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.

Is it ever possible for a defendant to demand settlement terms be made public as a condition of settlement? One would think if CHS had GW by the balls it appeared they did, that would be something to do in recompense for this 4 year fiasco. Unless GW threw money at CHS to have them not do that.

One side or the other usually makes the concessions required to keep it private. CHS could have demanded it be made public but Im not sure what would be in it for them and an agreement would be unlikely to be made.

Legal cases like these end in non-disclosure settlements all the time, how it just doesn't always 'slip out' somehow through an anonymous comment made somewhere surprises me. It would only take a disgruntled employee on either side to let it out.

Usually NDA's are formulated so that if any of it comes out it will hurt the part spilling it very much. I think they guard the content very tightly by just letting the board, ceo and litigators know the full content.

Charax wrote:
With this finally wrapping up it would be nice to have some choice quotes of embarrassment from the proceedings

On tshirts?

We could all get one and descend on our local stores.

 cygnnus wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:




What a waste...

The stars lined up for Chapterhouse and the whole thing was, I'm sure, still hugely painful.

Stars did not line up by themselves. It was a load of work.

weeble1000 wrote:

 cygnnus wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:




What a waste...

The stars lined up for Chapterhouse and the whole thing was, I'm sure, still hugely painful.

Stars did not line up by themselves. It was a load of work.

I meant that the stars lined up in that CH got some very high caliber pro bono help. Without that help, this case would have been over, with a defacto GW win, years ago as a small producer like CH couldn't possibly afford to directly bear the full costs of litigation like this. The odds of the "next guy" getting that type of help have got to be fairly small.

Don't for one second mean to disparage the work that must have gone into this case... Just ticked that GW didn't get the slap down they so obviously deserved. Instead we end up with a muddle under an NDA...

Valete,

JohnS

Do we know why the work was done pro bono? Was that a firm who are hoping to become the de facto go to guy for miniature wargaming IP issues? Is that even worth it at the pace the industry is growing?

Just out of interest, and you never know when your going to need a lawyer who knows the industry.

 cygnnus wrote:
The odds of the "next guy" getting that type of help have got to be fairly small.

The odds of the next guy getting help are a lot higher now, since non-gamers have become aware of GW trolling.

 Casey's Law wrote:
Do we know why the work was done pro bono? Was that a firm who are hoping to become the de facto go to guy for miniature wargaming IP issues? Is that even worth it at the pace the industry is growing?.

It's got nothing to do with the wargaming industry. The precedent set by GW would have impacted all manufacturing and design industries, including aftermarket parts for everything. If GW had a slam-dunk win then it'd open the gates for all sorts of bogus claims.

I cannot imagine the kind of pressure Nick has been under. I am very happy for him that this whole thing is coming to an end.
It must be an enormous relief and a great weight off his shoulders.

Having said that; this is THE worst possible outcome of this case for the industry and the community.
No lines are clearly drawn. GW can easily go on deluding itself.
No real hard precedent has been set.

In a way Nick's sacrifices and hard work (and those of his legal council) has amounted to.....nothing.
A waste of time, resources and emotional investment (on behalf of Nick obviously).

I am so sad.

Silver lining? I am very happy that Nick can resume a semblance of a normal life.
Thank you for your efforts, Nick.



---

Herzlos wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Do we know why the work was done pro bono? Was that a firm who are hoping to become the de facto go to guy for miniature wargaming IP issues? Is that even worth it at the pace the industry is growing?.

It's got nothing to do with the wargaming industry. The precedent set by GW would have impacted all manufacturing and design industries, including aftermarket parts for everything. If GW had a slam-dunk win then it'd open the gates for all sorts of bogus claims.

That's a fair point but really isn't in anyway attached to what I asked. I'm interested in who the firm are that are doing the work and I'm interested to see if they get anything out of it. For instance will they start to circulate their name in this industry, which would be nice. I'd like to know there was someone with their finger on the button.

