Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The big chokepoint is the knowledge/skillset and the equipment. Western plastics production is fairly robust and widespread... its just focused on industries that are nothing at all like the miniatures/toy industry, with a heavy emphasis on rapid production/short turn around time or very very large production runs (as in the entirety of GWs annual production output combined x10 per part/kit). The technologies and equipment used are different, the knowledge and skillset of the mold engineers and toolmakers are different, etc. Even though you can find plenty of companies in the US and Europe that can produce plastic injection molds for you, very few of them have the capability to produce molds for complex and highly detailed miniatures in the same vein as GWs products, and fewer still have the ability to do it well enough that the quality is comparable to "industry standard", etc. That knowledge and capability comes at an additional cost because its so rare and hyper-specialized. Then on top of that you have the generally higher operating costs (real estate, energy, labor, overhead, etc.) to operate a facility in the US or UK as well as the higher material costs in the US, etc. etc. etc. and it adds up quick.

In terms of actual production costs (i.e. shooting the mold full of plastic), using a highly automated US facility is about the same cost as doing it in China - but automation means big upfront $$$ costs and the only plastics manufacturing facilities that do that in the US (or really, anywhere) are making things like medical devices or aerospace grade precision parts, etc. that have multibillion dollar contracts behind them or extremely high volume goods with volumes measured in the tens or hundreds of millions of parts, etc. and so they can afford state of the art equipment and facilities on that basis. Its just not going to happen for miniatures, because the volume isn't there - aside from GW and maybe Asmodee, most companies producing miniatures or plastic kits aren't selling more than 20-50k copies of any given kit over the lifetime of that entire product line. Domestic plastics manufacturers with automated lines probably won't even pick up the phone unless your order quantity is a million + units, so thats not really an option. As such your only realistic option is to use a company that uses a more labor intensive process, but for 20k units packed into product packaging you're maybe looking at a $2000-2500 labor upcharge ($0.10 to $0.125 per part) which isn't really anything worth sweating about in the long run, unlike say if your were ordering 20 million units and that labor upcharge worked out to be an extra $2-2.5 million - then you might put the time and money into trying to reduce the labor costs because the dollar value on that is much more "real" than a one time few of a couple thousand bucks.

The other thing to add to the stack is the cost of shipping and logistics challenges related to lockdowns.

About 52% of Apple's revenue is new iPhone sales. The company has had to scale back projections by about 10 mil units due to supply chain disruptions, which mostly have to do with lockdowns in China. When factories were shut down, it meant the new camera modules could not be produced at high enough scale to meet demand.

The company is in the process of moving production to Vietnam. They paid to have a factory built there, of note is the location near Hai Phong port.

The cost to move a container from Hai Phong is close to 40% less than from Shanghai, and it hasn't experienced any interruptions in cargo operations throughout the lockdowns. While shipping has always been a marginal cost for companies like Apple, it starts to matter when you're talking $40k vs $23k at scale.

Can't imagine these factors don't affect the prevailing calculus when it comes to injection molding. The margins for finished products are generally in the 2 - 3% range, producers don't really want to be passing on more costs to consumers.

oh absolutely, but logistics and supply chain issues at this point are kinda old hat, they go without saying and are the default assumption of the day until the whole mess eventually gets sorted out

 Flinty wrote:
I think that’s a bit of a step to take. Over 500 people backed the campaign, and using it as a scam based purely on bankruptcy technicalities seems like a sure fire way to wreck your business and personal reputation.

Well if you intend to sell the company anyway (and he's selling the company now) you will not care as to the company's reputation. And if you need the money urgently for say, medical treatment or such, you might not care about your long term reputation.

To address ced1106's points, I think this was a more sophisticated scam than those he's talking about: the "take the money and run" ones.

