@ppcamiga1

He did already.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote: I hope that Ben solve this.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@thread

New Ownership of Hyperion Entertainment CVBA – New Director Appointed

Same from AmigaNews.de

As usual with the German version of AmigaNews, it's always worth a look at the comment section for the news article.

#6

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

@number6

Who is the “general assembly�

This would have been interesting in 2005 perhaps and earlier to me anyways.

Now not so much...

Last edited by Matt3k on 23-Jan-2025 at 11:05 PM.
Last edited by Matt3k on 23-Jan-2025 at 10:52 PM.

@kamelito

General assembly just means general meeting. It does not define entities with such a group name.
However, the english translation at Amiganews might be a bit more clear.

"at a general assembly"

Obviously this involved the court and the shareholders. That could mean "some" or "all" of the shareholders since that is not stated clearly.

The latter lines about Ben's BV should indicate he was not involved in this meeting, since it clearly states the status of the shares in Hyperion at that time.

I'm only saying "at that time" due to the fact that we have no legal document from the court giving any additional clarity or "finality" to what has been posted. clear?

Added:

This statement by Hyperion is partially based on what we posted:
court document OCR'd and translated

Although the decision is mentioned to be "unanimous" that doesn't mean they all were present at the general meeting referred to.

As you can plainly see, this court document contains considerably more information than the recent PR.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 23-Jan-2025 at 11:23 PM.

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

@number6

Thanks

@Individual currently handling the Hyperion Entertainment website

From the PR:

Quote:

The general assembly also instructed the new directors

Please note the plural, pointed out also by AmigaNews.

Yet above as the subject of this PR:

Quote:

appointed Timothy De Groote as the company’s new director.

Singular. So is this a typo or did you mean to state you had multiple directors?

#6

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

#6 Quote:

New Ownership of Hyperion Entertainment CVBA – New Director Appointed Same from AmigaNews.de As usual with the German version of AmigaNews, it's always worth a look at the comment section for the news article.

Comment #5 by Neb puts the news in perspective.

Google translation of Neb Quote:

By not mentioning that Ben Hermans has filed an appeal, Hyperion Entertainment without Ben Hermans shows that it is the same dishonest predator it was with Ben Hermans. Nothing mentioned in this article will be final until the hearing takes place in two months. Doesn't the Amiga community deserve to know this? Even after this, the courts can still declare Hyperion Entertainment bankrupt. As of today (after more than a month under new management!), the company still has not filed its overdue 2022 and 2023 financial statements. Why? There's probably a good reason why Bart De Moor is still listed as a court-appointed administrator: https://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?lang=de&ondernemingsnummer=466380552

The announcements and news are Hyperion moving ahead with confidence that the Ben Era is over but may not be final. The Hyperion announcements seem perhaps deliberately vague to me. They create more questions than give answers.

https://www.hyperion-entertainment.com/index.php/news Quote:

The general assembly also instructed the new directors to prioritize consolidating the company’s financial situation and restarting development of AmigaOS.

What does "consolidating the company’s financial situation" entail? Does that mean shearing up the financial situation? How is that accomplished with Hyperion Entertainment on the verge of bankruptcy only saved by all shareholders agreeing not to declare bankruptcy? Would Ben as director not have exhausted all legal financial remedies, perhaps even desperately resorting to illegal ones? How can Hyperion continue without a new financier willing to take on non-investment grade risk in a business with a broken business model, debt levels at the brink of insolvency and the most profitable product, 68k AmigaOS, resulting from not paying developers with the profits potentially lost in a lawsuit that is also a major drain on finances? Perhaps one such investor exists that is willing to throw good money after bad due to past Amiga bad investments and contracts creating a dependency on Hyperion? Would any other investors also prioritize "restarting development of AmigaOS" for an AmigaOS they do not own and depends on externally owned Amiga IP without an agreement with the IP owners who are suing them? Would a better way for Hyperion to improve their financial situation be to prioritize settling with the Amiga IP owner and/or selling/delivering all of the AmigaOS related software and returning to focusing on game licensing and porting? Should selling out or merging the business with a white knight business not be considered in the best interest of the shareholders? Is the non-specification of 68k or PPC AmigaOS development cover for restarting PPC AmigaOS development after Ben had practically stopped it due to it being unprofitable or to continue with 68k AmigaOS development seemingly with impunity in the face of the lawsuits?

https://www.hyperion-entertainment.com/index.php/news Quote:

The general assembly followed the bankruptcy of Hyperion Entertainment’s largest shareholder, Ben Hermans BV, which, under Belgian law, resulted in the annulment of its shares.