Charax wrote:
With this finally wrapping up it would be nice to have some choice quotes of embarrassment from the proceedings

Filter the thread for weeble1000's posts- I remember him a few others pulling them put as they went along. Perhaps check around page 100 or 170. I forgot who else was pulling some funny quotes, but start with weeble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Casey's Law wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Do we know why the work was done pro bono? Was that a firm who are hoping to become the de facto go to guy for miniature wargaming IP issues? Is that even worth it at the pace the industry is growing?.

It's got nothing to do with the wargaming industry. The precedent set by GW would have impacted all manufacturing and design industries, including aftermarket parts for everything. If GW had a slam-dunk win then it'd open the gates for all sorts of bogus claims.

That's a fair point but really isn't in anyway attached to what I asked. I'm interested in who the firm are that are doing the work and I'm interested to see if they get anything out of it. For instance will they start to circulate their name in this industry, which would be nice. I'd like to know there was someone with their finger on the button.

They were just high-end IP lawyers- they had no interest in wargaming besides the precedent this case might have set.

 cygnnus wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 cygnnus wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:




What a waste...

The stars lined up for Chapterhouse and the whole thing was, I'm sure, still hugely painful.

Stars did not line up by themselves. It was a load of work.

I meant that the stars lined up in that CH got some very high caliber pro bono help. Without that help, this case would have been over, with a defacto GW win, years ago as a small producer like CH couldn't possibly afford to directly bear the full costs of litigation like this. The odds of the "next guy" getting that type of help have got to be fairly small.

Don't for one second mean to disparage the work that must have gone into this case... Just ticked that GW didn't get the slap down they so obviously deserved. Instead we end up with a muddle under an NDA...

Valete,

JohnS

That's what I meant too. Those stars did not align by themselves.

And now to see one of the best intellectual property and appellate law firms in the world shepherding a settlement on the doorstep of a really important appeal because GW made a stink about seizing an indigent defendant's personal assets...

It is a waste. It is a waste of the firm's efforts and a waste of the efforts of all those people who worked to make it possible in the first place.

Nick stuck through this thing for a long, long time and wound up fumbling the ball at the 1 yard line. He's certainly got his own interests to protect, and if he wanted to settle, that's that. But Chapterhouse Studios would have been out of business by March 2011 if those stars had not been purposefully aligned for his benefit.

That's a fact.

Anything from GWs IP supremo is pure gold. And should be taught at business school as who or what not to employ in that role.

@Casey's Law I think Winson and Strawn were part of council could be wrong but if they were we are talking about a huge legal firm.

 Casey's Law wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Do we know why the work was done pro bono? Was that a firm who are hoping to become the de facto go to guy for miniature wargaming IP issues? Is that even worth it at the pace the industry is growing?.

It's got nothing to do with the wargaming industry. The precedent set by GW would have impacted all manufacturing and design industries, including aftermarket parts for everything. If GW had a slam-dunk win then it'd open the gates for all sorts of bogus claims.

That's a fair point but really isn't in anyway attached to what I asked. I'm interested in who the firm are that are doing the work and I'm interested to see if they get anything out of it. For instance will they start to circulate their name in this industry, which would be nice. I'd like to know there was someone with their finger on the button.

AS IP lawyers, they avoided a precident being set that would make their lives hellish. I doubt they've got any more interest in gaming now than when they started, they just saw a multinational trying to hammer a garage manufacturer into providing a dangerous precident through attrition. I believe there's some requirement to take on some amount of pro-bono, so this might also have been something a bit more interesting or they felt they were preventing an injustic, but I really don't think they care about GW or wargaming.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Anything from GWs IP supremo is pure gold. And should be taught at business school as who or what not to employ in that role.

@Casey's Law I think Winson and Strawn were part of council could be wrong but if they were we are talking about a huge legal firm.

Counsel for Chapterhouse Studios directly involved:

Winston and Strawn
Marshall, Gerstein, and Borun
WilmerHale

Pro-bono expert testimony was provided by:

Dr. Carl Grindley - Eugenio María de Hostos Community College
William Brewster - First Division Museum at Cantigny
Professor Lionel Bently - University of Cambridge

Additional testimony by non-GW employees was provided by:

Gary Chalk
Bob Naismith

And that's what is on the docket.

Four years of litigation, probably more than 10,000 man hours, millions of dollars spent.

