@fairlanefastback

Yes I think Bill lied in his deposition. Yes I think he should be held accountable and punished. But his partners and investors ect.. should not. If the insolvency indeed did happen and is legal then the clause should be enforced. You just can't take the liar Bill Mc word for it that it indeed happened. If the only evidebce is the word of a known liar it is pretty weak. I may be wrong and they will be found legally insolvent but I don't think so.

@stew

Quote:

stew wrote: @fairlanefastback Yes I think Bill lied in his deposition. Yes I think he should be held accountable and punished. But his partners and investors ect.. should not. If the insolvency indeed did happen and is legal then the clause should be enforced. You just can't take the liar Bill Mc word for it that it indeed happened. If the only evidebce is the word of a known liar it is pretty weak. I may be wrong and they will be found legally insolvent but I don't think so.

Assuming for a second he was lieing, I happen to think the opposite in this case. But if he was bear in mind these partners and investors did not release him for lieing in a legal proceeding now did they? They kept him on as president. They moved him to the new firm after jetisoning the old one leaving the valid debts they had behind. You said you wanted to decide on morality. I still don't see how Amiga should win on moral grounds if thats the basis by which we are talking, especially looking at the big picture.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: Last we know Bolton has an open judgement against Amiga #1 (Amiga Washington). The same people appear in Amiga #1 and Amiga #2 (Amiga Delaware). If they had sold it to someone truly different in a real world sense in an effort to salvage AI Washington I'd buy more what you are saying. But since it has most outwards appearances that they are the same folks overall and because I believe they indeed became insolvent and it was agreed to in the contract by both parties Hyperion should get what they were promised in the contract.

Amino (Amiga #1) is owned by Bill, Fleecy and Randy, KMOS (Amiga #2) is owned by Pentti Kouri, though Bill McEwen is a VP for it and apparently Fleecy may be some kind of consultant. We have two totally different owners and totally different boards of directors and you think that makes them the same company? There are 8 open judgements against Amino by my count, not sure why that matters for this lawsuit or the other one.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

So if you think he (Bill) was lying in his court mandated deposition that he should not be held accountable for what he said? Where is this morality barometer now? He verified insolvency in my book.

(Note: I am also a lay person)

Your book is probably a great read, but in the US, bankruptcy (and insolvency) is decided by a court specifically designed to try such cases. The president of a company stating "We only have $100 in the bank." does not fit the legal description of insolvency that the courts (and this clause in this contract) would require.

Quote:

Hyperion has a contract with a clause guaranteeing more rights if insolvency occured and it predates the "fishy" as you put it transfer. If Bill lied and it wasn't true he should learn his lesson not to lie to a court. Both of these entities agreed to the clause and one in my mind verified in a legal proceeding it occured. So they should be held accountable to it.

While Tigger has given whatever legal explanation he believes prevents the insolvency clause from occurring, here's my non-lawyer take on it: If a company is truly insolvent, where they have absolutely no hope of continuing operation, then the aforementioned bankruptcy court is the only place that decides how the assets are divided amongst the outstanding creditors. This contract is one of those assets, along with the trademarks and copyrights of the OS. It is up to the court, not the outstanding contract, who gets the rights to the OS. The clause gets overridden. That's why I believe Hyperion made the claim that they should be considered a creditor - in hopes of retaining the rights to the OS.



(jeez! I miss out on this thread for just 1 day and it triples in size!)

_________________
Tony T.

People who generalize are always wrong.


1989 - 500 / 1991 - 3000 / 1997 - Genesis Flyer 1200T / 2003 - A1XE

@Tigger

Quote:

Amino (Amiga #1) is owned by Bill, Fleecy and Randy,

Trying to understand this...Itec=Kouri and
Quote:

Itec has been an investor in Amiga since the purchase of the assets from Gateway.

But Kouri is not involved in ownership of Amino? Only an investor?

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@syrtran

Quote:

syrtran wrote: @fairlanefastback Your book is probably a great read, but in the US, bankruptcy (and insolvency) is decided by a court specifically designed to try such cases. The president of a company stating "We only have $100 in the bank." does not fit the legal description of insolvency that the courts (and this clause in this contract) would require.

First stew wanted to talk deciding on morality, not legalitym which was the basis for a lot of our back and forth. I'm a lay person as well. Second, yes they don't seem to fit bankruptcy, but insolvency I can definitely see. And to my understanding bankruptcy courts only deal with the issue of bankruptcy, not insolvency. Where have you seen Insolvency declarations from Bankruptcy courts? Also there is the element of the claim that Amiga Washington was seeking to hide the condition from Hyperion.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@Tigger

Quote:

and apparently Fleecy may be some kind of consultant.