This seems strange and unprofessional for a business to make an announcement about a shareholder's holdings that "resulted in the annulment of its shares" as there are privacy concerns. The announcement may be deceptively worded to make it look like Ben's Hyperion Entertainment shares were "annulled" when the Ben Hermans BV shares were annulled and the Hyperion Entertainment shares were sold by the bankruptcy administrator to pay debts. The info helps explain why Ben was removed as Hyperion Entertainment director but it would have been easier to say simply that Ben was removed as a director or with more detail that Ben was no longer a director due to no longer owning stock in Hyperion Entertainment. At the same time, there is no explanation of the current shareholder situation after an ~97% shareholder change which is more important. Perhaps the silent puppeteer wishes to remain anonymous again but is pulling the strings for director Timothy instead of Ben now. So much for Hyperion turning over a new leaf. It looks like outrageously expensive under powered PPC hardware is here to stay for more lost Trevor Amiga decades, unless Michele can rescue the Amiga from all the shenanigans.

#6 Quote:

@Individual currently handling the Hyperion Entertainment website From the PR: Quote: The general assembly also instructed the new directors Please note the plural, pointed out also by AmigaNews.

Timothy De Groote and Bart De Moor makes two thus plural?

#6 Quote:

Yet above as the subject of this PR: Quote: appointed Timothy De Groote as the company’s new director. Singular. So is this a typo or did you mean to state you had multiple directors?

Only one new director, Timothy, was appointed thus singular even though there are likely multiple directors now.

Last edited by matthey on 24-Jan-2025 at 09:09 PM.

@matthey

You sure ask a lot of questions. heh.

I think Hyperion Entertainment was fairly brief because that is all they felt comfortable in stating at this time.

Surely some of what you question would be made public when the time is right in their eyes. Ditto for Amiga Corporation and others.

If an outsider (non-shareholder/owner/etc.) answered any of your questions, there could arise accusations of being a meddler, taking a side as opposed to sticking to facts.....or worse.

#6

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

@matthey

There are many reasons I can think of that might explain keeping Hyperion, as opposed to so many posts asking "why don't they just let it go bankrupt".

When Thomas Richter was still arguably acting as spokesman on EAB for the 3.x team, he was basically saying that going forward with Hyperion was the only way. Similar sentiments have been expressed by others associated with the 3.x endeavors.

Your quote obviously correct:
Quote:

the most profitable product, 68k AmigaOS

I would think if you then wished to preserve the talent of the team who creates this product, you might have to consider preservation of such a resource when making a strategic decision.

Feel free to disagree. It's just a thought.

#6

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

@ #6
Why is the AmigaOS through Hyperion the only way forward? Perhaps Trevor and Ben deliberately made AmigaOS development more difficult for anyone else by not delivering the AmigaOS 4 source code as contracted and coercing their financially distressed business partner into signing the 2009 agreement after Pentti Kouri's passing? Perhaps A-Eon does not need Hyperion so much to develop the AmigaOS as to preserve the coerced 2009 contract agreement? Perhaps the AmigaOS developers believe further AmigaOS development depends on staying in good standing with Hyperion?

Various leaks and rumors have hinted that AmigaOS 4 is a legal mess despite Ben being a lawyer. An acquisition of Hyperion or merger with it may be one way to get around some of the legal entanglements as it would still exist even under a different name but it would likely require assuming liabilities as well.