Settlement...the day before GW was required to file a response to Chapterhouse's motion to stay the judgement, waive the bond requirement, and quash the citation to discover assets.

It is painfully obvious what happened, and it is bull.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Do investors get to find out how and what was settled?

Since GW threw everything at this case and was found out more often than not shouldn't a question be asked of the board?

'What the feth have we lost on you pursuing a small operation for $25k.

is it even worth those institutional investors finding out? I doubt GW is a big player in their portfolios?

Depends on the structure of the settlement, but i'd be willing to bet investors will not receive anything more than the barest of bare updates ("The case has now been settled". I would be willing to bet GW's board, legal staff, and executive staff all have to sign NDA's, as does any party to the litigation or having any knowledge thereof at CH, and their counsel. You can pretty much bet on this settlement's specifics being under lock and key for a good long while, if not permanently, because they settled out of court.



There's lots of questions about public and private disclosure : usually there's a very specific (and long!) series of clauses about non-disclosure that all material parties to the settlement must sign. Usually the settlement is null and void if that disclosure is breached. This can be termed (meaing # of years the NDA) but usually is permanent. I.e> company pays you 10 million, but insists on an NDA at settlement. You go blabbing to the news on video camera that they paid you and they were negligent. Company can now sue you for breach of contract (which is what the settlement is - a contract) for not only the 10 mil actual damages, but probably also claim slander, and seek further punitive damages. Etc. etc.

Typically speaking the party with the "upper hand" has more sway on whether or not the disclosure will be private or not. In out of court settlements even if they are public, they basically never talk about the specific tenets, and most parties insist on "no admission of fault or wrongdoing" being part of any public disclosure.


Remember : out of court settlements (in case this isn't obvious) are not court decisions. There's no obligation to make them public and they decide no issue or rule of law. Due to that very fact, usually the paying party wants to keep it very quiet and will take legal steps to do so.

Thanks everyone for all that info. Really interesting stuff.

Don't want to draw things off topic but if there happens to be some lawyers who know our industry well and have dealt with it before I'd be very happy to have their contact information for my own records. PM if you know anything thanks.

weeble1000 wrote:

Settlement...the day before GW was required to file a response to Chapterhouse's motion to stay the judgement, waive the bond requirement, and quash the citation to discover assets.

It is painfully obvious what happened, and it is bull.

Does this suggest that the settlement was favourable to CHS? i.e. GW caved in and agreed to pay them off?

What I'm more concerned with is the implications for my army list and if I'm going to have to do business with Russian recasters to get my bits.

Nick getting a big smelly wad of cash from GW is all well and good, but not if it comes with the price of CHS still closing anyway, since we don't have any information about what the terms were, but his webstore still has not fired back up.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Settlement...the day before GW was required to file a response to Chapterhouse's motion to stay the judgement, waive the bond requirement, and quash the citation to discover assets.

It is painfully obvious what happened, and it is bull.

Does this suggest that the settlement was favourable to CHS? i.e. GW caved in and agreed to pay them off?

No, not at all. It suggests that it was a terrible settlement for Chapterhouse. It is not hard to imagine the likely scenario.

"Hey, I'm going to take your house if you don't settle out!"

"Seriously, I'm going to take your house!"

"If you don't settle out now, the offer is off the table and I am going to take your house!"

GW's last bullet, its LAST gambit to stop the appeal was to scare the out of Nick Villacci, and it apparently worked.

GW might have had a crappy offer on the table and then sweetened it up a bit, but that's not in the style of Jonathan Moskin. My guess is that there was a crummy offer on the table, for the purpose of communicating that GW's position was strong, when in reality it was on its last, desperate gambit. Moskin wouldn't have wanted to telegraph weakness by improving GW's offer.

The mere fact that Chapterhouse was even considering settlement after the citation to discover assets suggests that Nick was scared, and GW must have either guessed that or seen it. Ergo, the likely move by Moskin would have been to capitalize on that fear by threatening to walk away from the negotiation table as if GW was holding all of the cards instead of none of them.

Chapterhouse was holding all of the cards, and folded because GW made an obvious bluff.

