Valiant vs. Shooter - COURT DOCUMENT

myron · Post by **myron** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:45 am

aren't these things proof read before they're submitted???

...iirc October through December 3, 2009 hasn't even happened yet...

(pdf page 5, brief page 3 item 10)

and like it was pointed out prior...these are "allegations". Things need to be sorted out in a court of law...Big Jim's been through this kind of stuff before....it could be interesting to watch this play out.

Dr. Solar · Post by **Dr. Solar** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:46 am

Well, this certainly stirs the pot.

Interesting.

iggy101us · Post by **iggy101us** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:48 am

myron wrote:aren't these things proof read before they're submitted???

...iirc October through December 3, 2009 hasn't even happened yet...

(pdf page 5, brief page 3 item 10)

Time is not absolute!

Rolo · Post by **Rolo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:53 am

myron wrote:aren't these things proof read before they're submitted???

My favorite one is that Illustrated Media does "customs" comics, which are probably about etiquette or immigration, I guess.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:54 am

I'm curious to hear what Dark Horse has to say about all of this. Those are some pretty damaging remarks made about Jim's character. Seems to me if they take those charges seriously they might put a halt to putting out the GK stuff.

Dr. Solar · Post by **Dr. Solar** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:55 am

There are a few things that I noticed about the language and looked up.

First, Fiduciary Duty: The highest standard of care that can exist. The person with a fiduciary duty is entrusted to protect the interests of the principle party before his own.

Second, the phrase "on information and belief": This phrase indicates that the statement has not made from first-hand knowledge, but that the alleging party believes it to be true to the best of their knowledge and understanding.

I imagine that this document is meant to cover any and all possible things that Jim Shooter may have done inappropriately. Some may not actually be true, some may not.

We should see Jim Shooter's response within a week or so, it seems. He has 20 days to respond, I have no idea if that is 20 business days or calendar days.

Dr. Solar · Post by **Dr. Solar** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:55 am

Daniel Jackson wrote:I'm curious to hear what Dark Horse has to say about all of this. Those are some pretty damaging remarks made about Jim's character. Seems to me if they take those charges seriously they might put a halt to putting out the GK stuff.

Their response to me when I inquired was that they had No Comment at this time.

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:57 am

Dr. Solar wrote:There are a few things that I noticed about the language and looked up.

First, Fiduciary Duty: The highest standard of care that can exist. The person with a fiduciary duty is entrusted to protect the interests of the principle party before his own.

Second, the phrase "on information and belief": This phrase indicates that the statement has not made from first-hand knowledge, but that the alleging party believes it to be true to the best of their knowledge and understanding.

I imagine that this document is meant to cover any and all possible things that Jim Shooter may have done inappropriately. Some may not actually be true, some may not.

We should see Jim Shooter's response within a week or so, it seems. He has 20 days to respond, I have no idea if that is 20 business days or calendar days.

I'd assume 20 calender days.

If (and it is a big if) there was no signed contract, can a (non-?)employee be held to such fiduciary duty?

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:04 pm

Dr. Solar wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:I'm curious to hear what Dark Horse has to say about all of this. Those are some pretty damaging remarks made about Jim's character. Seems to me if they take those charges seriously they might put a halt to putting out the GK stuff.
Their response to me when I inquired was that they had No Comment at this time.

Dark Horse has always seemed like a pretty good company. I can see them thinking that this will cast them in a bad light and pull the plug on the entire deal.

Rolo · Post by **Rolo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:06 pm

Daniel Jackson wrote: I can see them thinking that this will cast them in a bad light and pull the plug on the entire deal.

I'll take that bet!

Maybe I'm a Pollyana, but I think we'll be hip deep in these comics by this time next year.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:08 pm

Rolo wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote: I can see them thinking that this will cast them in a bad light and pull the plug on the entire deal.
I'll take that bet!

Maybe I'm a Pollyana, but I think we'll be hip deep in these comics by this time next year.

