clauses (and various others), but not all other clauses. The conditions of the purchase (which can include royalties, termination options, assurances of credit, guaranteed shares of licensing moneys and so on) remain the conditions even if the rights and obligations of the company are purchased by someone else.

Bankruptcy doesn't magically take publishing rights away from contractual parties that didn't go bankrupt. It affects the rights the bankrupt party actually held; it doesn't give them _more_ rights they didn't have all along.

The argument that I must be saying this stuff because I'm in solidarity with creators, while the people who are saying Valiant magically owns all and doesn't owe anyone anything aren't motivated by solidarity with, and support for, the new Valiant can be weighed by each individual reader to see it it makes sense, but I'll point out this:

1. I used to be a literary agent, and wrote and negotiated publishing contracts for a living.
2. I've had publishing contracts with companies that went bankrupt, including both Marvel (which came out of bankruptcy) and Eclipse (which got dissolved), and at Marvel all the pre-bankruptcy contract terms still survive, while at Eclipse the rights to THE LIBERTY PROJECT, THE WIZARD'S TALE and other books I had contracted with them wound up with me, not with Todd McFarlane, because while termination-on-bankruptcy isn't enforceable, the rest of the contract is.
3. I've had contracts with a company (Aegis Entertainment, which owned Homage Comics and Wildstorm) that was sold to another company (DC), and the contract terms survived.
4. I've read the Acclaim contracts, was part of negotiating the Acclaim contracts, had my lawyer go over the Acclaim contracts, signed the Acclaim contracts.

Who knows better what happens in a publishing bankruptcy, me or someone without this experience, can be weighed by the individual reader as well.

But I'll reiterate: The idea that bankruptcy erases all obligations simply isn't true. I don't know to what extent the new Acclaim guys have been in contact with Priest, Bright and others, I don't know what accommodations they may have reached. I've met some of them once, at a recent con, and they gave me some TPBs of the new stuff and were very nice to me, and I have no reason to wish them ill or assume they're nefarious in any way.

Still, they're obligated to those creators that created stuff for Acclaim to the extent that the contracts those creators had with Acclaim say they are. They bought assets, and those assets come with obligations.

My expectation is that they're aware of this, and whether they agree or disagree with Kevin Maguire's statements on the subject, they'll do what they think is appropriate to the obligations they've assumed, and if there's a problem, it'll probably be argued behind the scenes for a long time before it gets to lawyers and courtrooms (if it ever does).

Anyone who says VEI owes anyone who worked for Acclaim anything except a "thank you" is absolutely wrong.

Bull$#!t.

Anyone who says VEI owes anyone who worked for Acclaim anything except a "thank you" is absolutely wrong.

Bull$#!t.

Anyone who says VEI owes anyone who worked for Acclaim anything except a "thank you" is absolutely wrong.

Bull$#!t.

Kurt is just taking the side of the creators because its guild-like to do so, I can't blame him in this situation but he is technically wrong.

The argument that I must be saying this stuff because I'm in solidarity with creators, while the people who are saying Valiant magically owns all and doesn't owe anyone anything aren't motivated by solidarity with, and support for, the new Valiant can be weighed by each individual reader to see it it makes sense

And buying an intellectual property directly from a company (which isn't the case here) is also completely different legally than buying them at auction, whether they want to believe it or not.

Think about it: If bankruptcy simply voided contracts, the publisher wouldn't own anything after bankruptcy, because the contract that gave the publisher any ownership in the first place would have been voided. Bankruptcy doesn't simply void contracts. It does trump termination-on-bankruptcy clauses (and various others), but not all other clauses. The conditions of the purchase (which can include royalties, termination options, assurances of credit, guaranteed shares of licensing moneys and so on) remain the conditions even if the rights and obligations of the company are purchased by someone else.

Anyone who says VEI owes anyone who worked for Acclaim anything except a "thank you" is absolutely wrong.

Bull$#!t.

[BugsySig]

Now who's the troll? Now who's following someone accross the internet? Instead of trying to pick a fight because we wouldn't continue arguing with you, why don't you find something productive to do like raise money for a creator rights defense fund.

I like Kurt, but he has no more knowledge of Priest & Brights contracts than you or I do. What I do know is he agreed that reversion rights clauses terminate on bankruptcy.

It does trump termination-on-bankruptcy clauses (and various others)

That was my entire argument, you moron. That's what Priest himself said they had. Thats what you and your cohort kept arguing they should have had. And that's why they don't have the rights now and VEI does.

Busiek, Maguire, etc can chime in about their situations as much as they want, I don't care, it still doesn't change the situation with Quantum & Woody.

Even your final counter argument by an industry professional worked against you. Game over. You lose.