The risks though...the risks...if I call the bluff...if I call it...am I going to personally go bankrupt? That's the fear GW was playing on.

How many bites at the apple did Chapterhouse have to protect Nick's personal assets? Lots. Judge Kennelly - bite number one. Then there's the seventh circuit court of appeals. Chapterhouse cited a favorable decision by Judge Easterbrook in its motion. One of the seventh circuit appellate judges. That's at least two bites. There's probably one or two more legal shenanigans that I am unaware of after a failed appeal to the seventh circuit, but at the end of the day, you also have another bite at the apple in front of the bankruptcy court...IN TEXAS! What, is GW going to fight an appeal in Chicago and get hometowned by a Dallas bankruptcy judge at the same time?

Bull

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Settlement...the day before GW was required to file a response to Chapterhouse's motion to stay the judgement, waive the bond requirement, and quash the citation to discover assets.

It is painfully obvious what happened, and it is bull.

Does this suggest that the settlement was favourable to CHS? i.e. GW caved in and agreed to pay them off?

That's the assumption because they really had no reason to settle what with Pro-Bono counsel and a judge tired of GW's stall tactics.

weeble1000 wrote:
No, not at all. It suggests that it was a terrible settlement for Chapterhouse. It is not hard to imagine the likely scenario.

"Hey, I'm going to take your house if you don't settle out!"

"Seriously, I'm going to take your house!"

"If you don't settle out now, the offer is off the table and I am going to take your house!"

GW's last bullet, its LAST gambit to stop the appeal was to scare the out of Nick Villacci, and it apparently worked.

Isn't the entire point of incorporation to avoid just such shenanigans?

@Ouze
If chapterhouse was Nick's only source of income, it probably doesn't matter if he had his accounts seperated or not.

I find it humorous that the settlement can be framed as both for and against GW/Nick. I guess it's achieved it's aim. Only Nick and GW will know how it all went down.

 Ouze wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
No, not at all. It suggests that it was a terrible settlement for Chapterhouse. It is not hard to imagine the likely scenario.

"Hey, I'm going to take your house if you don't settle out!"

"Seriously, I'm going to take your house!"

"If you don't settle out now, the offer is off the table and I am going to take your house!"

GW's last bullet, its LAST gambit to stop the appeal was to scare the out of Nick Villacci, and it apparently worked.

Isn't the entire point of incorporation to avoid just such shenanigans?

I think Weeble's inferring that Nick may have put his house up as collateral for a business loan under the LLC.

 agnosto wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Settlement...the day before GW was required to file a response to Chapterhouse's motion to stay the judgement, waive the bond requirement, and quash the citation to discover assets.

It is painfully obvious what happened, and it is bull.

Does this suggest that the settlement was favourable to CHS? i.e. GW caved in and agreed to pay them off?

That's the assumption because they really had no reason to settle what with Pro-Bono counsel and a judge tired of GW's stall tactics.

No it is not. See the above post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Ouze
If chapterhouse was Nick's only source of income, it probably doesn't matter if he had his accounts seperated or not.

The company was bringing in less than $100K in revenue per year. If Nick was living off of that, he'd need to either have another job or be looking for one.

So basically...Gamesworkshop won.

weeble1000 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Ouze
If chapterhouse was Nick's only source of income, it probably doesn't matter if he had his accounts seperated or not.

The company was bringing in less than $100K in revenue per year. If Nick was living off of that, he'd need to either have another job or be looking for one.

A modest living perhaps? I believe Nick is married isn't he? Only having one spouse's income can be enough to start missing payments.

So.. reading between the lines here, am I correct in assuming that the implications are that we will not hear the true outcome of this case, and that GW will now be free to re-align its sights on other 3rd party bit producers? i.e. the likes of Maxmini now have to start expecting legal notices?

My impression from this whole nasty business is that the pro bono work for the legal defence of Chapterhouse was intended to draw a line in the sand in front of GW's voracious legal claims, and that was why it was important that they were defeated. What will be the upshot of all of that, looking beyond Chapterhouse's specific circumstances?

Can we, the community, make any use of the Freedom of Information Act to gather information together. It might be worth doing even if there is nothing new disclosed.