Class Politics All about to kick off....

Pretty sure the deadline was extended to July 15.
I am not a lawyer and each court has its own rules, so I may not understand what is going on, but it looked like a status report was extended to July 15 (the report on the Rule 26(f)conference), not ICLA and ISAF's response deadlines.
 
Frankly, looking at their response makes the changing to the Torch look more valid. Though if we were to change, then we'd expect a lawsuit from Ragestrar.

I suggest that you look very carefully at the 1983 agreement between Bruce Kirby, BKI, ILCA, ISAF (IYRU) and Laser International Holdings (referred to in the document as "Trade Mark Holder") that was an exhibit in Kirby's original complaint. It defines the Laser as the Kirby Sailboat and goes on to give Laser International Holdings the sole rights to approve sail makers for the Laser (which is the Kirby Sailboat).

Thus, according to my (inexpert and non-lawyerly) reading I think that Kirby cannot get sails made for the Torch without violating this agreement. Ouch!

Also, it makes no mention of the Laser trademark being owned by different companies in different countries. The document suggests that the sole owner of the Laser trademark (presumably worldwide) is Laser International Holdings.
 
The whole "Introduction" section seems to be not for the court, but LPs first public statement. Their "coming out party", if you will. Much of it is contradictory.

First they disingenuously dismiss Kirby as merely Ian Bruce's draftsman. Yet he was paid royalties for close to 40 years. They claim the design rights have "long expired", but cite the very contracts to which they were a party. They do much to outline a conspiracy between Global Sailing, PSA, and BK. That may actually have some sway with the jury.
 
The whole "Introduction" section seems to be not for the court, but LPs first public statement. Their "coming out party", if you will. Much of it is contradictory.

First they disingenuously dismiss Kirby as merely Ian Bruce's draftsman. Yet he was paid royalties for close to 40 years. They claim the design rights have "long expired", but cite the very contracts to which they were a party. They do much to outline a conspiracy between Global Sailing, PSA, and BK. That may actually have some sway with the jury.

In my humble opinion, the key issue is whether or not LPE has paid the appropriate royalties. Kirby says they have not, LPE says that they have overpaid. I cannot imagine a scenario under which both are correct (unless there is something related to the sale and reversion of BKI to Global Sailing). I see the rest (the claims of conspiracies, etc.) to be a distraction around the main event: the royalty payments.
 
Regarding the ITCA constitution that Torrid posted above - wouldn't it really just be the TCA until such time as ISAF grants the Torch international status, which might be never? BB
 
No, whilst ISAF grants international status, using the word "International" is not dependent upon ISAF.
 
I am not a lawyer and each court has its own rules, so I may not understand what is going on, but it looked like a status report was extended to July 15 (the report on the Rule 26(f)conference), not ICLA and ISAF's response deadlines.

You may be right. In rereading the several points concerning the due dates it's no longer clear to me that the deadline is 15 July.

I suggest that you look very carefully at the 1983 agreement between Bruce Kirby, BKI, ILCA, ISAF (IYRU) and Laser International Holdings (referred to in the document as "Trade Mark Holder") that was an exhibit in Kirby's original complaint. It defines the Laser as the Kirby Sailboat and goes on to give Laser International Holdings the sole rights to approve sail makers for the Laser (which is the Kirby Sailboat).

Thus, according to my (inexpert and non-lawyerly) reading I think that Kirby cannot get sails made for the Torch without violating this agreement. Ouch!

Also, it makes no mention of the Laser trademark being owned by different companies in different countries. The document suggests that the sole owner of the Laser trademark (presumably worldwide) is Laser International Holdings.

Agree with your comment in the context of point 19 "The boat defined as the “Kirby Sailboat” in the various 1983 and 1989 Builder Agreements is commonly referred to as the “Laser” in the sailing world. LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon are the authorized licensees of the trademark LASER.", however it does say this in the introduction: "Global Sailing and its affiliate PSA hold the Laser trademark for use solely in Australia, New Zealand and Oceania." (So who holds the trademark for Laser in Japan?)