Wait, you mean you don't really know the exact makeup of both? If not, what the hell could you be arguing here? Hyperion is asserting that an improper conveyance went on, and from outside appearances its believable. When you have proof otherwise I'm all ears. Oh and lets not forget Itec. If you are right it should be easy enough from them to clear up I would think. Also should they have it both ways? Why then should a payment from Tachyon be considered as any part of a payment from Amiga for instance towards the buy-in/buy-back?

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Tigger Quote: and apparently Fleecy may be some kind of consultant. Wait, you mean you don't really know the exact makeup of both?

I know the corporate officers of the two companies are totally different and even if they werent that actually not illegal in the US (see Steve Jobs and his cronies with regard to Apple and Pixar if you want an easy example) unless they provide transfer of assets without equitable compensation. Since the Amino-KMOS deal involves a swap of over $4M in cash and stock, its hard to argue that occurred.

Quote:

If not, what the hell could you be arguing here? Hyperion is asserting that an improper conveyance went on, and from outside appearances its believable. When you have proof otherwise I'm all ears. Oh and lets not forget Itec.

As we now know, Itec just bought OS 4.0 from Hyperion for 25K, and then sold it to KMOS, they never were the owner of the 2001 contract and so there can be no improper conveyance with regard to them because there was no conveyance, they lent money to AI and eventually KMOS bought the note.

Quote:

If you are right it should be easy enough from them to clear up I would think. Also should they have it both ways? Why then should a payment from Tachyon be considered as any part of a payment from Amiga for instance towards the buy-in/buy-back?

Three reasons
1) The transfer paper says its for the Buyout
2) Hyperion accepted the money and didnt return it
3) Hyperion provided a receipt for the Tachyon and Itec money marked as payment for the buyout clause.

Why do you think Hyperion should just be able to take money from whoever they want and just say you are the wrong person so you dont get the software? You must get beat up by Pizza delivery people alot.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: Is that vague enough for you? I hope so because by what you said that is proof that I do have the knowledge and I must have many, many, many 2 party contracts on my bookshelf. Yeah pretty much, either you want me to believe you can swim at the Farallon Islands with no fear or you are poor speller, and if the first case is it really your opinion that the 2001 contract is not a two party contract between 3 entities? -Tig

Exactly!!! That's my point. Doesn't matter that I typed a bunch of gibberish right?

I mean isn't that what you are basically saying? That since it's vague that IS definitive proof in and of itself?

You said, as an arguing point earlier, that since the contract is so vague as to whether or not it is 2 parties or 3 parties that, that in and of itself is proof it is 2 parties. Brilliant!!

My comment is so vague that must mean, in and of itself, that I am an expert at contract law, just like yourself. No further proof required.

As you said (and that only thing I am commenting on) vagueness is proof enough.

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: And to my understanding bankruptcy courts only deal with the issue of bankruptcy, not insolvency. Where have you seen Insolvency declarations from Bankruptcy courts? Also there is the element of the claim that Amiga Washington was seeking to hide the condition from Hyperion.

Not true at all. Bankruptcy courts find companies insolvent all the time.

Heres an example:

Finding of Insolvency

-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: I mean isn't that what you are basically saying? That since it's vague that IS definitive proof in and of itself? You said, as an arguing point earlier, that since the contract is so vague as to whether or not it is 2 parties or 3 parties that, that in and of itself is proof it is 2 parties. Brilliant!!

No, I'm saying because of the way the companies are entered its a two party contract, with one party being AI and the other party being Hyperion & Eyetech. My other comment was that because there is description of how they AmigaOne partners can effect each other we should have realized this earlier. That actually could work for Hyperions benefit if there is another contract that does call out how H&E partnership works, as maybe there is a loophole there that would allow an Acube port or something like that. The problem is that I dont think there is such a document.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 09-Nov-2007 at 05:32 AM.

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @Tigger I'd consider any legal system as a (very bad) joke if it says that things like "by and between 1) Amiga Inc ... and 2) Hyperion VOF 3) Eyetech Group Ltd" are sufficiant to form a "Joint Venture" legally. Where are the conditions that partnership is meant to be based upon? Where is the document between Hyperion and Eytech that clearly states: Sorry but thats US law, ...