Depends on how messy and publicized this awful mess gets, I suppose.

VEI Reborn · Post by **VEI Reborn** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:10 pm

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! We just want some comics.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:13 pm

VEI Reborn wrote:FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! We just want some comics.

Seems to be a very messy business these days....

jbtheo · Post by **jbtheo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Daniel Jackson wrote:I'm curious to hear what Dark Horse has to say about all of this. Those are some pretty damaging remarks made about Jim's character. Seems to me if they take those charges seriously they might put a halt to putting out the GK stuff.

I would agree with you if Jim Shooter wasn't Jim Shooter. He's been in the business a long time, and has a track record, when given the opportunity, to make money in comic books. I am also sure Mike Richardson and Jim Shooter are friends/collegues, if anything from a publisher's point of view.

jbtheo · Post by **jbtheo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:42 pm

leonmallett wrote:
Dr. Solar wrote:There are a few things that I noticed about the language and looked up.

First, Fiduciary Duty: The highest standard of care that can exist. The person with a fiduciary duty is entrusted to protect the interests of the principle party before his own.

Second, the phrase "on information and belief": This phrase indicates that the statement has not made from first-hand knowledge, but that the alleging party believes it to be true to the best of their knowledge and understanding.

I imagine that this document is meant to cover any and all possible things that Jim Shooter may have done inappropriately. Some may not actually be true, some may not.

We should see Jim Shooter's response within a week or so, it seems. He has 20 days to respond, I have no idea if that is 20 business days or calendar days.
I'd assume 20 calender days.

If (and it is a big if) there was no signed contract, can a (non-?)employee be held to such fiduciary duty?

VEI would be pretty stupid to go after Jim Shooter unless there was a signed employment contract. There HAD to be a contract of some kind.

But, to answer your question, I doubt it. I am not a lawyer, but unless you sign something, you can't be held accountable for it. Then again, most businesses won't even hire you unless you sign some form of contract, as most consider them "conditions of employment."

jbtheo · Post by **jbtheo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:44 pm

Daniel Jackson wrote:
Dr. Solar wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:I'm curious to hear what Dark Horse has to say about all of this. Those are some pretty damaging remarks made about Jim's character. Seems to me if they take those charges seriously they might put a halt to putting out the GK stuff.
Their response to me when I inquired was that they had No Comment at this time.
Dark Horse has always seemed like a pretty good company. I can see them thinking that this will cast them in a bad light and pull the plug on the entire deal.

I really hope not. That would be a damn shame, to say the least.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:44 pm

jbtheo wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:I'm curious to hear what Dark Horse has to say about all of this. Those are some pretty damaging remarks made about Jim's character. Seems to me if they take those charges seriously they might put a halt to putting out the GK stuff.
I would agree with you if Jim Shooter wasn't Jim Shooter. He's been in the business a long time, and has a track record, when given the opportunity, to make money in comic books. I am also sure Mike Richardson and Jim Shooter are friends/collegues, if anything from a publisher's point of view.

Mike's first duty is to Dark Horse though, so I don't think friendships will matter much if the company feels that this is not worth the bad publicity.

Ultimately, they don't need the GK characters to succeed as a business. I'm sure they will be weighing that fact closely in the next several weeks.

MoonChild · Post by **MoonChild** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:44 pm

Damn, what a mess. This says to me that VEI was in fact working on bringing our dream to us, so with that fact alone, I want to apologize for any disheartening statements towars them. It seems they were "in negotiations to aquire the classic media properties" but that never came to fruitation. Now all I want to know is what pushed Shooter away in such a manner?

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:47 pm

MoonChild wrote:Now all I want to know is what pushed Shooter away in such a manner?

That's the big question mark in all of this.

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:47 pm

jbtheo wrote:But, to answer your question, I doubt it. I am not a lawyer, but unless you sign something, you can't be held accountable for it. Then again, most businesses won't even hire you unless you sign some form of contract, as most consider them "conditions of employment."