I have read the agreements mentioned above and agree that Kirby may breech various agreements - though only if they are still current. Kirby may take the approach that only holders of current builder agreements need be consulted with the Torch - and that these legal proceedings are really a means of validating the termination of Laser Performance. I'm not so confident that Kirby would be in breech with the ISAF agreement, though new agreements would need to be in place for the Torch with the ISAF before its a recognized international class - the ITCA would be new (though I suppose it would be possible to change the ILCA to ITCA). Obviously Kirby needs to act with the support of others for this to happen, just as he did way back when he first set it up. One thing I'm sure that he'll get right with the Torch trademark - that it should be held by one party and then used under licence by the respective builders.

Under the terms of the respective agreements, Kirby's rights were not transferred to Global Sailing because Kirby & Co failed to notify the respective parties - as required under the terms of the agreement.

It seems that the origin of the conflict goes back several years to 2008, where Kirby wanted a new builder in Asia. Separate control of the trademark and the building agreements in Asia led to an impasse - Global Sailing wanted to appoint a builder in Asia, whereas the Asian holder of the Trademark (Laser Performance) wanted it for themselves. Not really a workable situation. I'm beginning to think that his is at the heart of the dispute.

Looking at the Laser class - we can now see it more as a way of doing things - a concept - using the same equipment build to the same standard worldwide - just as I became aware of it back in the 1970s as a child. LaserPerformance have attempted to rewrite history by upselling Ian Bruce's involvement - yes he was critical with the formation of the first boat - however it was Bruce Kirby's name on the builder agreements and the ISAF agreement and for a very good reason - it was Kirby who was the purveyor of the concept.

Example of an overstatement: "It is the name Laser that distinguishes the boat and that has united an international class of recreational and racing sailors under the umbrella of the International Laser Class Association (“ILCA,” a co-defendant in this case). The Laser class has thrived as a result of the years of investment by LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon in promoting regattas and participation in the class, including funding events throughout the world to make the class truly international."

Which is more the boat we sail - the same boat with a different trademark on - or a different boat branded "Laser"? Yes, the Laser brand has had a part to play - however - it is the smaller (not the larger) part of the concept. I have some experience in branding and it is the boat and it's concept that are the real driver behind the "Laser", not the other way around. In every brand I have ever worked with, the trademark makes for a way to communicate the product and it's story - yes it is important - though what sits in support of the brand (good or bad) is more important. So "Laser" is just a label or a name we use to describe the boat and concept/story. And as for the importance of the builders. Actually, the companies were established in the 1980s, and it's fair to say that there has been less growth in the last 30 years than the first 15. I bought 116,061 in 1983 brand new (my second Laser). The build rate has gone down - not up (it's more then halved) in that time. Rastegar took over in 2006. That being said, there still has been significant growth - the boat has been added to the Olympics - though to put forward LaserPerformance as being THE key player is a bold - I'd say that Jeff Martin has done more for the class individually than LaserPerformance has. (Not that it's a contest). Also, the class has grown in areas outside of the LaserPerformance's reach.

That being said - in spite of the rhetoric and the confusion that comes from this 42 page document - they need to answer the case being put forward by Kirby. There is a lot of "Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations...". There is also a lot of emphasis on the Trademark, a lot of denials, and some dodging... all the actions of competent lawyering.

I predict that what I said previously will become increasingly important: a breech of the terms of contract does not in itself release any parties from their requirements of the agreements. There appear to be some breeches by Kirby & Co - however - they do not release Kirby & Co, LaserPerformance & Co, the ISAF or ILCA from their obligations under their respective agreements - same with breeches by any party.

With our focus being Kirby & Co versus LaserPerformance & Co, it's easy to overlook the diminnished importance of the ILCA and the rule change. It would seem that the rule change has had minimal if any impact on the supply of boats. I would therefore recommend that the ILCA repeal the rule citing the various issues raised in this forum. This includes that the voting was compromised by information given out by the ILCA stating that the change would not be necessary if Kirby gets back his rights - stated by Heini. (Kirby announced that he had, before voting had finished). Also there is a clear breech of ILCA's own agreement with Kirby.

My thoughts are that the main effect of the rule change is that the ILCA will be to continue to create legal costs - in a dispute that they no longer need to be in.
 
A very cogent post. However, I think that I would disagree with you a little about what drives the concept. I think that it is more than the boat -- rather it is people, rallying behind the one design/one manufacturer concept and the organization. The organization creates the venues for people to race their lasers, without this it would be nothing. That's why the 1983 (and presumably earlier agreements) include the ICLA and IYRU/ISAF.

