All about to kick off....

Maybe having a torch and a laser would not be so bad....>>>ie copy paste example>>>

In Verizon’s Price Battle With AT&T, Consumers Get the Spoils
Your mobile-phone bill may finally be shrinking.

The industry’s fight over prices, ignited last year by T-Mobile US Inc., is beginning to have a noticeable effect even for consumers who haven’t switched carriers. As they jockey to match or beat each other’s discounts for new customers, the wireless companies are also passing along savings to their current users to keep them from running off to a competitor.

Even Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), the largest U.S. wireless carrier and the one that gets the most revenue per customer, has been dragged into the fray. In the last week, with no formal announcement or fanfare, it matched AT&T’s latest price cut for big-spending, family-plan customers -- itself a move to get closer to the $140 a month T-Mobile charges for an equivalent package. While sales are still expanding for mobile carriers, savvy consumers have been able to save hundreds of dollars a year.

“I’m a good example,” said Roger Entner, an analyst with Recon Analytics in Dedham,Massachusetts. “Last year I was paying $120 a month. I made a switch and now I’m down to $65. I’m getting twice the data at half the price.”
 

torrid

Just sailing
I think you are trying to make a point about competition bringing prices down. However, it sure looks like spam at first glance
 
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.
...
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.

But the current situation needs to be resolved I don't think more than one builder would resolve it (in fact from what I can remember of the court paperwork, additional builders would result in Kirby being sued).
 
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.
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.

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.
 

jeffers

Active Member
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.
A lot of people don't have issue with multiple builders.

Sadly as Rastegar owns the TM to use Laser in terms of dinghy sailing in NA and Europe this will not happen unless people pay him royalties.... and that is how we got in to this mess in the first place.
 
I think in 20 years time, this will be considered footnote in the history of the class. The Laser has enjoyed years of the system working, yes Kirby made some mistakes when he tried to 'retire', but that's no excuse for LP / Rastegar acting in the manner they did. In LP / Rastegar's defense, they want us to believe there is a conspiracy... It's all there in the legal documents for those who care to look. My hope that the vast majority of sailors will see the case for what it is - Kirby is a straight shooter - not perfect but his support for the Laser class is beyond reproach. Rastegar on the other hand has a history, and has not honoured his agreement to pay small royalties - and is taking on the appearance of wanting complete control of the Laser class manufacturing for everywhere but Oceania and Japan. (Until he was terminated, he was liscenced to manufacture for North America and Europe.)

I support the concept of Kirby's boat so far which has been called the Laser, as it has worked really well for years - and that includes having only one builder per region.

In the end, it is the sailors who will have the final say. Even if Rastegar wins in court (which I doubt), I will support the Torch.
 
Thanks Mrs P for the update!

I take three important things from that document:
  1. The parties’ have scheduled and plan to participate in mediation with James Hawkins on June 18 and 19.
  2. The parties have not consented to either a jury trial or a bench trial before a Magistrate Judge.
  3. The parties estimate that the trial will last two weeks.
 
However, LP and Rastegar are refusing to cooperate and Kirby is going to have to file motions to compel for them to produce documents (while Kirby has already produced over 3000 documents) and Kirby is also having to subpoena Rastegar.

Let's not forget when Rastegar was subpoenaed in the Maclaren bankruptcy when dumping the baby finger chopping company:

In March, Rastegar's bankruptcy lawyers claimed that Maclaren USA had no knowledge of the ownership of Maclaren Hong Kong Limited. Bankruptcy trustee Napolitano disputed the claim in a court document filed April 24, writing that she believed the U.S. company possessed "knowledge sufficient to allow complete responses to her requests for information." Maclaren USA owes $13.1 million to Maclaren Hong Kong Limited, according to bankruptcy filings.

Rastegar, subpoenaed in New York on May 10, testified that both Maclaren Hong Kong Limited and Maclaren Distribution Limited (the parent company of Maclaren Europe Limited) are owned by his mother and sister

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/maclaren-stroller-settlement_n_1644108.html?tw_p=twt
 
And the Huffington report was actually quite kind. I wonder, now that 2 years has passed, how much of the reparation was paid? I note that in the bankruptcy back in 2012, Rastegar was listed as being owed $113,000 by McLaren.

Back in 2012, this was published:
I 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.
Source = http://daddytypes.com/2012/02/21/wow_why_has_maclaren_quietly_filed_for_bankruptcy_liquidation.php

So why is this relevant? It shows the tactics that Rastegar has used previously, and we should ask that because of this, should we expect Rastegar similar tactics with his dealings with the Laser and Kirby? While of course that doesn't necessarily mean that he will do the same things with the Laser and Kirby, my judgement is that it serves as fair warning of that possibility.