Rather it seems you have an established company that's racked up debt. You need to sell because you need money urgently, what do you do? The company is heavily in debt which looks really bad to a potential buyer. So you run a KS campaign, and you can put a load of extra income on the balance sheets as pledges. But then you don't have to list the fulfilment costs as liabilities (debt) because they're not legally binding. Yes, some sellers would be put off when you said you had an "unfulfilled crowd-fund" or whatever, you're not going to get picked up by another person trading in the same space that understands the cost of that (and the cost reputationally if they don't fulfil) but a larger investor or bank may just pick up the sale in the assumption it's a profitable business and they can then sell it on. You clear your hands of it and it's someone else's problem, and they state they're not fulfilling the KS because they don't have to.

It does make we wonder if the TTC stuff is a result of a similar attempt to artificially inflate the company value before sale - may they thought they could sell off some IP to them before the sale and it didn't work out as expected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re - China production: the entire hobby tabletop board game industry runs on production in China and while it's certainly not painless, it by and large works, or at least did until the last 12-18 months with the shipping crisis.

Not the entire industry, just the vast majority of it. There are and have been a number of US, UK, and EU based manufacturers and publishers of board and tabletop game products even before the pandemic - GW is one of them.

For products, sure, for actual boxed games, very few. Even the GW stuff like Cursed City had the cardboard printed in China.

This is, essentially, why companies in our industry have been flocking to things like siocast, despite how restrictive and proprietary their system is. You at least still control the molds.

Store is reopened with limited items.

Your purchase will help cover rent and attorney fees as we continue trying to resolve the issue of TT Combat/Troll Trader in the UK falsely claiming to have a license to our IP, which has made it impossible to sell or license to legitimate parties. This is your LAST CHANCE to purchase Secret Weapon paints, pigments, and dungeon tiles. Inventory is limited to stock on hand.

https://www.secretweaponminiatures.com/

Statement from TTCombat over what is going on with Secret Weapon, some mud slinging in this:

https://community.ttcombat.com/2022/06/10/secret-weapon-statement/

Gotta say I find the TT story more credible. First of all I was suspicious that one miniature company would straight up just try to steal the IP of another, never heard that one before. Then, as stated in this thread by others, the various dubious statements by the SW guy as posted here, doesn't seem to add up. This statement by TT claiming that the SW chief is putting the money into his own pocket seems somewhat believable.

JWBS wrote:
Gotta say I find the TT story more credible. First of all I was suspicious that one miniature company would straight up just try to steal the IP of another, never heard that one before. Then, as stated in this thread by others, the various dubious statements by the SW guy as posted here, doesn't seem to add up. This statement by TT claiming that the SW chief is putting the money into his own pocket seems somewhat believable.

Agreed, I've just read the TT statement and it rings true.

That's a lot of money given in a short space of time. Any reputable business owner wouldn't be using any of it to go on vacation, especially if said business is in serious trouble.

As a small business owner myself I find Justin's actions to be somewhat strange to say the least.

that does sound more believable

(i can see the desire to still keep taking a salary especially if thats your families sole income clashing with a potential rescuer expecting an owner to take the pain and pay other staff and expenses first

Its an issue that comes up on failed KS too where salaries eat the money really fast)

The other issue that SW may well be misinterpreting is that contracts and agreements don't vanish just because the bank seizes a controlling interest in your business because you've defaulted on a loan

that only happens if you actually file for, and proceed into bankruptcy (often there will be a termination clause in licences), and the bank may well feel that keeping the business nominally existing makes more sense for them if the physical assets are less than the debt.... they may be able to sell it on as a going concern, and some costs like warehousing may still need to be paid buy the previous owners (again depending on contracts)

I find ttcombat much more credible here.

Sorry for Justin, but it is what it is.

Obviously, we disagree with the statement from TTC and encourage them to continue talks with our attorney. I cannot, and will not, comment publicly on their claims. The attorney representing Secret Weapon has offered them several ways to resolve this ongoing dispute, and has spent months in communication with their attorney.

I will continue to encourage them to communicate through their attorney.

The fact that they claim that there is no ongoing legal dispute, when they know that their attorney is in communication with the attorney representing SWM, is the only part of their statement that I will comment on.