Regarding the ICLA and their reply -- I think that it could have been quite short: venue is improper because the 1983 agreement includes an arbitration clause.

As for the Olympics: when I sailed Lasers (late '70s to early '80s), it was always said that becoming an Olympic class brought about the death of a class. Perhaps both sides of the dispute see Olympic status as an opportunity to get what they want (whatever that is).
 
However, I think that I would disagree with you a little about what drives the concept. I think that it is more than the boat -- rather it is people, rallying behind the one design/one manufacturer concept and the organization. The organization creates the venues for people to race their lasers, without this it would be nothing. That's why the 1983 (and presumably earlier agreements) include the ICLA and IYRU/ISAF.


100% agree. It's the opinions of the customer base with all their logical (and illogical) thinking that count...
 
Re: ISAF and an "International" Torch Class
I suspect it all hinges on the outcome of the legal case (or the injunction (or pre-determination thingy, whatever it is called in the US)). If Kirby wins I suspect the ISAF will be well embarrassed and the Olympics will face something of a challenge. The only way out for ISAF and Olympics would be to recognise that the Torch is just a name change and then immediately give it International and Olympic status (anything else you cause something of an outcry in the elite who have spent years training and qualifying in the boat). If Kirby loses then there is no Torch and the class continues its decline under the ILCA ('cos if you can't get parts, can't get a half decent sail then you really can't go sailing and people will continue to switch to other classes where you can get these items).
 
In Australian case Yachting Australia (and I suspect it's the same with ISAF), are completely out of touch with the club level sailors. They have forgotten that sailing is meant to be fun and not just about winning medals or major titles or ocean racing. It's only a matter of time here before another national organisation begins to represent the people who sail dinghies.
 
still think the best way to get to mediation is for the ILCA to get rid of the rule change and take a more neutral posistion. Even the LP lawyer admits that the ILCA and ISAF have taken to their posistion.
 
In Australian case Yachting Australia (and I suspect it's the same with ISAF), are completely out of touch with the club level sailors. They have forgotten that sailing is meant to be fun and not just about winning medals or major titles or ocean racing. It's only a matter of time here before another national organisation begins to represent the people who sail dinghies.

Well said and likely true at many levels. With the response and counter-claims now out I can't help but think if even half of what both sides are claiming is true we would be so much better with out all of them. In an ideal world the class would control the trademark (and oddly Kirby might actually cause the trademark Laser trademark to have no commercial value such that the class could use it) set a spec and then any builder would be free to make and sell and compete to produce the cheapest boats to that spec. Lower cost means improved access and more club sailors that can control their own destiny.
 
....... In an ideal world the class would control the trademark (and oddly Kirby might actually cause the trademark Laser trademark to have no commercial value such that the class could use it) set a spec and then any builder would be free to make and sell and compete to produce the cheapest boats to that spec. Lower cost means improved access and more club sailors that can control their own destiny.
Pass, no thanks. Then we'll get to the point of who makes the best equipment and people will go shopping for it. I know this already happens at the elite level to some extent, but they still end up using boats provided to them at major regattas, equalling their playing field again. We don't need people shopping around at club / district level, because of the harm it will do to the "one design" concept of the class, which has been the thing that held the class together for the last 40 years.
 
Pass, no thanks. Then we'll get to the point of who makes the best equipment and people will go shopping for it. I know this already happens at the elite level to some extent, but they still end up using boats provided to them at major regattas, equalling their playing field again. We don't need people shopping around at club / district level, because of the harm it will do to the "one design" concept of the class, which has been the thing that held the class together for the last 40 years.

I hear you but a benefit of having sailed in a number of different classes is that you see the pros and cons of different structures. For the average club racer there are OD classes you can think of I am sure that use a structure different than Laser and similar to what I have described, and it works fine with a benefit of older boats that are still competitive and new boats that are affordable.

What we seem to have here is a bunch of greedy people on all sides of the design/build/market table (I don't mean ISAF or ILCA) all trying to grab as much cash as they can any way they can and its us - the sailors - that pay. I love the Laser - likely more for the people and fleet than the boat - but equally enjoy other OD classes, with fun fair racing across a range of boat ages and manufacturers, that don't suffer from the problems (costs or other) that seem to come from our structure.
 
