Maybe orders picked up and they started producing in the US again? Companies shift resources all the time.
Whilst I think the current UK/US manufacturer is doing the class untold damage, I think having two competing builders covering the same geographical area would be very bad for the class. It would not be long before we started getting the "x's boats are faster ..." or "y's boats stay stiffer for longer ..." and we would lose more of the "strict one design" that I believe contributes so much to the popularity of the class.Maybe having a torch and a laser would not be so bad....
In Verizon’s Price Battle With AT&T, Consumers Get the Spoils
Your mobile-phone bill may finally be shrinking.
D313 indicates that it was built in April of 2013. See http://www.rvharvey.com/hin.htm for an explanation of the HIN schemes used over the years. Of course no builder ever altered the numbers on stockpiled boats to make them look newer than they are. All they had to do is route out the old number, fill the void with gelcoat and press a new piece of tape into the space.This is a 2013 hull; is it possible then that LP stopped producing them in the US after this boat was made?
I think that a hull with 2013 on the stern could actually have been made late in 2012.
A lot of people don't have issue with multiple builders.Since I've sailed in several classes where more than one builder makes competitive boats and sails, I really have no problem with the multi-builder scenario. It is way better than being saddled with LP and the mess we are in.
Source = http://daddytypes.com/2012/02/21/wow_why_has_maclaren_quietly_filed_for_bankruptcy_liquidation.phpI don't know the relevant law, but it seems extraordinary to me that the company could shift its US business operations around for a year or more, starve itself of revenue, and load itself up with debt--mostly to itself--solely as a way of dodging accountability to a small but growing population of nine-fingered toddlers and their parents. And yet that seems to be happening right in front of us. Stay tuned.
Seems like they are delaying / stall tactic. I don't understand. If you don't want to mediate, then trial is the only other option. Do you have to sue to get them to trial if they won't mediate and won't consent for trial? Why are they mediating anyway?There was a status update of the lawsuit posted (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.155.0.pdf). Not much chance of a settlement at this time:
B. INTEREST IN REFERRAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
The parties attended mediation on June 18 and 19. The parties currently do not have
interest in further referral for settlement purposes.
C. CONSENT TO TRIAL BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The parties have not consented to either a jury trial or a bench trial before a Magistrate
In civil proceedings, magistrate judges typically manage discovery and other pretrial matters. They are authorized to issue orders in pretrial matters as long as the order is not dispositive of the case as a whole (such as an order granting summary judgment). They may also be assigned to write reports and recommendations to the district judge as to dispositive matters. With the consent of the parties, they may adjudicate civil cases in the same manner as a district judge, including presiding over jury or non-jury trials.
Discovery disputes are very common in lawsuits.The Status Report is out:
Nasty and Company still won't turn over documents in discovery. The last paragraph on page 5 gave me a laugh ... go get 'em BK.
No changes AFAI can tell. And the 'Union' seems to be (pretty) dead.Indirectly connected to the lawsuit, seem that at Laser UK, it business as normal and they are still trying to grow the business. http://www.laser.org.uk/news/uploaded/UKLA_Newsletter.html Anybody seen or noticed any changes in the US side the last couple of months?