Star Citizen Breaking News

[dsmart]

https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi



Hold my beer, I got this...

http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/

[justme]

what time do you expect, they will need to come to a result?
and any idea, what costs could come with a conviction?

[orko]

Hold my beer, I got this...

Just need to point out one thing since I think this detail isn't leading anywhere. There's a simple answer to that question "...why is Amazon copyright missing from that video?"

The file is within Lumberyard, and you can check it here: https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/blob/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryCommon/INetwork.h

In the video the code is only visible starting from line 11: https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941031827258691585

EDIT: Typo.

[dsmart]

Hold my beer, I got this...

Just need to point out one thing since I think this detail isn't leading anywhere. There's a simple answer to that question "...why is Amazon copyright missing from that video?"

The file is within Lumberyard, and you can check it here: https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/blob/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryCommon/INetwork.h

In the video the code is only visible starting from line 11: https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941031827258691585

EDIT: Typo.

As I have both engines, I have files from both CryEngine and Lumberyard, and I am not understanding your point. Did I miss something?

[orko]

As I have both engines, I have files from both CryEngine and Lumberyard, and I am not understanding your point. Did I miss something?

I don't think so, I'm just saying that the user iBibbles at Polygon is wrong (see the pic you posted earlier). He claimed that in the Bugsmashers video the code file "INetwork.h" doesn't have the Amazon copyright part.

It most likely does, it is just not visible in the video as the file has been scrolled down a bit. Even the row count matches between the video and Lumberyard's source. I think this kind of details are too easily missed.

EDIT: Now I think I must be missing something instead? LOL

EDIT 2: It is this particular moment in the video that iBibbles is concerned about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pogHyFDCAk&feature=youtu.be&t=117 He thinks that the file is missing Amazon copyright part and is therefore part of original CryEngine, but as you can see, that is not the case.

[StanTheMan]

what time do you expect, they will need to come to a result?
and any idea, what costs could come with a conviction?

Watch this...all of it.

You will learn something.

[dsmart]

CryTek response

https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/13/16774244/crytek-star-citizen-cryengine-lawsuit

[Orgetorix]

Just got done reading the brief. Good on Crytek, CIG is so fucked. All we need to see now is the original contract that CIG/RSI signed with Crytek, and it's case closed.

Right off the bat SKADDEN comes out swinging hard for the fences. This little gem right here, just popped right out at me,

15. On November 20, 2012, Crytek and Defendants entered into a Game License Agreement ("GLA") with Crytek. The GLA was extensively negotiated, and negotiations on behalf of the Defendants were led by one of the Defendants' co-founders, Freyermuth. In prior years, Freyermuth also represented Crytek in negotiations of similar license agreements with third parties. Notwithstanding that he had confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage Defendants, Freyermuth never recused himself from those negotiations and never resolved that conflict of interest with Crytek. The negotiations on behalf of Crytek were led by Carl Jones, then an employee of Crytek. Jones later left Crytek and became an employee of Defendants.

If that doesn't demonstrate fraudulent collusion, I don't know what does. A jury will eat that up like candy and treble damages on the sugar high. With that allegation, SKADDEN is setting up to make a run at "Piercing the Corporate Veil". SKADDEN knows CIG/RSI are pretty much insolvent, it looks to me that they are setting up to make a run at the shareholders of the shell companies, eg... Croberts, Sandi, Erin, & Ortwin, ect... I'm telling you guys that paragraph 15 in this brief is the most important one. It's the one that shows fraud at the outset of the contract negotiations, and can directly lead to Croberts & Co. being left buck naked in mosquito country.   


We all knew that Croberts & Co. were a bunch of amoral d-bags, but once you shine a light, and get a really good look. All I can say is   

In my estimation this won't be settled pretrial. I don't think CIG/RSI has enough cash on hand to settle this. Crytek/SKADDEN must be aiming for $40-50 million on the high end. You don't sign a contract like this, raise $160 million+, then turn around and wipe your ass with it, and expect to get off cheap.

Croberts has finally proper fucked himself. He's in a position now where he can't settle and NDA the settlement, and if he goes to trial the Federal Discovery will blow the whole scam up. All they can do now is delay, delay, delay, rinse and repeat. Which of course is old hat to him, it's all he's done his entire life...

[David-2]

In prior years, Freyermuth also represented Crytek in negotiations of similar license agreements with third parties. Notwithstanding that he had confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage Defendants, Freyermuth never recused himself from those negotiations and never resolved that conflict of interest with Crytek.

I have to say, contrary to your opinion, that I thought this claim (or fact I forget which) was by far the weakest of the whole document.