It certainly lends weight to Kirby's Torch being a legitimate way forward.
 
Based on http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/...aserperformance-europe-limited-et-al/summary/ looks like PSA will still be dragged into the mix on the Lawsuit for abit longer.

154 ORDER denying counterclaim defendant's 133 Motion to Strike in view of the Court's 153 ruling denying counterclaim defendant's 99 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/8/2014. (Norman, D.) (Entered: 08/08/2014)

153 ORDER denying 99 Motion to Dismiss. This case is still in discovery and, at this stage, counterclaim plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over counterclaim defendant Performance Sailcraft Pty. Ltd. ("PSA") by alleging that PSA has directed sales of its products into Connecticut. See Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 84-85 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (noting that, "[p]rior to [the completion of] discovery, a [party]... may defeat [a] motion [to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction] by pleading in good faith, legally sufficient allegations of jurisdiction"). It is of no consequence that PSA has introduced an affidavit claiming that it has no contacts with Connecticut because "where the issue [of personal jurisdiction] is addressed on affidavits, all allegations are construed in the light most favorable to the [party asserting jurisdiction] and doubts are resolved in [its] favor, notwithstanding a controverting presentation by the [party moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction]." A.I. Trade Fin., Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 79-80 (2d Cir. 1993). Counterclaim plaintiffs have introduced affidavits indicating that PSA has ample contacts with Connecticut to establish jurisdiction here and, at this time, I must resolve this factual dispute in favor of counterclaim plaintiffs. This ruling, however, is without prejudice to PSA's renewal of its motion to dismiss at any time on or before November 24, 2014, based on evidence developed during the course of ongoing discovery in this action and based upon a hearing if requested by PSA to consider witness testimony on the issue of PSA's contacts with Connecticut. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/8/2014. (Norman, D.) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
 
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
 
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
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?
 
According to Wikipedia, which is almost as good an authority on legal matters as The Laser Forum and Sailing Anarchy are...
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.
 
The Status Report is out:
http://ia601604.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.155.0.pdf

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.
Discovery disputes are very common in lawsuits.

There is supposed to be a mandatory settlement conference in October. I expect that that will be a very short meeting!

"Trial ready date" is scheduled for October 20. I wonder when the motions to delay that will happen?
 
A change to the scheduling order on 8/6/14 has already bumped the trail ready date to what looks like January 2015 or later. The schedule change is in the status report link above.

Disclosure of Opening Expert Reports Friday November 7, 2014
Deposition on Opening Expert Report* Thursday, December 4, 2014
Disclosure of Rebuttal Export Reports Thursday, December 4, 2014
Deposition on Rebuttal Expert Report* Thursday, December 4, 2014
Close of All Discovery Friday, December 19, 2014
Filing of Dispositive Motions Monday, November 24, 2014
Joint Trial Memorandum The later of: (1) 30 days after a decision on
all dispositive motions or (2) Monday, December 15, 2014
Deadline to Serve Damage Analysis* Friday, November 21, 2014
Trial Ready Date 30 days after submission of Joint Trial
Memorandum
 

jeffers

Active Member
So the defendant is trying to delay as much as possible then. Hopefully the judge will show some steel and impose sanctions (or find against them by default) if they do not produce the required documentation.
 

torrid

Just sailing
Funny thing about trademarks. My company is going through a merger, and the new name of the combined company was supposed to be top-secret until everything was finalized. Only the new name, logo, and slogans are right there on the US patent and trademark office website for all to see. It's all listed under the existing company's name.

This suprises me. They filed a bunch of SEC paperwork before announcing the merger under a dummy corporation to hide it. Seems they could have done the same with trademarks. Maybe it's a red herring?
 
Looks like the lawsuit schedule has moved back again:
Docket Text: ORDER RE SCHEDULING: This case shall proceed pursuant to the following schedule. All discovery shall be completed by 12/19/2014. Dispositive motions shall be filed by 1/19/2015. Counterclaim defendant Performance Sailcraft Pty. Ltd. may renew its motion to dismiss on or before 1/19/2015. The parties' joint trial memorandum is due by 2/19/2015, or within 30 days of the Court's ruling on dispositive motions, whichever date is later. This case will be ready for trial by 3/19/2015. Please refer to Judge Meyer's webpage on the District of Connecticut website for Judge Meyer's "Pretrial Preferences" and "Trial Preferences," and for Judge Meyer's "Instructions for Discovery Disputes" and "Instructions for Joint Trial Memorandum."
Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 9/29/2014.(Norman, D.)​
 
To those of you whose pay is based on your production: Don't you wish you had the luxury of delaying your decisions and actions whenever you don't feel right about something and yet continue to add your billable hours to the tab?
 
Top