Valiant vs. Shooter - COURT DOCUMENT

greg · Post by **greg** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:46 am

I have been given permission to post this public document on file
with the New York Supreme Court - Case #602946-2009
(Dated September 21, 2009)

THIS IS IT:
http://www.valiantfan.com/valiant/60294 ... PLAINT.PDF

(The prior discussion took place in another topic in the "Registered Members Only" section of this board:)
viewtopic.php?t=28436

dave · Post by **dave** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:00 am

Wow, that stinks. I guess we know what the hold-up has been.

superman-prime · Post by **superman-prime** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:01 am

wow thats a beast but if its true VE has a good reason to be mad

greg · Post by **greg** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:01 am

dave wrote:
Wow, that stinks. I guess we know what the hold-up has been.

superman-prime wrote:wow thats a beast but if its true VE has a good reason to be mad

You, sirs, are very fast readers.

Dr. Solar · Post by **Dr. Solar** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:05 am

Thank you for posting.

Still haven't gotten my copy from eLaw.com yet.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:13 am

Ugh, what a mess this is. I see VEI has put a number of over a million dollars in damages to all of this.

What a shame that according to the file we were very close to getting what we've been asking for all of these years.

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:16 am

Daniel Jackson wrote:Ugh, what a mess this is. I see VEI has put a number of over a million dollars in damages to all of this.

What a shame that according to the file we were very close to getting what we've been asking for all of these years.

Actually if I read it right it is 3 x $1,000,000, plus salary paid to Jim Shooter, plus legal costs.

iggy101us · Post by **iggy101us** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:16 am

I think we all would've liked to see the Valiant Universe Project in 2010 under Shooter's direction.

I don't like where this is heading. I don't see a good outcome for anyone - VEI, Shooter, or the fans.

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:16 am

If true, this is just sad.

Just like Jim's side, this is another side to the story. Much like many things, we will probably never know the complete, unbiased truth.

According to my read, they are saying at least $3 mil, right? ($1 mil three times?) (plus whatever the court deems appropriate)

Chris

greg · Post by **greg** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:18 am

iggy101us wrote:I think we all would've liked to see the Valiant Universe Project in 2010 under Shooter's direction.

Bingo.

Brother J · Post by **Brother J** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:19 am

Am I incorrect in thinking that a confidentiality agreement does NOT equal an employment contract? Seems like VEI was quick to protect their interest by having Shooter sign the confidentiality agreement, but maybe not so quick to have Jim sign a contract to protect his financial interest and his medical benefits.

Interesting that the document mentions that VEI was negotiating for the Gold Key characters. I guess it could be that Dark Horse' agreement had expired, but I have no information on that.

Rolo · Post by **Rolo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:21 am

superman-prime wrote:wow thats a beast but if its true VE has a good reason to be mad

I'm glad to see this posted for all to read, but the biggest part about what you said is "IF it's true."

Lke any suit, this are allegations.

The party making the allegations, whether true or not, has every incentive to make them sound as horrible as possible. That's part of the game.

To simply make the allegations, though, they have no burden of proof.

To make them stand up is a different thing.

How often has Jim Shooter been to court? I'd venture a guess to say "More oten than he's wanted to..." so I'd also venture to guess that he knew (and knows) his rights.

Some of this stuff is just, well, really poorly conceived.

There's a lot of mumbo jumbo the does it's best to sound like there was an all-but-signed agreement between Classic Media and VEI, but... but.. but...

The make a big point out of the non-disclosure agreement with Shooter, but then devolve to a series of emails regarding his employment (meaning they have no signed contract), and then the kicker...

While they do their best lawyer-speak to make it sound like they had an agreement, what they in realtiy say is they had an agreement to prepare an agreement between them and Classic Media.

Well, anyone here ever been to court? An agreement to have an agreement doesn't wash. It doesn't stand up. That dog don't hunt.

I also think the non-compete is probably a load of horse hockey.

Rolo · Post by **Rolo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:23 am

Brother J wrote:Am I incorrect in thinking that a confidentiality agreement does NOT equal an employment contract? Seems like VEI was quick to protect their interest by having Shooter sign the confidentiality agreement, but maybe not so quick to have Jim sign a contract to protect his financial interest and his medical benefits.

In the immortal words of the late Ed McMahon, "You are correct, sir!"

Interesting that the document mentions that VEI was negotiating for the Gold Key characters. I guess it could be that Dark Horse' agreement had expired, but I have no information on that.
Seems reasonable enough, and I bet this will all come out also.