I am not sure if this is true. I think if there was a good faith belief between two parties, that can be legally binding as well. Verbal contracts as well. The problem is that if it is not in writing, it is just "he said/she said" - no proof of what was said!

Chris

jbtheo · Post by **jbtheo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:50 pm

Daniel Jackson wrote:
jbtheo wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:I'm curious to hear what Dark Horse has to say about all of this. Those are some pretty damaging remarks made about Jim's character. Seems to me if they take those charges seriously they might put a halt to putting out the GK stuff.
I would agree with you if Jim Shooter wasn't Jim Shooter. He's been in the business a long time, and has a track record, when given the opportunity, to make money in comic books. I am also sure Mike Richardson and Jim Shooter are friends/collegues, if anything from a publisher's point of view.
Mike's first duty is to Dark Horse though, so I don't think friendships will matter much if the company feels that this is not worth the bad publicity.

Ultimately, they don't need the GK characters to succeed as a business. I'm sure they will be weighing that fact closely in the next several weeks.

Good points. You are 100% right.

sckao · Post by **sckao** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:51 pm

After reading the complaint, it's pretty clear that Valiant doesn't have a large network infrastructure.

The loss of Shooter's notebook contents seems to indicate that all the planning documents were also lost means the company held no regular backups of Shooter's files and that the files were not held on a centralized file server.

The e-mail also seems to have not been centralized or server based as you would think that a lot of the information would be held there via communications with artists/writers and just regular e-mail exchanges.

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:53 pm

MoonChild wrote:Damn, what a mess. This says to me that VEI was in fact working on bringing our dream to us, so with that fact alone, I want to apologize for any disheartening statements towars them. It seems they were "in negotiations to aquire the classic media properties" but that never came to fruitation. Now all I want to know is what pushed Shooter away in such a manner?

Whilst this suggests that the plan was working towards new comic books, it also raises some questions.

VEI had capital outlay on the rights ownership (circa $1,000,000?), publishing of the books (I'd guess at $100,000 possibly?), plus start-up costs (maybe office space, legal fees, salaries for employees etc). And then they go ahead with a plan aiming to bring a product to market over 12 months later? Now there is a lg in publishing of at least three months (that soliciation window plus readiness), plus production (allow one month writing a blueprint, another for pencil art, another for inking and colouring; add 3 months total for lead time at a guess) so what accounts for the additional delay (at least 6 months maybe more)? Time is money and I think we can assume that they will have used up a lot of capital with very low return (I guess less than $200,000 income from the three HC's), so each month of delay costs more money.

So the question is was the plan as they outlined it or wher there other factors thay were counting on, maybe around March or summer 2010, that fell through?

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:55 pm

sckao wrote:After reading the complaint, it's pretty clear that Valiant doesn't have a large network infrastructure.

The loss of Shooter's notebook contents seems to indicate that all the planning documents were also lost means the company held no regular backups of Shooter's files and that the files were not held on a centralized file server.

The e-mail also seems to have not been centralized or server based as you would think that a lot of the information would be held there via communications with artists/writers and just regular e-mail exchanges.

Is that indicative of a lack of large network infrastructure or near-zero infrastructure?

jbtheo · Post by **jbtheo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:55 pm

MoonChild wrote:Damn, what a mess. This says to me that VEI was in fact working on bringing our dream to us, so with that fact alone, I want to apologize for any disheartening statements towars them. It seems they were "in negotiations to aquire the classic media properties" but that never came to fruitation. Now all I want to know is what pushed Shooter away in such a manner?

I guess the ONLY positive that has come out of this is that we have 100% confirmation that VEI, at least as of a few months ago, was planning to release comic books again--2010 was going to be their year. We know now that they are moving toward that direction, even if, allegedly, they also want a movie deal (can't say I blame them), but going into publishing is certainly moving in the right direction! Hopefully they have something in the works to release comics next year, as planned.