All about to kick off....

jeffers

Active Member
I thought most people here knew about the new sail design?

It is a radial cut of the current full rig using a standard cloth and has been developed over a long period of time to ensure it is no faster than the current sail but more durable than the current sail.

There was an article in the ILCA magazine about it I seem to recall. SFBayLaser knows much more about it as he has been using it for some time but given his real world position I would say he is unlikely to comment at this time.
 
Ahhh... that one. Yeah, that and the carbon mast would be good too. But I think that if it ends up that we sail the Torch, that they may be very keen to not make changes for a few years during the introductory phase... I can see it going either way...
 

jeffers

Active Member
The carbon mast is just about ready too I understand but is currently on hold until the legal wranglings are sorted out.

I will see what my 'spy' knows when I see them over the weekend.
 
Laser Performance seem to have something to say about the lawsuit. They seem to have a website in development. Google shows hints on it content but click the link and you have to login.

FAQ | Laser Chronicles
dev.laserperformance.com.php53-5.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/faq/

FAQ Concerning the Lawsuit initiated by Bruce Kirby. Why did LaserPerformance cease paying royalties to GLobal Sailing Ltd.? LaserPerformance ceased ..
 
Google is showing some intreseting stuff on the development site.

Laser Chronicles | Lasers are manufactured and distributed in Africa ...
dev.laserperformance.com.php53-5.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/

LaserPerformance is displeased that the ISAF Sailing World Cup Event in Qingdao on October 12-19 used Lasers and Laser Radials from Performance SailCraft ...

Unauthorized Lasers at Qingdao ISAF Sailing World Cup Event ...
dev.laserperformance.com.php53-5.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/unauthoriz...

12 Oct 2013 - LaserPerformance is displeased that the ISAF Sailing World Cup Event in Qingdao on October 12-19 used Lasers and Laser Radials from ...
 

torrid

Just sailing
Courtesy of Google cache:

FAQ Concerning the Lawsuit initiated by Bruce Kirby

Why did LaserPerformance cease paying royalties to GLobal Sailing Ltd.?
LaserPerformance ceased paying royalties in Europe because Global Sailing Ltd., the owner of Kirby’s Laser sailboat design rights, terminated the builder’s agreement in July 2010.

Who is Global Sailing Ltd.?
Global Sailing Ltd., based in New Zealand, purchased Kirby’s rights to the Kirby sailboat design, known as the Laser, from Bruce Kirby in 2008. Global Sailing shares ownership with Performance Sailcraft Australia PTY.

Why did LaserPerformance cease paying royalties to GLobal Sailing Ltd., Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc.?
LaserPerformance never ceased paying royalties in North America. Because of confusion in 2011 as to the correct ownership of Kirby rights, royalties were put into escrow pending ownership resolution with the full understanding of Bruce Kirby and Global Sailing.

Why does LaserPerformance not enter into mediation with the parties concerned?
LaserPerformance has agreed in multiple instances to meet and mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc. Before Mr. Kirby initiated his lawsuit, LaserPerformance met with ISAF and ILCA and agreed to use mediation to resolve contractual issues amongst all parties involved including Global Sailing and PSA. The response from Mr. Kirby was negative and a lawsuit was launched against LaserPerformance. Subsequently ISAF and ILCA met with LaserPerformance and we renewed our call for mediation. This initiative was again rejected Bruce Kirby and Global Sailing Ltd.
 
Courtesy of Google cache:

Why does LaserPerformance not enter into mediation with the parties concerned?
LaserPerformance has agreed in multiple instances to meet and mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc. Before Mr. Kirby initiated his lawsuit, LaserPerformance met with ISAF and ILCA and agreed to use mediation to resolve contractual issues amongst all parties involved including Global Sailing and PSA. The response from Mr. Kirby was negative and a lawsuit was launched against LaserPerformance. Subsequently ISAF and ILCA met with LaserPerformance and we renewed our call for mediation. This initiative was again rejected Bruce Kirby and Global Sailing Ltd.
Hokem! I believe LP offered to enter into NON-BINDING mediation. Meaning after you come to an agreement on how to proceed forward, Rastegar can still do whatever the heck he wants. How many people out there would spend good money to enter into non-binding mediation with Rastegar?
 
Hokem! I believe LP offered to enter into NON-BINDING mediation. Meaning after you come to an agreement on how to proceed forward, Rastegar can still do whatever the heck he wants. How many people out there would spend good money to enter into non-binding mediation with Rastegar?
LP's claim doesn't seem to match the recently posted status report, where everyone except LP, Global Sailing and PSA have agreed to some kind of mediation: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.95.0.pdf
 
A Joint Status Report of Counsel was filed with the court on 11-21-13. Not really breaking news but ...

