The Shadowrun Situation

[Panzerfaust 150]

2. If this doesn't go IMR's way, can they a)appeal? and b)what usually happens in cases like this? Immediate liquidation? Or some sort of receivership where the court does this in an orderly manner?

The entire point of bankruptcy is that the court takes your assets and gives them to creditors in an orderly way, as opposed to the alternative, which is everyone suing you as fast as they can and rushing to levy on whatever property you have left.

Does anyone know if any real person is acting as surety for any of IMR's loans or debts? I know that's standard for a lot of small businesses, but I don't know how small counts as small.

Gelare,
Sorry about the confusion, what I was trying...and failing miserably to ask (mea culpa everybody), was if this goes down the way it looks like it will, does that mean, an immediate seizure by the courts if there is no appeal, or a transition process to receivership, or what?

[mean_liar]

Not so much that..but the kind of "We're untouchable, this is our pond, and if you want to break into the writing game...then we have to teach you the secret handshake...otherwise, fugitaboutit."

...mostly because it's pretty easy to write publishable RPG material and they know it. Getting published is the hurdle, but actually being able to write up a half-decent game isn't, if you're getting paid for it. That goes triple for anyone on salary.

I'd guess this kind of attitude is common among RPG writers, but that's pure speculation.

[Gelare]

Gelare,
Sorry about the confusion, what I was trying...and failing miserably to ask (mea culpa everybody), was if this goes down the way it looks like it will, does that mean, an immediate seizure by the courts if there is no appeal, or a transition process to receivership, or what?

Hey, no need to apologize, the rest of that stuff's just above my pay grade, I'm not sure how the actual bankruptcy proceedings go in Washington state. But, of course, IMR can only put up a fight in court for as long as it has lawyers, which, if the lawyers stop being paid, will no longer be true. Who knows how long that will take, but that's at least one way for it to end.

[Username17]

1. I read through the legal documents? Was the overpayment to Wildfire a deliberate legal strategy to get them to drop their end of the lawsuit and cause a split amongst those trying to collect? Or, is this just a sign IMR's books are basically in chaos?

I don't think it was an overpayment. It was ten grand.

Which sounds like a lot, but WildFire wnt to court stating that they were still owed thirty seven thousand dollars. My impression is that IMR is trying to convince the Judge that WildFire agreeing to accept money means that they don't owe them any money for the months and months that they were selling WildFire's stuff and not giving them any money.

-Username17

[Gelare]

I don't think it was an overpayment. It was ten grand.

Which sounds like a lot, but WildFire wnt to court stating that they were still owed thirty seven thousand dollars. My impression is that IMR is trying to convince the Judge that WildFire agreeing to accept money means that they don't owe them any money for the months and months that they were selling WildFire's stuff and not giving them any money.

-Username17

Hm, an accord and satisfaction. That...sometimes works. And sometimes does not. It all depends on how IMR worded its correspondences with WildFire and how the debts were calculated. I'd be a little discouraged if IMR could get out of owing that 27 thousand so easily, but it's possible. We'll have to see what the judge says.

[Username17]

Unsurprisingly, they are moving forward to an evidentiary hearing.

IMR Responds
And Responds Some More.

The important thing here is that Loren Coleman is claiming in legal writing that he is the only owner of IMR, and that by extension all the stock he claimed to have sold to the other owners was fraudulent. I didn't think they were actually going to go that route.

-Username17

[Calibron]

The important thing here is that Loren Coleman is claiming in legal writing that he is the only owner of IMR, and that by extension all the stock he claimed to have sold to the other owners was fraudulent. I didn't think they were actually going to go that route.

-Username17

I can kind of see how trying to invalidate others peoples ownership of the company and all that entails might be helpful in his immediate situation, but how could claiming that he sold tons of fraudulent stock before a court of law possibly be a good idea in the long run?

[TheFlatline]

The important thing here is that Loren Coleman is claiming in legal writing that he is the only owner of IMR, and that by extension all the stock he claimed to have sold to the other owners was fraudulent. I didn't think they were actually going to go that route.

Here's the thing. You can't sell stock in an LLC. LLCs are either partnerships or private ownerships that have pass-through taxation AND some/most of the protections from a corporation. Taxation of the LLC is handled a little differently (in California the LLC pays I think 5k a year to exist.)

So it's really not feasible to sell stock in an LLC or even easily change the owners around. My old employers years ago had an LLC, and had to incorporate to take on another partner.

You can take on investors, but if they want to own a portion of the company, you either bring them in at the time the LLC forms, dissolve and reform the LLC, or incorporate and sell shares.