Battlefront and Paolo Parente again...

Pretty annoying when we get to the point of asking a creator about what agreements and contracts they have with other companies and people before backing a KS. See also: Up Front. And HeroQuest Anniversary. And Joan of Arc. And...

 ced1106 wrote:

Obviously, we disagree with the statement from TTC and encourage them to continue talks with our attorney. I cannot, and will not, comment publicly on their claims. The attorney representing Secret Weapon has offered them several ways to resolve this ongoing dispute, and has spent months in communication with their attorney.

I will continue to encourage them to communicate through their attorney.

The fact that they claim that there is no ongoing legal dispute, when they know that their attorney is in communication with the attorney representing SWM, is the only part of their statement that I will comment on.

Battlefront and Paolo Parente again...

Pretty annoying when we get to the point of asking a creator about what agreements and contracts they have with other companies and people before backing a KS. See also: Up Front. And HeroQuest Anniversary. And Joan of Arc. And...

I dunno, maybe I didn't pay close attention to it, but the Battlefront/Pablo fight seemed much less clear cut than what's going on now with Secret Weapon and TTC.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:

Obviously, we disagree with the statement from TTC and encourage them to continue talks with our attorney. I cannot, and will not, comment publicly on their claims. The attorney representing Secret Weapon has offered them several ways to resolve this ongoing dispute, and has spent months in communication with their attorney.

I will continue to encourage them to communicate through their attorney.

The fact that they claim that there is no ongoing legal dispute, when they know that their attorney is in communication with the attorney representing SWM, is the only part of their statement that I will comment on.

Battlefront and Paolo Parente again...

Pretty annoying when we get to the point of asking a creator about what agreements and contracts they have with other companies and people before backing a KS. See also: Up Front. And HeroQuest Anniversary. And Joan of Arc. And...

I dunno, maybe I didn't pay close attention to it, but the Battlefront/Pablo fight seemed much less clear cut than what's going on now with Secret Weapon and TTC.

But once again, Clear cut for who?

Two different legal systems from two separate countries. Even though we share a common language (plenty of variation though), we have very different business rules and definitions, especially in bankruptcy. The “creditability” spoken about here could just be the difference between Justin writing what he interprets the situation as and TTCombat having time to write a response and have their legal team clean it up.

 Theophony wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:

Obviously, we disagree with the statement from TTC and encourage them to continue talks with our attorney. I cannot, and will not, comment publicly on their claims. The attorney representing Secret Weapon has offered them several ways to resolve this ongoing dispute, and has spent months in communication with their attorney.

I will continue to encourage them to communicate through their attorney.

The fact that they claim that there is no ongoing legal dispute, when they know that their attorney is in communication with the attorney representing SWM, is the only part of their statement that I will comment on.

Battlefront and Paolo Parente again...

Pretty annoying when we get to the point of asking a creator about what agreements and contracts they have with other companies and people before backing a KS. See also: Up Front. And HeroQuest Anniversary. And Joan of Arc. And...

I dunno, maybe I didn't pay close attention to it, but the Battlefront/Pablo fight seemed much less clear cut than what's going on now with Secret Weapon and TTC.

But once again, Clear cut for who?

Two different legal systems from two separate countries. Even though we share a common language (plenty of variation though), we have very different business rules and definitions, especially in bankruptcy. The “creditability” spoken about here could just be the difference between Justin writing what he interprets the situation as and TTCombat having time to write a response and have their legal team clean it up.

I mean right now I (and I'm betting everyone here) only have the two statements to go on, but to me it's far more likely a small business/single owner squandered cash then misinterpreted/misrepresented the situation to try to deflect than another, established, company deliberately going out of their way to try to steal IP. IP which honestly is of questionable profitability.

Because we've seen small business owners in this industry mismanage money all the time, it's a tale as old as the industry itself.