Is it true to say that the Australian builder has been stable for many years Alan?

The US/EU builders seem to go bust regularly...or morph in to new entities just before they go bust....
 
Yes, the same family have been involved in the building for decades. I think we've only had the two builders since production first started here.
 
Yes, the same family have been involved in the building for decades. I think we've only had the two builders since production first started here.


It can be done then as long as you get the model right and do not get greedy.

No to say they have not diversified a little as I believe they distribute RS boats (which are also SMOD like the Laser).
 
I hear you but a benefit of having sailed in a number of different classes is that you see the pros and cons of different structures. For the average club racer there are OD classes you can think of I am sure that use a structure different than Laser and similar to what I have described, and it works fine with a benefit of older boats that are still competitive and new boats that are affordable.

What we seem to have here is a bunch of greedy people on all sides of the design/build/market table (I don't mean ISAF or ILCA) all trying to grab as much cash as they can any way they can and its us - the sailors - that pay. I love the Laser - likely more for the people and fleet than the boat - but equally enjoy other OD classes, with fun fair racing across a range of boat ages and manufacturers, that don't suffer from the problems (costs or other) that seem to come from our structure.
I've also sailed many classes, everything from development classes, limited development, quasi one design, to strict one design. My experiences with one design classes are different from yours, in the points you raise.

Tracy has explained why the class is expensive several years ago, it's not the percentages people are taking, but the number of levels in supply chain and that at various major events, brand new boats are supplied.
 
Tracy has explained why the class is expensive several years ago, it's not the percentages people are taking, but the number of levels in supply chain and that at various major events, brand new boats are supplied.

Part of the problem 99% of Laser sailors have with this is that they seem to subsidise the top 1% who get a lot of funding and are, in effect, professional sailors.

I agree with the comment about the number of levels in the supply chain though.

Although it is widely known that substantial discounts can be attained for relatively modest numbers of boats so someone was making a big % somewhere.....
 
It can be done then as long as you get the model right and do not get greedy.

No to say they have not diversified a little as I believe they distribute RS boats (which are also SMOD like the Laser).
We pay a lot more than you guys, we are after all a small market. But PSA actually builds a quality product, employ qualified boat builders both on the floor and in management. They are concerned with quality (although that can always be improved in any environment).

The original builders also had the Hobie dealership, I'm not sure if PSA ever had that as well. I doubt the RS boats will take off here, to much competition making all classes other than the laser extremely week.
 
I don't think it's just that the Laser is SMOD, but that BK was a built-in arbitrator to balance the needs of the buidler and the class association. The problem is when he retires (certainly understandable) and sells to the operation offering the most money (again understandable), it throws the whole arrangement out of whack. The service provided was by the person, not the legal entity bearing his name. That is not easily transferable.
 
I've also sailed many classes, everything from development classes, limited development, quasi one design, to strict one design. My experiences with one design classes are different from yours, in the points you raise.

Tracy has explained why the class is expensive several years ago, it's not the percentages people are taking, but the number of levels in supply chain and that at various major events, brand new boats are supplied.

Yea, I am kinda in agreement with Jeffers on the second line. Not so sure this helps, as opposed to hurts, the typical club level race.

On the first part maybe we are just thinking about different levels of sailors but be it Opti, Snipes, 420s, etc... it just seems like paths other than SMOD can benefit the club level folks. I agree it might be less than ideal for the folks at a professional/semi-professional level but really that seems to bde aiding the top 10% at the expense of the other 90%.
 
We pay a lot more than you guys, we are after all a small market. But PSA actually builds a quality product, employ qualified boat builders both on the floor and in management. They are concerned with quality (although that can always be improved in any environment).

Are the Lasers built by PSA objectively better than those built by LPE? If so, then the SMOD model has failed.
 
What is missing however, are replies from ICLA and ISAF. I thought that these were due June 14. It's possible that they filed on paper and the filings will take a day or 2 to show up on Pacer, or they decided that, as UK and Isle of Man companies, a Connecticut court can do nothing to affect them.
Still no more documents on the docket, it looks like ILCA and ISAF are planning to ignore the Connecticut court.
 