Do we have any documentation that shows he had actually sold stock?

[Crissa]

What kind of argument is it, that you took money under false pretenses?

-Crissa

[TheFlatline]

What kind of argument is it, that you took money under false pretenses?

-Crissa

The argument around "ownership" of IMR will probably boil down to "you can invest, but you don't own anything."

I still find it hilarious that the lawyer keeps saying IMR generally pays it's bills on time when the f*cking company itself has issued a statement saying it HASN'T paid it's bills on time.

Should someone send this lawyer a note saying he is, essentially, caught in a provable lie when he says that?

[Taharqa]

What kind of argument is it, that you took money under false pretenses?

-Crissa

I didn't see that argument in any of the legal documents. Probably because its not the argument presented, but rather rampant speculation on the basis of little factual information about the actual internal makeup of IMR.

[Centurion13]

Do we have any documentation that shows he had actually sold stock?

If he sold it to slavering fanboys and folks who had just been subjected to his sales pitch, the subject probably didn't come up. After all, this was a friendly guy who was confiding in them and giving them a chance to set foot in the Inner Ring.

Who at that moment, with the cup so near their lips, would question its contents or the motives of the person offering it?

In other words, I think probably not.

Cent13

[TheFlatline]

Do we have any documentation that shows he had actually sold stock?

If he sold it to slavering fanboys and folks who had just been subjected to his sales pitch, the subject probably didn't come up. After all, this was a friendly guy who was confiding in them and giving them a chance to set foot in the Inner Ring.

Who at that moment, with the cup so near their lips, would question its contents or the motives of the person offering it?

In other words, I think probably not.

Cent13

That'd actually be the easiest to prove. Someone would scan in a stock certificate that they bought and that'd be the end of it.

Of course, that's assuming that said hypothetical lemming actually got a nice certificate.

[Centurion13]

What kind of argument is it, that you took money under false pretenses?

-Crissa

The argument around "ownership" of IMR will probably boil down to "you can invest, but you don't own anything."

I still find it hilarious that the lawyer keeps saying IMR generally pays it's bills on time when the f*cking company itself has issued a statement saying it HASN'T paid it's bills on time.

Should someone send this lawyer a note saying he is, essentially, caught in a provable lie when he says that?

Funny, we have a local gaming shop which was feeling its oats a few years back - well, a decade back - and was offering shares in the company.

The shares were a dollar each. It seemed like a good investment for me, at the time a rabid gamer with his finger in a lot of gaming pies. I was going to sea and wanted to begin an allotment.

But when I asked just what it was I would get in return, and carefully read the document I was going to sign, I realized all I would get was:

a) a vote on the Committee. The more shares I bought, the more my vote counted, but there was no system for this in print.

b) and that's it.

c) no, really.

In fact, the fine print actually said I would not get a dime back from this 'investment', not as dividends or anything else. It would not measurably affect the shop operations, and they would not buy my stocks back even at pennies on the dollar.

What clinched it for me was the statement that the Committee could, at its discretion, issue as much stock as it wanted to, whenever. Which meant the whole thing was designed to generate revenue and give the 'investor' a warm fuzzy - and nothing else.

Sounds like Loren was in that business, only without the helpful paperwork and the admission that the shares were essentially worthless as regarded the functioning of the actual company.

In other words, he conned them. Is anyone surprised?
Cent13

[TheFlatline]

What kind of argument is it, that you took money under false pretenses?

-Crissa

I didn't see that argument in any of the legal documents. Probably because its not the argument presented, but rather rampant speculation on the basis of little factual information about the actual internal makeup of IMR.

Actually Frank read between the lines. The legal statement is there. Look:

Loren Coleman and Heather Coleman are the members of IMR.

That is a definitive legal statement. Loren & Heather Coleman literally *are* IMR. That means that IMR is a partnership, with two partners, set up under an LLC.

Anyone else claiming to be an owner or have a share of ownership is, according to that one sentence, not true.

Change of gears. I'm not a lawyer, but whoever IMR did hire seems to be extremely... verbose. The petitioners' lawyer says "Motion to accelerate the hearing because of XYZ." It's like a paragraph. IMR's lawyer spends 3 pages detailing why they object. I wonder if they're paying him freelancer rates per word.

[Centurion13]

IMR's lawyer spends 3 pages detailing why they object. I wonder if they're paying him freelancer rates per word.

It would be in keeping with their past behavior. Why break with tradition?

Cent13

[Crissa]

They do have records of their checks or money transfers to IMR, and IMR should have the tax records of receiving the money.