[Chiclo]

Thank you for posting that, ireactions. manga4life and BugsySig raise some excellent points in that post stream.

Kurt Busiek must be smoking some crystal communism or something because he doesn't seem to get this whole work-for-hire thing.

[ireactions]

I like Kurt, but he has no more knowledge of Priest & Brights contracts than you or I do. What I do know is he agreed that reversion rights clauses terminate on bankruptcy.

It does trump termination-on-bankruptcy clauses (and various others)

That was my entire argument, you moron. That's what Priest himself said they had.Even your final counter argument by an industry professional worked against you. Game over. You lose.

termination on bankruptcy -- that as far as I recall wasn't in the Acclaim contracts anyway. The termination and reversion clauses in them were not bankruptcy-linked.

Terminations and reversions that aren't triggered by bankruptcy are different kinds of clauses, and since they're conditions under which the material was purchased, they survive bankruptcy.

Think about it: If bankruptcy simply voided contracts, the publisher wouldn't own anything after bankruptcy, because the contract that gave the publisher any ownership in the first place would have been voided. Bankruptcy doesn't simply void contracts. It does trump termination-on-bankruptcy clauses (and various others), but not all other clauses. The conditions of the purchase (which can include royalties, termination options, assurances of credit, guaranteed shares of licensing moneys and so on) remain the conditions even if the rights and obligations of the company are purchased by someone else.

Anyone who says VEI owes anyone who worked for Acclaim anything except a "thank you" is absolutely wrong.

Bull$#!t.

[ireactions]

Thank you for posting that, ireactions. manga4life and BugsySig raise some excellent points in that post stream. Kurt Busiek must be smoking some crystal communism or something because he doesn't seem to get this whole work-for-hire thing.

Royalties and work-for-hire are different things, with no pre-determined relationship to one another.

I've done work-for-hire that pays royalties (handsome royalties, sometimes, as with MARVELS and JLA/AVENGERS), work-for-hire that doesn't, and non-work-for-hire that does and doesn't. Work-for-hire is about who owns the work. Royalties are one form of compensation. And lots of people get ongoing compensation for work they don't own.

People who write STAR TREK novels, for instance, are doing work-for-hire and get royalties. People who write STAR WARS novels don't (last I knew, at least), but they get much bigger payments up-front to make up for it.

People who write, direct and so on for TV and movies are usually doing work-for-hire, and can get ongoing compensation in a number of ways -- royalties, residuals, gross points, the oft-mythical net points, contractual performance bonuses and more.

But contracts are versatile things. There is no one standard work-for-hire deal -- even work-for-hire at Marvel is slightly different from work-for-hire at DC, and there are times that work-for-hire at Marvel is slightly different from other work-for-hire at Marvel.

If anyone tells you all deals of one sort or another are the same, take it with a grain of salt.

Anyone who says VEI owes anyone who worked for Acclaim anything except a "thank you" is absolutely wrong.

Bull$#!t.

[betterthanezra]

Why does Busiek care? VEI is never going to use his version of Ninjak and that's all he did for Acclaim. Unless he is just sticking up for Mark, how did he even get involved in the conversation.

-Brian

[ireactions]

if Kevin is correct about what Priest and Bright were told about their attempted buyback, that Acclaim's reasoning made no sense. If they didn't run the contract by someone they should have and still signed it, that doesn't invalidate the contract. Unless there was a clause to that effect, which would be a big red flag to lawyers and others reading the contracts. If that's what they were told, then it was just stonewalling of the "No, we're not honoring the deal, sue us if you like" sort that some companies too often feel they can get away with.

If that's indeed what happened, that's a shame and a black mark for Acclaim, and hopefully not anything the new Valiant would think was binding.

But yes, the only people who know for sure precisely what the contracts say are the people who've read them. Which is why what I said about the subject was that VEI owes creators "whatever the contracts say they owe."

I can't speak to precisely what the Q&W contracts say (I've got the language on the buyback clause in my files, but can't be 100% certain that their language is the same as mine) -- my point is that bankruptcy doesn't erase all previous agreements, doesn't undo all obligations, and anyone telling you it does is either confused or trying to get you to believe something that ain't so. And that the idea that if you create something for a company you aren't due any further compensation is nonsense.

They owe whatever the contracts say they owe, and each contract may have slightly different language establishing what, exactly, that is.

But there is no blanket erasure of those contracts or their obligations due to bankruptcy.

I expect [Valiant will] address it one way or the other, but if anything's happening in private, they're not going to rush to make a public announcement until they've been advised by lawyers.

And not just by lawyers, since if the lawyers' position is "Those guys may have been promised better than this, but we don't think we're bound by those promises, so they get nothing," as has been suggested is the only possible result here, then that won't tamp down any further fuss, it'll just fuel it.