The problem with TTCs statement is that per what they described they only made two 3-month payments beginning in Feb 2021. That means their license to produce and sell would have ended Aug 2021. They are also claiming (or attempting to claim) rights over the IP, seemingly in perpetuity, on the basis that they have/had a rolling 3-month license to produce those bases.

To put that in different terms, that would be like if I bought a license to print and sell 3d models from another company, and after a few months of printing and selling those models attempted to claim exclusive ownership of the files and take legal ownership of those files from the people who sculpted them.

Thats not how it works, and as gakky as Justins own apparent misbehavior here is, I would argue that TTCs is worse.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The problem with TTCs statement is that per what they described they only made two 3-month payments beginning in Feb 2021. That means their license to produce and sell would have ended Aug 2021. They are also claiming (or attempting to claim) rights over the IP, seemingly in perpetuity, on the basis that they have/had a rolling 3-month license to produce those bases.

To put that in different terms, that would be like if I bought a license to print and sell 3d models from another company, and after a few months of printing and selling those models attempted to claim exclusive ownership of the files and take legal ownership of those files from the people who sculpted them.

Thats not how it works, and as gakky as Justins own apparent misbehavior here is, I would argue that TTCs is worse.

Maybe I'm missing something, but TTC's own statement is that they're looking into acquiring the IP, not that they're unilaterally taking it. To me that's just logical, after putting in money to potentially produce the stuff why not ask the bank (or whoever ends up with it) to get the IP?

There's no requirement that IP burn when a company goes under.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The problem with TTCs statement is that per what they described they only made two 3-month payments beginning in Feb 2021. That means their license to produce and sell would have ended Aug 2021. They are also claiming (or attempting to claim) rights over the IP, seemingly in perpetuity, on the basis that they have/had a rolling 3-month license to produce those bases.

To put that in different terms, that would be like if I bought a license to print and sell 3d models from another company, and after a few months of printing and selling those models attempted to claim exclusive ownership of the files and take legal ownership of those files from the people who sculpted them.

Thats not how it works, and as gakky as Justins own apparent misbehavior here is, I would argue that TTCs is worse.

Are TTCombat still selling Secret Weapon bases? As far as I can see on the store they only have the Tomb World ones up which came out mid 2020, and a single set of the urban waste bases which are quite different to the old secret weapon urban rubble ones. They also say that the agreement didn't start in Feb 2021, but 'months' later, so presumably the 6 months would have started from that point.

"W had already made the decision to close as early as February 2021. This was months before we even discussed (let alone entered into) the licence arrangement."

The staement also reads to me that they've expressed an interest with US bank to purchase the IP (though US bank have not confirmed they've actually taken ownership), not that they already own it or plan to exploit it absent a licence - that's Justin's assertion, without evidence that I can see. If TTcombat were asserting they already had the rights to the IP, they'd presumably still be selling the bases they spent considerable sums making casts of?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was miscommunication between TTCombat and Justin over what they both expected out of the deal, and indeed the diagreement over whether's Justin's salary was justified for a business on life support seems like an 'opinons differ' sort of problem where they potentially both have a valid point of view. But I'm not seeing major malfeasance from TTCombat as things stand.

> I wouldn't be surprised if there was miscommunication between TTCombat and Justin over what they both expected out of the deal,

If there's anything I've learned from the hobby, it's that IP contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on!

Was going to post a whole list of IP disputes I've found with boardgames, but hang around KS long enough, and you'll find plenty.

Bonus points if you remember Magic Realm and that before the internet, contracts were typed by hand onto carbon copies that, I'm sure, eventually faded, or at least got filed and lost!

You'd think if there was a contract it would be pretty clear cut. Probably just a few emails was all that were exchanged, and while that can be legally binding it can also be very vague and allow for misrepresentations like we seams to be seeing now.

Sad as I like both companies and this just seams like the whole deal was poorly managed by both companies.