If they don't have the tax records, they're committing tax fraud at the minimum.

As far as we know, there is nothing written down from the Colemans given to anyone. Private businesses are not allowed to take donations or investments without handing back something. It's a big no-no.

-Crissa

[Centurion13]

They do have records of their checks or money transfers to IMR, and IMR should have the tax records of receiving the money.

If they don't have the tax records, they're committing tax fraud at the minimum.

As far as we know, there is nothing written down from the Colemans given to anyone. Private businesses are not allowed to take donations or investments without handing back something. It's a big no-no.

-Crissa

But individuals can flim-flam and promise all they want. If you don't ask for a signed receipt, too bad for you, right? You just bought a bridge. The trouble won't start until you try to collect tolls...

But there might be someone out there. Maybe they are reading this thread. Maybe they will come forward. Even then, it will be their word against Loren's, and the man has not gotten where he is (or developed his ego to the current size) without having a silver tongue.

At least among the faithful. How well he persuades a judge remains to be seen. Although, it is his lawyer doing the talking...

Cent13

[Taharqa]

Sounds like Loren was in that business, only without the helpful paperwork and the admission that the shares were essentially worthless as regarded the functioning of the actual company.

In other words, he conned them. Is anyone surprised?
Cent13

Sounds like? Sounds like where? Inside your paranoid head? There is actually no evidence, nor a hint of evidence of that. Just a bunch of people spitballing paranoid ideas and then convincing each other they are true by mutual citation.

[Taharqa]

What kind of argument is it, that you took money under false pretenses?

-Crissa

I didn't see that argument in any of the legal documents. Probably because its not the argument presented, but rather rampant speculation on the basis of little factual information about the actual internal makeup of IMR.

Actually Frank read between the lines. The legal statement is there. Look:

Loren Coleman and Heather Coleman are the members of IMR.

That is a definitive legal statement. Loren & Heather Coleman literally *are* IMR. That means that IMR is a partnership, with two partners, set up under an LLC.

Anyone else claiming to be an owner or have a share of ownership is, according to that one sentence, not true.

Change of gears. I'm not a lawyer, but whoever IMR did hire seems to be extremely... verbose. The petitioners' lawyer says "Motion to accelerate the hearing because of XYZ." It's like a paragraph. IMR's lawyer spends 3 pages detailing why they object. I wonder if they're paying him freelancer rates per word.

If by "read between the lines" you mean "intentionally misinterpreted the lines, in order to spread innuendo," then yeah, sure.

More likely, a hurried lawyer simply stuck in a "the" where one doesn't belong thus changing the connotation of the sentence.

[RobbyPants]

I'm curious, Taharqa: do you have some vested interest in the situation or are you just looking for more tangible proof before jumping to conclusions?

[Taharqa]

I'm curious, Taharqa: do you have some vested interest in the situation or are you just looking for more tangible proof before jumping to conclusions?

My only vested interest is as a Battletech player and fan. So door #2. Tangible proof would be good, but at this point I would settle for any. Instead what we have is someone engaging in speculation and then three posts later that speculation is cited as fact. Ridiculous.

[Username17]

More likely, a hurried lawyer simply stuck in a "the" where one doesn't belong thus changing the connotation of the sentence.

Well... you can call it a typo or whatever, but the fact is that it is in the brief written by the lawyer. And since behind-the-scenes there has been a not inconsiderable amount of talk about Loren attempting to defend himself by claiming that none of the minority owners "count" because he never properly filed the paperwork, it's pretty interesting.

The "Loren is trying to steal the company" rumor goes back to February at least. But to see it plainly stated in black and white in a legal missive from his team is... interesting.

-Username17

[Gelare]

That is a definitive legal statement. Loren & Heather Coleman literally *are* IMR. That means that IMR is a partnership, with two partners, set up under an LLC.

If you'll forgive my legal nitpicking, that is not exactly accurate. Loren and Heather Coleman are the members of IMR, which means they have control of the company; they are not literally IMR, that would be the case if IMR were a simple partnership. IMR is a Limited Liability Company, with control split among two members, and since they are members rather than stockholders, literally no one owns IMR - and anyone trying to buy stock in it has been totally scammed.

The rest of your info is pretty much accurate, though. This rabbit hole goes down pretty far, doesn't it? And a lot of people should probably be suing.

[BeeRockxs]

IMR is a Limited Liability Company, with control split among two members, and since they are members rather than stockholders, literally no one owns IMR - and anyone trying to buy stock in it has been totally scammed.

Again, where are you taking it from that anyone actually bought any stock?