I expect they'll want to figure out a course that they feel works for them both in legal and public-relations terms, rather than anything that would be perceived as dismissive of Priest & Bright.
But all this goes to show -- we keep getting told that creators' rights issues are something from the bad old days of Siegel & Shuster deals, or Lee & Kirby deals, and things have gotten better. But the examples just keep marching forward in time -- Ghost Rider, Blade, Wolverine, Watchmen, the Men in Black, now Quantum & Woody --

It's a lesson to creators and publishers alike: Even if you're careful, even if you don't intend to be anything but fair, doesn't mean the next guy in the office will feel the same way (and by 'next guy' here I mean the guys who came after Fabian, not after Acclaim). Ownership issues, particularly in work-for-hire deals, need to be navigated with both good intentions and skill.

I don't envy anyone involved in any of this, and hope all parties find a mutually satisfying resolution.

any contract that may have existed with Acclaim are not now VEI's responsibility.

Anyone who says VEI owes anyone who worked for Acclaim anything except a "thank you" is absolutely wrong.

Bull$#!t.

[ireactions]

Why does Busiek care? VEI is never going to use his version of Ninjak and that's all he did for Acclaim. Unless he is just sticking up for Mark, how did he even get involved in the conversation.

The idea that bankruptcy erases all obligations simply isn't true. I don't know to what extent the new Acclaim guys have been in contact with Priest, Bright and others, I don't know what accommodations they may have reached. I've met some of them once, at a recent con, and they gave me some TPBs of the new stuff and were very nice to me, and I have no reason to wish them ill or assume they're nefarious in any way.

Still, they're obligated to those creators that created stuff for Acclaim to the extent that the contracts those creators had with Acclaim say they are. They bought assets, and those assets come with obligations.

My expectation is that they're aware of this, and whether they agree or disagree with Kevin Maguire's statements on the subject, they'll do what they think is appropriate to the obligations they've assumed, and if there's a problem, it'll probably be argued behind the scenes for a long time before it gets to lawyers and courtrooms (if it ever does).

But contracts don't get voided because a reader on the internet who hasn't read them insists that they're void.

It's also not true that if there's a legal issue, it'll surely be settled, that if there was early contention it must be verifiable on the internet somewhere or that if it's been around for a long time it must have been settled years back -- the rights to Marvelman stand as an example of that last one. And to go back to my experience, I've had a legal disagreement with a publisher (Harris Comics) that involved royalties and other payments that didn't add up to enough to make the cost of paying a lawyer worth it, so my approach to dealing with it was to (a) refuse to work for them, and (b) explain at cons when fans brought up the work in question to be signed why I wouldn't work for them any more. It didn't get me my money, but it gave them at least a minor black eye over it, and now that they've sold the rights to a more ethical publisher, I'm now in line to get appropriate royalties on the material. It wasn't clean and neat, but I'm satisfied enough with the results.

So my experience in the field tells me that what some here are saying about bankruptcy and legal issues isn't true -- bankruptcy doesn't erase all obligations or grant wider publishing rights than were purchased, and length of time passed is no guarantee that issues are settled.

But it's also true that legal issues don't get decided on internet message boards. So the stuff being said about how we'll see what happens, that stuff is true. Whatever the outcome of whatever discussions go on behind the scenes, what most people here will get to see is the result, not the process.

So everyone here can decide for themselves what they find more convincing, but unless they're ever on a jury in a case concerning these issues, it won't make a difference to the outcome.

In the end, I hope the new Acclaim is successful, and that they fulfill all the obligations they've taken on. And not just because I want to see a NINJAK v2 book collection and video game, and want Neil Vokes and I to get our appropriate share of the proceeds, just as I've continued to profit from other contracts with publishers that went through bankruptcy.

But I'll happily admit, that's certainly a part of it!

[magnusr]

Thank you for posting that, ireactions. manga4life and BugsySig raise some excellent points in that post stream.

Kurt Busiek must be smoking some crystal communism or something because he doesn't seem to get this whole work-for-hire thing.

Busiek's words do seem weird, but the problem is that he is not commenting on what has actually been said in the thread - he is commenting on the twisted version that ireactions has left behind. Still, Busiek's posts are among the best in that thread.

It should also be made clear that ireactions has used the expression "it is true" about something that Priest has denied, showing that he has no interest in Priest's claims, he is only there to pick a fight (also proven beyond any doubt by his final comments towards bugsy, where he even insults Busiek by twisting his words). It is a shame that the administrators at CBR doesn't do a better job in keeping after slanderous trolls.

Btw, has ireactions asked Kurt Busiek for permission before reposting his words or is he deliberately stealing the words of an author?