 ScarletRose wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The problem with TTCs statement is that per what they described they only made two 3-month payments beginning in Feb 2021. That means their license to produce and sell would have ended Aug 2021. They are also claiming (or attempting to claim) rights over the IP, seemingly in perpetuity, on the basis that they have/had a rolling 3-month license to produce those bases.

To put that in different terms, that would be like if I bought a license to print and sell 3d models from another company, and after a few months of printing and selling those models attempted to claim exclusive ownership of the files and take legal ownership of those files from the people who sculpted them.

Thats not how it works, and as gakky as Justins own apparent misbehavior here is, I would argue that TTCs is worse.

Maybe I'm missing something, but TTC's own statement is that they're looking into acquiring the IP, not that they're unilaterally taking it.

"We have contacted US Bank to register an interest in SW however no one we have talked to is able to confirm they have actually repossessed SW IP."

That implies they are basically claiming that they are a creditor that SW owes money to rather than simply being a licensee, and are attempting to gain control of the IP as a means of restitution for payments owed.

"If we do end up in possession of the SW IP"

And here they are say directly that they want to take possession of it.

To me that's just logical, after putting in money to potentially produce the stuff why not ask the bank (or whoever ends up with it) to get the IP?

There's no requirement that IP burn when a company goes under.

It doesn't work that way. If I own a grocery store and I start stocking milk from a local dairy farm, I am not entitled to ownership of the farm if they go out of business after I buy inventory from them. By the same extension, if I cut a deal to translate/localize and publish foreign books and the writer/publisher of those books goes out of business or drops dead or whatever, I'm not suddenly entitled to ownership of the books myself. It sucks that TTC took a financial hit on a bad deal, but thats the risk that you incur when making licensing deals like this. Even if SW didn't fold its entirely possible that TTC wouldn't even manage to break even on this deal, would that then entitle them to try to take ownership of the IP from SW because they didn't make enough money on it?

While theres no requirement for the IP to burn with a sinking ship, that isn't a decision that TTC gets to make. Thats a decision for the rights holder to make, and the rights holder is SW on behalf of US Bank - not TTC. If TTC wants the IP, then they can do it the right way and attempt to purchase the rights from SW and US Bank through the proper legal channels instead of trying to claim an interest that they have no right to which only serves to make it impossible for either party to move forward. The truth of the matter is that no court would award TTC the rights to the IP for nothing on the basis of their licensing agreement, and I'm sure they and their legal counsel recognize that. I can only imagine that this is really more of a stalling tactic so that they can continue to sell the bases until they break even/reduce their losses, etc.

Are TTCombat still selling Secret Weapon bases?

Its being done through TTCs parent company, Troll Trader: https://thetrolltrader.com/collections/secret-weapon-1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As far as I can see on the store they only have the Tomb World ones up which came out mid 2020, and a single set of the urban waste bases which are quite different to the old secret weapon urban rubble ones.

As far as I am aware neither of these are secret weapon designs and are licensed from elsewhere or designed directly by TTC/Troll Trader.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The staement also reads to me that they've expressed an interest with US bank to purchase the IP (though US bank have not confirmed they've actually taken ownership), not that they already own it or plan to exploit it absent a licence - that's Justin's assertion, without evidence that I can see. If TTcombat were asserting they already had the rights to the IP, they'd presumably still be selling the bases they spent considerable sums making casts of?

No no, if TTC was attempting to *purchase* the rights to the IP then none of this would be an issue. SW and US Bank are trying to find a buyer, remember? The issue they are having (according to Justin) is that they can't find someone to buy the company or the IP because TTC/Troll Trader is claiming that they have an interest/own the IP themselves. Your interpretation is basically impossible, as it would negate the entire core point of contention here.

"We have contacted US Bank to register an interest in SW however no one we have talked to is able to confirm they have actually repossessed SW IP."

That implies they are basically claiming that they are a creditor that SW owes money to rather than simply being a licensee, and are attempting to gain control of the IP as a means of restitution for payments owed.

"If we do end up in possession of the SW IP"

And here they are say directly that they want to take possession of it.