The only thing we know about VEI and the Gold Key characters is that their use of them in the three hardcovers they've released to date was not authorized.

SolarGod · Post by **SolarGod** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:25 am

It doesn't even sound like what VEI had with Classic Media was an agreement , no ? They are basing their argument on what THEY believe was going to happen. Not on anything that actually DID happen.

Fanboy375 · Post by **Fanboy375** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:27 am

So, from my own experiences I have some faults with this.

In November of 2008, I started to call Random House, Classic Media, and Dark Horse about getting permission to use the likenesses of Magnus, Turok, and Solar for the previously completed but never publsihed Unity 2000 issues #4, 5, & 6. This was a fan project per an agreement that I had with Dino.

I was told by Dark Horse (just after the Turok animated movie and comic adaptation were released) that they could not give us permission to print the material as they had future plans for the characters (but did not specify comics). This was in 2008!!! Dark Horse had NO intention of giving up the rights to the characters from my conversations with them.

I was also contacted by Random House and Classic media stating a no go. They said that DH had the rights to reprint the GK material as well as publish new, if they so chose.

However, the emails that i had have long since been deleted. And, the only correspondance I had with Dino (to relate all of the above material) was one (1) phone call about the matter.

These are the FACTS above. Draw your own conclusions

SolarGod · Post by **SolarGod** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:27 am

My second guess is that VEI's only connection to Classic Media was through Jim Shooter. No Shooter ..... no Classic Media characters.

Draco · Post by **Draco** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:28 am

Im sill no more convinced about anything than when the news broke.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:28 am

leonmallett wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:Ugh, what a mess this is. I see VEI has put a number of over a million dollars in damages to all of this.

What a shame that according to the file we were very close to getting what we've been asking for all of these years.
Actually if I read it right it is 3 x $1,000,000, plus salary paid to Jim Shooter, plus legal costs.

Yikes, I thought they were just referencing everything back to the one million dollar figure over an over.

iggy101us · Post by **iggy101us** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:29 am

Non-competes are hard to enforce. I think it was mentioned elsewhere, but you can't prevent someone from making a living by telling him not to use his professional skills. If someone is a painter by profession and that's the only thing he knows how to do, you can't tell him he can't paint and make a living for 3 months.

Also it's customary for firms to pay your salary during the non-compete period - i.e. keep paying Shooter for the 3-month period that he is not working. Not sure if it's a legal requirement or not, but it's customary in some industries.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:30 am

Draco wrote:Im sill no more convinced about anything than when the news broke.

As Greg said in the other thread, there are two sides to this. Now we need to hear what Jim has to say about all of these accusations.

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:30 am

Daniel Jackson wrote:
leonmallett wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:Ugh, what a mess this is. I see VEI has put a number of over a million dollars in damages to all of this.

What a shame that according to the file we were very close to getting what we've been asking for all of these years.
Actually if I read it right it is 3 x $1,000,000, plus salary paid to Jim Shooter, plus legal costs.
Yikes, I thought they were just referencing everything back to the one million dollar figure over an over.

That is what I thought initially, but there are four clear areas of action, and three stipulate the $1,000,000 figure. We need a board-lawyer for clarification.

superman-prime · Post by **superman-prime** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:33 am

I think it was 3 x 1 mill as well for 2 breaches of contract and 1 of loss of rev.

Rolo · Post by **Rolo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:39 am

SolarGod wrote:It doesn't even sound like what VEI had with Classic Media was an agreement , no ? They are basing their argument on what THEY believe was going to happen. Not on anything that actually DID happen.

But they did a comendable job of making it seem like a deal...

Smoke and mirrors?

Rolo · Post by **Rolo** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:41 am

iggy101us wrote:Non-competes are hard to enforce. I think it was mentioned elsewhere, but you can't prevent someone from making a living by telling him not to use his professional skills. If someone is a painter by profession and that's the only thing he knows how to do, you can't tell him he can't paint and make a living for 3 months.

Also it's customary for firms to pay your salary during the non-compete period - i.e. keep paying Shooter for the 3-month period that he is not working. Not sure if it's a legal requirement or not, but it's customary in some industries.

That was my understanding, too. Is there a lawyer on the board?

iggy101us · Post by **iggy101us** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:41 am

Page 6 per pdf / page 4 per the document footer, #12 has the wrong date. Dec 3, 2009 is in the future.