Crytek obviously knew that Freyermuth had previously represented it in these negotiations, so they should have insisted he recuse himself back when they were negotiating with CIG.  Since they didn't, I would suppose it is too late to complain about it now.

Unless the claim is that he wasn't actually in the room, just talking to CIG's real representatives over the phone, and that his participation was hidden from Crytek.  But they don't say that, they say that the negotiations were led by Freyermuth.

So I don't get why this claim is material at all.

[Orgetorix]

I have to say, contrary to your opinion, that I thought this claim (or fact I forget which) was by far the weakest of the whole document.

Crytek obviously knew that Freyermuth had previously represented it in these negotiations, so they should have insisted he recuse himself back when they were negotiating with CIG.  Since they didn't, I would suppose it is too late to complain about it now.

Unless the claim is that he wasn't actually in the room, just talking to CIG's real representatives over the phone, and that his participation was hidden from Crytek.  But they don't say that, they say that the negotiations were led by Freyermuth.

So I don't get why this claim is material at all.

Normally I'd agree with you, but for the fact of Carl Jones. He was Crytek's representative in the negotiations. After the negotiations were finalized, CIG/RSI gave him a job. So basically what SKADDEN is alleging is that Jones working with Ortwin colluded to get CIG/RSI the best deal they could out of Crytek fraudulently. All the while never having any real intent on honoring the contract, because neither had clean hands.

The least is first, and the first is last. I've seen it again, and again in law. What you think is the least point in a case turns out to be the major point.

My main point is that SKADDEN put that into the brief because, in my humble estimation, it's a cause of action for them to request the bench to "Pierce The Corporate Veil". By doing so they only strengthen their position. If I was in SKADDEN shoes, that would be my main focus.

How do we get Croberts & Co. out from behind CIG/RSI, so that when we win at trial, we're not liening up a bunch of insolvent shell companies?

[Orgetorix]

CAHOOTS Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
cahoots (k<<schwa>>-hoots).Slang. Partnership, esp. in an illegal act; collusion <Ortwin Freyermuth was in cahoots with Carl Jones when they were negotiating the Game License Agreement ("GLA") between Crytek, and CIG/RSI>.

 

[Orgetorix]

PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 3641

piercing the corporate veil.The judicial act of imposing personal liability on otherwise
immune corporate officers, directors, and shareholders for the corporation's wrongful acts. — Also
termed disregarding the corporate entity; veil-piercing. See CORPORATE VEIL. [Cases:
Corporations 1.4(1). C.J.S. Corporations §§ 9, 13.]

“[C]ourts sometimes apply common law principles to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and hold
shareholders personally liable for corporate debts or obligations. Unfortunately, despite the
enormous volume of litigation in this area, the case law fails to articulate any sensible rationale or
policy that explains when corporate existence should be disregarded. Indeed, courts are
remarkably prone to rely on labels or characterizations of relationships (such as ‘alter ego,’
‘instrumentality,’ or ‘sham’) and the decisions offer little in the way of predictability or rational
explanation of why enumerated factors should be decisive.” Barry R. Furrow et al., Health Law §
5-4, at 182 (2d ed. 2000)

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP are no dummies. They're looking for the money, and if you bring suit, how are you going to collect from a bunch of insolvent shell corporations?

[dsmart]

I have to say, contrary to your opinion, that I thought this claim (or fact I forget which) was by far the weakest of the whole document.

Crytek obviously knew that Freyermuth had previously represented it in these negotiations, so they should have insisted he recuse himself back when they were negotiating with CIG.  Since they didn't, I would suppose it is too late to complain about it now.

Unless the claim is that he wasn't actually in the room, just talking to CIG's real representatives over the phone, and that his participation was hidden from Crytek.  But they don't say that, they say that the negotiations were led by Freyermuth.

So I don't get why this claim is material at all.

Read this. I cover it there. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html

[N0mad]

Read this. I cover it there. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my armchair lawyer interpretation is that by naming the two lawyers in the court documents makes them, at the very least, witnesses in the case. Neither of them is accused of wrongdoing, but now neither of them can invoke attorney-client privilege to try and cover up relevant evidence - especially since they were the individuals most involved with the original GLA agreement. Clearly one of the allegations will be that CIG clearly knew the implications of the agreement since they now employ the lawyers who negotiated both sides of it !

At least that's my (amateur) reading of the case.

[Motto]

There is one thing bugging me ever since this lawsuit started. I'm assuming that they did some research at Skadden. It should be pretty obvious that there is no money left at CIG, at least not much. Even if Chris and his merry gang did skim off, will there be enough to satisfy both CryTek and Skadden? I'm guessing there won't be since the largest part of the money most likely actually has been spent on staff etc. How come Skadden still took on the job?