You're reading an incredible amount into the word "interest", but whatever. At this point it's one person's word against another and the standard I'm using is "more reasonable than not" - as in it's more reasonable than not to believe this is yet another failed sole proprietor who squandered money.

To clarify, I'm stating my view on this, not looking for a formal debate club. If you want to believe this is a nefarious plan to steal the ever-so-valuable IP to generic scenic bases than by all means feel free. Just don't bother replying to me about it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
"We have contacted US Bank to register an interest in SW however no one we have talked to is able to confirm they have actually repossessed SW IP."

That implies they are basically claiming that they are a creditor that SW owes money to rather than simply being a licensee, and are attempting to gain control of the IP as a means of restitution for payments owed.

"If we do end up in possession of the SW IP"

And here they are say directly that they want to take possession of it.

A few things in the language of TTC's letter suggest what might be happening is something like this:

- Secret Weapon borrowed money from the bank, probably in the form of a revolving line of credit. (Which is a pool of money you can dip into at low interest rates, but you have to pay it back in monthly installments.)

- SW was unable to keep up with payments on the line of credit. The bank seized their assets and is preparing to liquidate them. Their assets would include IP / designs owned by SW.

- In general, liquidation happens in the form of an auction. They offer the business assets for sale and see what they can get for them. Usually, recovering 15% of the actual value at auction is considered a win.

- TTC has registered as a Creditor with the bank. Creditors have some rights in this. Usually, the way it works is: once the bank has been made whole by selling assets, any remaining proceeds go to other Creditors.

- TTC is asking to get the designs for bases to settle the debt. This could satisfy them as a Creditor.

- The bank has no clue what the real value of the the designs are or what they could fetch at auction. They may have someone handling correspondence with TTC, but this is not a high priority for them. 40% of small businesses in CA went out of business over the last 2 years, many of which are much larger than SW. Dealing with all this financial chaos is an enormous task and it will take time to get back around to the episode of SW.

- IIRC, SW is incorporated as an LLC in California, and the location gives Creditors some specific rights they might not have in other states. My understanding of the particulars is murky, so I don't want to speculate. But Creditors can make claims on assets prior to liquidation, generally to ones they provided to the business that have not been paid for. This can extend to other areas, which may be the basis for TTC claiming rights to the IP.

- Thus no one knows the fate of this IP, it's tied up in seizureland. The bank could choose to pursue a deal with other Creditors, or it could just ignore them because it's not worth their time. The later happens every day.

Part of the reason I mentioned line of credit issue and not loan is that lines of credit can be cancelled. Wells Fargo and Bank of America cancelled their personal line of credit programs last year and they've also been cancelling them for small businesses under a certain dollar amount. Would not be surprised to learn US Bank is doing the same, with less fanfare.

When a line of credit is cancelled, you have to continue to make payments on outstanding debt. But you no longer have access to that pool of money you may have come to depend on for operating expenses. This can really put the screws to a business, forcing them to chase other forms of financing while trying to save the company.

Okay, reading the TTC statement I think I can piece this together. SWM offered a license to TTC to make bases, and TTC agreed, paying in advance for a six month license. According to TTC, after declining to make a further payment, SWM tried to terminate the deal. Of course, TTC had paid for the license.

So, if what TTC wrote is true, they are owed either a six month production license, or appropriate damages in cash.

I’m not entirely certain why a six month license window would be that enormous a roadblock to selling the IP, but I’m also not certain fighting this in court would be economical.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The problem with TTCs statement is that per what they described they only made two 3-month payments beginning in Feb 2021. That means their license to produce and sell would have ended Aug 2021. They are also claiming (or attempting to claim) rights over the IP, seemingly in perpetuity, on the basis that they have/had a rolling 3-month license to produce those bases.

To put that in different terms, that would be like if I bought a license to print and sell 3d models from another company, and after a few months of printing and selling those models attempted to claim exclusive ownership of the files and take legal ownership of those files from the people who sculpted them.