Yea, I am kinda in agreement with Jeffers on the second line. Not so sure this helps, as opposed to hurts, the typical club level race.

On the first part maybe we are just thinking about different levels of sailors but be it Opti, Snipes, 420s, etc... it just seems like paths other than SMOD can benefit the club level folks. I agree it might be less than ideal for the folks at a professional/semi-professional level but really that seems to bde aiding the top 10% at the expense of the other 90%.

I have no idea what a Snipe is. The 420 here is incredibly expensive to put on the water and you still need to source sails, spars etc,, so hardly one design as anyone can build these (this may have changed since my university days). I'm not up to speed with what's happening with Optis despite them being used at my new club and one of my old clubs (not really a boat I'd encourage kids into, there are better domestic boats).
 
Are the Lasers built by PSA objectively better than those built by LPE? If so, then the SMOD model has failed.
Depends what you call better. All the boats world wide are built within tolerance and by the builders manual, but the PSA boats are built within tighter tolerances than those specified and this leads to consistency between all the boats built. Having people with expertise that care about the finished product also means that things are done properly.
 
Now both sides have submitted their statements for all to see, where does that leave the ILCA?

While the rule change is in effect, the ILCA continue to support Laser Performance's position. Tracy said this back in 2011, and I wholeheartedly agree. The current position seems to be stubbornly held, in spite all the concerns by both commentators and members.

The ILCA have an agreement saying that Kirby & Co must approve Laser builders. That agreement is current and binding, and I put forward that the agreement was not transferred to Global Sailing as the transfer of rights was not completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement that the ILCA have with Kirby.

I firmly believe they should not have said back in 2011 that any agreement was 'historical' and no longer valid. Note that in the same breath the ILCA said that they were not aware of the content of the builders agreement, nor did they have in interest in taking sides. (ref. Jeff & Heini 2011) I cannot fathom how anyone can support these statements unambiguously, or the resulting position, let alone supporting the continuation of the position.

The class rules will be viewed by the courts as one smaller factor in a larger picture.

The current ILCA certainly is not academic (It has real impacts) or set in concrete, nor will be until the case is completed. In my view that is partly because there is a new 'right thing' for the ILCA to do, and that is to repeal the Rule change. That opportunity exists right now.

The effect will be negligible on the court proceedings however will send a clear message to it's membership:
  • We had no business taking sides - though it may have not been originally intended
  • We no longer wish to continue to be a part of a disagreement between Kirby & Co and Laser Performance & Co
  • We uphold our agreement with Bruce Kirby & Co
  • We are responsible for our members money, and continuing to use it for legal costs is not responsible.
Still hoping the ILCA will repeal the rule change.
 
While the rule change is in effect, the ILCA continue to support Laser Performance's position
I disagree with the assertion that ILCA's rule change is not neutral. Perhaps ILCA has no way to be neutral, but without the rule change, what are ILCA's options? Either ILCA can ignore the notices from BKI that the builder agreement is no longer in place (which has the same effect as the rule change), or cut off LPE from the supply of plaques and sail numbers. Clearly, the latter option would define the outcome by pushing LPE into bankruptcy.
The ILCA have an agreement saying that Kirby & Co must approve Laser builders.
I don't see anywhere in the 1983 agreement that ICLA is restricted to providing plaques and sail numbers to authorized builders. The agreement appears to be silent on this, presumably because BK was supposed to enforce the builder agreements.
 
I disagree with the assertion that ICLA's rule change is not neutral. Perhaps ICLA has no way to be neutral, but without the rule change, what are ICLA's options? Either ICLA can ignore the notices from BKI that the builder agreement is no longer in place (which has the same effect as the rule change), or cut off LPE from the supply of plaques and sail numbers. Clearly, the latter option would define the outcome by pushing LPE into bankruptcy.

I don't see anywhere in the 1983 agreement that ICLA is restricted to providing plaques and sail numbers to authorized builders. The agreement appears to be silent on this, presumably because BK was supposed to enforce the builder agreements.