/Magnus

[ireactions]

[ireactions] even insults Busiek by twisting his words).

Direct link to Kurt Busiek's response to bugsy: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/sh ... st16830527" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post number 149.

Btw, has ireactions asked Kurt Busiek for permission before reposting his words or is he deliberately stealing the words of an author?

Publically posted material. Full credit given to the writer. Links provided. No misrepresentation of authorship.

[ireactions]

It should also be made clear that ireactions has used the expression "it is true" about something that Priest has denied

Reference unclear. Please link to comment. Will gladly apologize for inaccuracies. If "it is true" used incorrectly, then apologies.

[magnusr]

[ireactions] even insults Busiek by twisting his words).

Direct link to Kurt Busiek's response to bugsy: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/sh ... st16830527" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which does not contradict what bugsy actually has said and still you use the expression "thoroughly debunked". Actually Busiek strongly agrees with bugsy's wish that we hear what Christopher Priest has to say. As Busiek is the only one who has provided any useful information, my statement above is based on the assumption that it is his words you are twisting.

Btw, has ireactions asked Kurt Busiek for permission before reposting his words or is he deliberately stealing the words of an author?

Publically posted material. Full credit given to the writer. Links provided. No misrepresentation of authorship.

I disagree.

It should also be made clear that ireactions has used the expression "it is true" about something that Priest has denied

Reference unclear. Please link to comment. Will gladly apologize for inaccuracies. If "it is true" used incorrectly, then apologies.

Priest has said that he had not tried to use the reversion clause, you said he did.

/Magnus

[ireactions]

my statement above is based on the assumption that it is his words you are twisting.

Have not altered quotes save in areas with square brackets to indicate own clarifications. Would be pointless. Original thread is online for anyone to verify.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/sh ... Woody-quot" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Publically posted material. Full credit given to the writer. Links provided. No misrepresentation of authorship.

I disagree.

Understood. Must accept your disagreement.

Priest has said that he had not tried to use the reversion clause, you said he did.

Said that Priest sought to reclaim his rights, citing Kevin Maguire:

We Acclaim creators signed contracts before we started working on our projects that had a clause saying we could buy the rights to the material back for half the profits the material made in the previous 3 years. Several years after Acclaim went under, Priest and Bright tried to get the Q/W rights and were told that the contracts we signed were never submitted to a different division of Acclaim and were thus considered invalid. Someone else came in and bought up all the Valiant/Acclaim leaving us with nothing. I’ve been following what Priest/Bright were doing because I wanted the rights to Trinity Angels back. But the legal fees it would cost to get it back would just be too much for us.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/03/26/ ... contracts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If above is inaccurate, then profuse apologies. Please link to Priest's denial that he tried to reclaim rights. Will review. If Maguire in error, will apologize for having posted incorrect information.

Only human. Not always right. Do not know everything.

Thank you.

[magnusr]

Please link to Priest's denial that he tried to reclaim rights.

Pertinent quote is "I never took any action on it, and neither did Doc" in interview with Newsarama. Will not claim that as final truth either. As bugsy has said all along, no need to spread uncertain information.

/Magnus

[ireactions]

http://www.comicon.com/ubb/ubbthreads.p ... ber=157896" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“We had a right to reversion agreement that was signed by Steve Massarsky, and we had negotiated that before we went out with the book in the first place,” Priest told Newsarama. “The agreement was, basically, that the rights would reverent to me and Doc if Valiant didn’t publish the book for a certain period of time. Obviously, that period of time has come and gone, but I never took any action on it, and neither did Doc, because we were busy with different things. We were also negotiating on and off with Acclaim corporate to see if we could make a deal to take it to another publisher, so we could shop it to Marvel or to DC.

Seems to be referring to not taking action on the specific reversion agreement as opposed to not taking action on reclaiming Q&W rights in general.

Thoughts?

[magnusr]

Thoughts?

Have to ask Priest. Strictly linguistically it reads as "Not acting on the clause and recognizing that all rights were under Acclaim's control". But that is way more speculation than I feel confortable with, so I put a stop to my guesses here.

/Magnus

[ireactions]

Wish to apologize for any distress caused. Wished to counter claims that Valiant has no obligation to contracts signed by Acclaim due to bankruptcy.

Want Valiant, Priest and Bright to come to mutually satisfying and beneficial agreement over QUANTUM AND WOODY. James Asmus and Tom Fowler very talented. Preview pages beautiful.

Hope a fair deal is reached for all parties.

[FormerReader]

Want Valiant, Priest and Bright to come to mutually satisfying and beneficial agreement over QUANTUM AND WOODY. James Asmus and Tom Fowler very talented. Preview pages beautiful.

Hope a fair deal is reached for all parties.