Thats not how it works, and as gakky as Justins own apparent misbehavior here is, I would argue that TTCs is worse.

Maybe I'm missing something, but TTC's own statement is that they're looking into acquiring the IP, not that they're unilaterally taking it.

"We have contacted US Bank to register an interest in SW however no one we have talked to is able to confirm they have actually repossessed SW IP."

That implies they are basically claiming that they are a creditor that SW owes money to rather than simply being a licensee, and are attempting to gain control of the IP as a means of restitution for payments owed.

"If we do end up in possession of the SW IP"

And here they are say directly that they want to take possession of it.

Yeah, so the initial assertion that TTC is claiming ownership of the IP is demonstrably false; they can't be trying to get the IP (through legitimate legal process) and also be saying they already have it.

It's not impossible if you think Justin is lying.

 ScarletRose wrote:

"We have contacted US Bank to register an interest in SW however no one we have talked to is able to confirm they have actually repossessed SW IP."

That implies they are basically claiming that they are a creditor that SW owes money to rather than simply being a licensee, and are attempting to gain control of the IP as a means of restitution for payments owed.

"If we do end up in possession of the SW IP"

And here they are say directly that they want to take possession of it.

You're reading an incredible amount into the word "interest", but whatever. At this point it's one person's word against another and the standard I'm using is "more reasonable than not" - as in it's more reasonable than not to believe this is yet another failed sole proprietor who squandered money.

To clarify, I'm stating my view on this, not looking for a formal debate club. If you want to believe this is a nefarious plan to steal the ever-so-valuable IP to generic scenic bases than by all means feel free. Just don't bother replying to me about it.

I'm not. In the context of bankruptcy/receivership proceedings, etc. "registering an interest" has specific legal implications. It doesn't mean "I would like to know more", it means "I have a legal and financial concern involved in these ongoing proceedings that needs to be addressed".

- TTC has registered as a Creditor with the bank. Creditors have some rights in this. Usually, the way it works is: once the bank has been made whole by selling assets, any remaining proceeds go to other Creditors.

- TTC is asking to get the designs for bases to settle the debt. This could satisfy them as a Creditor.

Generally speaking, being a licensor does not make you a creditor. They can register an interest as a creditor (anyone can, even if you've never done business with an entity), but it doesn't mean that they will be recognized as such under review.

So, if what TTC wrote is true, they are owed either a six month production license, or appropriate damages in cash.
I’m not entirely certain why a six month license window would be that enormous a roadblock to selling the IP, but I’m also not certain fighting this in court would be economical.

Yes, and thats seemingly part of the problem - that 6 month license is no doubt expired at this point - even if it didn't go into immediate effect in Feb 2021 its been about 18 month, yet TT seems to still be producing and/or selling those bases and maintaining a continuing right to do so.

Yeah, so the initial assertion that TTC is claiming ownership of the IP is demonstrably false; they can't be trying to get the IP (through legitimate legal process) and also be saying they already have it.

Correct. They stated they are the "rightful owners" of the IP in various places when asked about proceedings, etc. but now admit that they are trying to acquire it through legal proceedings. By their own admission in the post they paid for 6 months of the license, which should have expired by now, but are continuing to produce/sell those bases.

This basically squares with Justins statements and explains why hes stuck in legal limbo.

It's not impossible if you think Justin is lying.

I don't think hes lying, I have no reason to. TTCs admissions square with his own claims as to what the problem is.

It is quite possible that Troll Trader are selling a stockpile of bases produced in the 6 month production window and are not selling new bases. If they were trying to recoup the $20,000 licensing and £15,000 mould making expenses then they would have to sell a lot of bases.

 Maccwar wrote:
It is quite possible that Troll Trader are selling a stockpile of bases produced in the 6 month production window and are not selling new bases. If they were trying to recoup the $20,000 licensing and £15,000 mould making expenses then they would have to sell a lot of bases.

Hard to tell, but people noted restocks and new inventory of the bases at the tail end of last year and start of this year