I can't believe that - good, that I don't have to live there...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: Are you going to tell us, that in the US it requires a court decision to declare a company "insolvent", even if its CEO swore at court that they are insolvent - but a Joint Venture can be legally formed in a kind of subordinate clause in a contract about writing an OS? Being insolvent gives you all kinds of rights under Title 11, ...

Tig, this does not answer my question. My question was:

"Are you going to tell us, that in the US it requires a court decision to declare a company "insolvent", even if its CEO swore at court that they are insolvent - but a Joint Venture can be legally formed in a kind of subordinate clause in a contract about writing an OS?"

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Do you think that if Bill had said they were bankrupt during his testimony that would have been accurate?

Eigther that, or if the contrary is prooven, I would expect the court sends him to jail for a while...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: If Bill Gates tomorrow said Microsoft is insolvent in court, do you believe that would be the end of it all, the stock would be zeroed out on Nasdaq, and most of there debts unpaid or do you think a court would look at the situation to see if it was accurate.

I think a court would look at the situation to see if it was accurate, after he swore it under oath.
And then the court eigther finds out that his statement was accurate, or it finds out that he was perjuring. If the latter, he has to be sent to jail (thats what would happen here in Germany).

Quote:

Tigger wrote: As I keep pointing out, US Law says debts must exceed assets for you to be insolvent, at no time prior to April 24, 2003 did AI's debts (a few 100K) exceed the value of its assets (IP, Trademarks, etc). Bill may have been correct saying they met the standards of what we call a cash flow insolvency (debts exceed ability to pay them), but that won't be the standard AI is held to in a federal court, since that isnt the federal definition. -Tig

Sorry, Tig - I wasn't talking about this crap...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

OK here's more food for you all. Itec has responded it seems.



Justia

_________________
AmigaOS or MorphOS on x86 would sell orders of magnitude more than the current,
hardware-intensive solutions. And they'd go faster.-- D.Haynie

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @fairlanefastback ... and only about 600 people actually qualify for $50 refunds. ... because the other 1200 don't qualify for rebates, ...

????????????


WTF are you talking about?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic ...is it really your opinion that the 2001 contract is not a two party contract between 3 entities?

As I already stated above:
YES!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@stew

Quote:

stew wrote: @fairlanefastback Yes I think Bill lied in his deposition. Yes I think he should be held accountable and punished. But his partners and investors ect.. should not. ...

They did not care for us - why should we care for them?

Last edited by Dandy on 09-Nov-2007 at 07:45 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@syrtran

Quote:

syrtran wrote: @fairlanefastback ... Your book is probably a great read, but in the US, bankruptcy (and insolvency) is decided by a court specifically designed to try such cases. The president of a company stating "We only have $100 in the bank." does not fit the legal description of insolvency that the courts (and this clause in this contract) would require. ...

It was NOT the president of a company stating "We only have $100 in the bank." - it was the president of a company swearing at a court under oath "We only have $100 in the bank.".

Don't you think that makes a difference?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Manu

Quote:

Manu wrote: OK here's more food for you all. Itec has responded it seems. Justia

I think Amiga Inc just did Hyperion a favor with this one.




Amiga's Laywers:> "Umm... those Itec guys have nothing to do with us Amiga Inc. guys. Sure, sure... Penti Kuri and Bill McEwen are listed as the the owner, CEO, and signers for every company ---Amino ->AmigaInc. (W)-->KMOS-->ITEC-->AmigaInc.(D)--->Amino(new)-- but Penti and Bill are just 2 common names dude.. You see the names "Bill" and "Penti" are so vague that is proof we're not the same compay or related in anyway. " (Said in the voice of someone high on weed)


I guess in the famous words of Bill McEwen himself, well, all see the outcome just in.....

30 More Days!!

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

Amiga's Laywers:> "Umm... those Itec guys have nothing to do with us Amiga Inc. guys.

Uh, they are Itec's lawyers, so it's "those Amiga Inc guys" and "us Itec guys".

@umisef

Quote:

Uh, they are Itec's lawyers, so it's "those Amiga Inc guys" and "us Itec guys".

It would seem that ITEC and AMIGA(D) have different views on events.

If the 24,750.00 paid was for a straight purchase of OS4 not subject to the 2001 agreement then there could have been no "buyback" between Hyperion and Amiga(W).

Only one chunk of money was paid before AMIGA(W) filed the suit.

Divide and rule .

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card