With the neutrality, Tracy nicely summed it up back in 2011:
Obviously the proposed rule change benefits LP over Global Sailing and certainly gives the appearance that ILCA has "chosen a side." In effect, it has, but I can assure you that it is not out of love for LaserPerformance. As stated above, when push came to shove it was determined, through the best legal advice that ILCA could get, that if the goal was to preserve Laser sailing as we know it then the trademarks trumped all. If we, as sailors, want to continue to sail the same boats we have now, including calling them Lasers with a starburst logo, then the proposed modification of the Fundamental Rule was deemed the best course of action.
We can say a lot more about the 'advice' the ILCA had received in 2011 and ILCA's resulting position, however we can now say with the benefit of that hindsight whether or not the continuation of the rule change is a good move. In spite of Tracy's summary, the ILCA and others called this position neutral. I agree with Tracy - it is not neutral.

Laser Performance needs the rule change or they will go bankrupt? I've heard this several times over the last couple of years. Remember that the rule change was not put into effect until 23 April, 2013, seven weeks ago. It would appear that laser Performance did not go bankrupt - so you are sure that it is clear that Laser Performance would be pushed into bankruptcy? I'm not so sure and have hindsight on my side.

It's right at the beginning of the ISAF agreement. Point 20 from Kirby's amended civil action nicely summarizes:
"20. The ISAF Agreement governed the production, distribution, and management of Kirby Sailboats approved for officially sanctioned sailboat races worldwide. Section “Agreement 1” specifies that all authorized builders of Kirby Sailboats must have a license from Kirby."
 
Laser Performance needs the rule change or they will go bankrupt? I've heard this several times over the last couple of years. Remember that the rule change was not put into effect until 23 April, 2013, seven weeks ago. It would appear that laser Performance did not go bankrupt - so you are sure that it is clear that Laser Performance would be pushed into bankruptcy? I'm not so sure and have hindsight on my side.
As far as I can tell from the filings, ICLA has continued to issue plaques to LPE, ignoring the requests from BK to stop. Changing the rules only formalizes this. Perhaps it would be better to state that if ICLA had stopped recognizing the boats built by LPE, LPE would probably go bankrupt.
It's right at the beginning of the ISAF agreement. Point 20 from Kirby's amended civil action nicely summarizes:
"20. The ISAF Agreement governed the production, distribution, and management of Kirby Sailboats approved for officially sanctioned sailboat races worldwide. Section “Agreement 1” specifies that all authorized builders of Kirby Sailboats must have a license from Kirby."

That highlights the disadvantage of reading the court filings of one side in a lawsuit. I cannot find anything in The 1983 agreement that says anything about the circumstances under which ICLA can issue plaques. I think that the agreement has only two things to say about the ICLA: 1. The ICLA must keep the construction manual private and 2. The ICLA will receive a payment from the builders for each boat.

It does, however state that new builders must be approved by the IYRU and "Trade Mark Holder" and, as I believe that the definition of "Laser" in this document would include the Torch, which, in my opinion, puts Kirby in violation of the agreement when he appointed builders for the Torch.

The problem I see is that, in my opinion, the 1983 agreement puts Kirby in a weak position and (in my opinion) he is responding to his weak position by actions that may destroy the Laser class in order to gain additional leverage in a dispute with one of the builders.

My position: in my opinion, it comes down to the royalties. If LPE has paid them (as they allege), Kirby is in the wrong. If LPE has not paid them (as Kirby alleges), LPE is in the wrong.

I don't see why ICLA should take a position here, which (in my opinion) it would be doing if it stopped recognizing the boats built by LPE before a court order stating that LPE is no longer an authorized builder.
 
Apologies Whatever - I misread what you said. There is nothing in the agreement regarding the plaques because the agreements pre-date the use of plaques. There is a small leap of logic relating to the plaques and the ISAF agreement. The agreement does say that builders must be approved / licensed by Kirby - a point Kirby is keen to make as the ILCA/ISAF cannot issue approval (more recently in the form of issuing plaques) to builders not approved by Kirby. I hope this makes sense.

The question as to whether or not the agreements are current and binding needs to be answered - though I believe they will be found to be current and binding.

I don't see Kirby being in a weaker position because of a potential violation with the Torch. (Remember that one party's breech does not in itself release any party from their obligations under the contract.) Also, as a sailor, I'll still be sailing the same boat in 5 or 10 years time (health permitting) and be racing against others sailing identical boats. Whether they carry the trademark "Laser", or "Torch" won't make or break the thrill of the race.