There are some oral hearings for pending motions that are scheduled for January 24, 2014 - Motions to Dismiss from Karaya, Velum, Rastegar, and ISAF.

Kirby is anticipating filing an amendment to add a party to the suit.

No discovery has been taken and ISAF, ILCA, BKE, and Kirby have all stated that are willing to refer the matter for settlement purposes to a US Magistrate Judge.
 
Latest on the Kirby v LP lawsuit. Hearing for multiple motions to dismiss parties took place on the 24th. Results appear to be sealed. Any attorneys out there that can translate what that means?

1/24/2014103SEALED NOTICE TO COUNSEL Signed by Clerk on 1/24/14.(Bauer, J.) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
1/24/2014102Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Robert N. Chatigny: taking under advisement 38 Motion to Dismiss; taking under advisement 39 Motion to Dismiss; taking under advisement 63 Motion to Dismiss; Motion Hearing held on 1/24/2014 re 39 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Farzad
Rastegar, 63 MOTION to Dismiss filed by International Sailing Federation Limited, 38 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Velum Limited ITM SA (Antigua and Barbuda), Karaya (Jersey) Limited. Total Time: 1 hours and 54 minutes(Court Reporter Warner, Darlene.) (Glynn, T.) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
 

jeffers

Active Member
I would guess this is because of the ongoing mediation/talks between the parties. They don;t want too much getting out into the public domain until these conclude or fall apart.
 
I would guess this is because of the ongoing mediation/talks between the parties. They don;t want too much getting out into the public domain until these conclude or fall apart.
My non-lawyer's thoughts: I would not read too much into the sealing at this stage. Some lawyers explained why their motions should be accepted, others explained why not. The motions concerned dropping the claims against various parties. The judge will take some time to decide. You can read the motions here: http://ia801604.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.docket.html -- look for 38, 39 and 63.
 
According to that last entry, looks like Rastegar, LP, Karaya, Velum and Quarter Moon all added another law firm to their defense team. The first firm hasn't filed anything to withdraw so it doesn't appear to be a replacement. The recent motions were all motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The addition of a local firm (as opposed to the NY firm) would seem to indicate the motions were denied and Rastegar is now adding a local firm that has some history/experience with the court. Adding another firm to the legal team wouldn't make any sense if the dismissal motions were still pending or dismissal had been granted. Surely, it would have been cheaper to just pay the royalties he owes.

And speaking of dismissals, the ILCA had a dismissal motion pending. I haven't been watching this forum too much but noticed that SFBayLaser recently posted and I hadn't seen him post since the lawsuit was filed. Did I miss other postings or perhaps is that an indication that ILCA was dismissed?
 
.... The recent motions were all motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The addition of a local firm (as opposed to the NY firm) would seem to indicate the motions were denied and Rastegar is now adding a local firm that has some history/experience with the court.
I think you are reading too much into the addition of another lawyer, although it might indicate that Rastegar is preparing for a continuing fight. I don't think that anyone knows the outcomes of the dismissal motions yet.

In the new lawyer's profile, I can't seen any particular specialization that would be relevant to this case:
http://www.npmlaw.com/attorney-and-paralegal-profiles/simon-i-allentuch/
Rastegar must already have "local" counsel -- someone qualified to act in CT -- on his legal team.

Adding another firm to the legal team wouldn't make any sense if the dismissal motions were still pending or dismissal had been granted. Surely, it would have been cheaper to just pay the royalties he owes.
While it does seem unlikely, Rastegar's position is that he has already overpaid the royalties. In any case, I think that past royalties are not the main concern here -- it's who has the rights to build Lasers (or Kirby Sailboats).
 
This is interesting:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.76.0.pdf
It was originally filed under seal (ISAF marked it confidential), but later unsealed. It appears from the letter that there was an understanding between ISAF and Kirby that ISAF would be dropped from the lawsuit if ISAF told ICLA to stop issuing plaques to LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon. ISAF claims in the letter that it complied. However, subsequently Kirby did not dismiss ISAF -- why not?
 
This is interesting:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.76.0.pdf
It was originally filed under seal (ISAF marked it confidential), but later unsealed. It appears from the letter that there was an understanding between ISAF and Kirby that ISAF would be dropped from the lawsuit if ISAF told ICLA to stop issuing plaques to LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon. ISAF claims in the letter that it complied. However, subsequently Kirby did not dismiss ISAF -- why not?
ISAF refused to recognize Kirby's rights and refused to instruct the ILCA to stop issuing plaques until after Kirby had been forced to file suit. Less than a month after Kirby filed suit ISAF sent that confidential letter and ISAF also made a public announcement that they recognized Kirby's complaint as legitimate and instructed the ILCA to stop issuing the plaques. Then ISAF ratified the rule change.
 
Top