I contend that he ILCA have taken a position by saying that they recognize a builder, they recognize Kirby's right to terminate that builder however believe by changing a class rule that somehow releases them to issue plaques and releases Laser Pacific from their obligations under the various agreements. It's a complicated position for the ILCA to hold, it has the consequence of them being named in the action as defendants and required to defend their position. I'm agreeing with Kirby in saying that the rule change does not release parties from their obligations under the various agreements. Note that they originally took a position against Global Sailing (who may not have had the right to terminate Laser Performance), however that seems to be carried forward against Kirby - this in spite of assurances by Heini that if the rights returned to Kirby then the rule change would not be needed.

I agree with you assessment about the royalties though would be surprised if Kirby had made a fundamental mistake in the calculation of royalties. I expect that this is news to Kirby as well and this may just be a tactic of Laser Performance to add confusion and give legitimacy to their position of not paying the royalties. If successful, that confusion certainly undermines the strength of the termination on the basis of royalties not paid.
 
I don't see Kirby being in a weaker position because of a potential violation with the Torch.
That wasn't what I was trying to say. Rather that Kirby's rights under the agreement with respect to ISAF and ICLA are not very strong.
I contend that he ILCA have taken a position by saying that they recognize a builder, they recognize Kirby's right to terminate that builder however believe by changing a class rule that somehow releases them to issue plaques and releases Laser Pacific from their obligations under the various agreements.
What I see is that the ICLA is in a position of having to decide if Kirby's termination of a builder is valid. How can ICLA know if royalty payments have been made or not? Especially if royalty payments were made to Global Sailing? How does Kirby prove the absence of a payment?

I agree with you assessment about the royalties though would be surprised if Kirby had made a fundamental mistake in the calculation of royalties. I expect that this is news to Kirby as well and this may just be a tactic of Laser Performance to add confusion and give legitimacy to their position of not paying the royalties. If successful, that confusion certainly undermines the strength of the termination on the basis of royalties not paid.
The claim that royalties have been overpaid is surprising. How could LPE's employees not know how much to pay after decades of shipping Lasers? Yes, know that LPE is not the same legal entity as the original builder, but I assume the same people were involved.
 
It would seem we're pretty much on the same page with more questions than answers, though several answers have been made with the addition of Laser Performance's reply / counter suit.

That wasn't what I was trying to say. Rather that Kirby's rights under the agreement with respect to ISAF and ICLA are not very strong.

Ah - I took it the wrong way - sorry about that - I agree with you in the sense that some parts require several parties to agree (eg the right to transfer).

What I see is that the ICLA is in a position of having to decide if Kirby's termination of a builder is valid. How can ICLA know if royalty payments have been made or not? Especially if royalty payments were made to Global Sailing? How does Kirby prove the absence of a payment?

Agree that ILCA seem to have made that determination - that the agreements are not valid - though that is disputed. My thinking is that there may be correspondence back in 2009 to 2011 that enters into the fray - but that has yet to be shared.

Kirby will provide a schedule of payments, Rastegar will need to prove that additional payments have been made - or that the calculations were incorrect - so Kirby doesn't prove absence of payments per se.

The claim that royalties have been overpaid is surprising. How could LPE's employees not know how much to pay after decades of shipping Lasers? Yes, know that LPE is not the same legal entity as the original builder, but I assume the same people were involved.

Yes - 100% agree. It will be interesting to see if this had been raised before with Kirby. My thinking is that it may be a tactic of Rastegar to claim overpayment - more about the legal consequences of the claimed overpayment rather than whether or not it is true.
 
I looked through the agreements again and came across something that I should have noticed before.

I may still be missing things and my comments should be considered as mere amateur opinions.

The 1983 builder agreement allows Kirby to terminate LPE 21 years after it was signed in 1983. Thus Kirby has or had the right to terminate this agreement (who now owns Kirby's interest in the original agreement is under dispute). However, I don't think that the PY Small Boats (Quarter Moon) agreement can be terminated without cause until 2025. Hence, as far as Quarter Moon goes, the issue of royalty payments is very important. For LPE , I think less so.

However, in the 1983 ISAF agreement, "Trade Mark Holder" (I think now now controlled by Rastegar) has to approve any new builder and I think that it is likely he has refused to approve any replacement builders.
 

Back
Top