Example: Chevron is attempting to buy Hess with 30% contractual ownership of a large oil field in Guyana. Chevron says that because they are buying Hess as a whole that existing contracts remain valid while Exxon claims there is a change of ownership that triggers a contractual right of first refusal.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-clash-with-chevron-hinges-change-control-hess-guyana-asset-sources-say-2024-07-18/ Quote:

Exxon Mobil's legal bid to stop Chevron's proposed $53 billion acquisition of Hess rests on whether the transaction would involve a change of control of Hess' prize subsidiary in Guyana, according to people knowledgeable about the argument. The two top U.S. oil producers are in an arbitration battle over the world's largest oil discovery in almost two decades, in offshore Guyana. Exxon, which operates all output in the South American country with a 45% stake in a lucrative consortium, has challenged the merger in which Chevron would gain control of Hess and its 30% stake, a deal that would define Chevron's future. Exxon asserts that Hess should have first given it the opportunity to purchase its stake in the Guyana asset. Exxon's position is that the right of first refusal is triggered by a change of control in Guyana and that Chevron structured the deal in a way to bypass it, people familiar with the arguments, which are confidential, said. Chevron and Hess say the acquisition is structured in a way that would keep Hess intact, with no change of control of its asset in Guyana, since Hess would become a unit within Chevron. Chevron and Hess believe the argument has no merit because Hess would survive under a new Chevron and continue to own the asset, people close to their thinking said. "The crux here is whether a change of control even occurred," agreed oil and M&A expert James English at law firm Clark Hill Law. The three-person arbitration panel which will make the call must decide in part whether to focus on the language in the contract or to delve into Chevron's intent.

I believe Chevron's claim that Hess survives the buyout is the predominate legal belief, as least as long as there were no legal mistakes. Exxon is willing to take a long shot because the oil field is so valuable worth ~$1 trillion USD. My point is that mergers and acquisitions of Hyperion may be possible with most legal contracts persisting. Contrast this to C-A Acquisition Corp which I believe bought the Amiga IP instead of acquiring Amiga Inc. While this minimized risks, it also triggered change of ownership clauses in contracts which Ben exploited.

@number6

Quote:

When Thomas Richter was still arguably acting as spokesman on EAB for the 3.x team, he was basically saying that going forward with Hyperion was the only way.

He changed this stance over time.

At the start of the 3.1.4 his logic was that, by the 2009 settlement agreements, OS4 was defined as _any_ OS developed by Hyperion, regardless version or architecture, so hence even a re-release of OS 3.1 was by definition also legally OS4. For which Hyperion had all rights.

(And yes, that is one way to interpret the agreement. From what I understand this was a result of Ben Hermans cleverly insisting on adjusting some sentences right before they were about to sign, and the implication was probably not obvious at the time. However, when it comes to such agreements, there is always the wording vs. intent, and the intent throughout the agreement was very clear.)

At the time of OS3.2, right before he left the OS team, his stance was more pragmatic, that they would work with whoever end up owning the rights. As reason for why he quit the OS team, he wrote that he rather work for someone who pays him (and I'm sure, with stuff he finds more rewarding intellectually) so he's now working on P96, for IComp. My guess is that he wasn't so happy about how things were going with Hyperion, and also not so happy about the path certain other team members wanted to take with the OS. It's been a bit entertaining to see ThoR and Minuous go toe-to-toe on forums over deficons vs datatypes, and ThoR occasionally stating that various bugs/problems were not present when he left, and are not present on _his_ variant of OS 3.2 (which is not what was released), suggesting that Mr. "open source leads to forks!!11" now maintains his own "fork"? Then there's the promise by IComp (that is, Jens) that he will withdraw from Amiga market if Hyperion looses the rights (which frankly many would see as bonus win).

So let's say Hyperion looses and Amiga (aka Cloanto) wins, what are the consequences?

- will the OS team go on rage-quit and delete all the work they've done?
- will the OS team willingly move everything to Amiga?
- will Amiga start from scratch with OS 3.1 again?
- will Amiga release "in house" OS components as open source?
- will Amiga cooperate with AROS (along with AmigaKit, Apollo, whoever)?
- will AmigaOS and AROS somehow merge?
- will IComp leave the Amiga scene as promised, and forever hold P96 hostage?
- will IComp leave the Amiga scene, and sell P96 to Amiga for inclusion in the OS?
- will IComp stay in the Amiga scene, and just continue with P96 and whatever?
- will Hyperion sell ReAction to Cloanto?
- will Amiga continue OS development without ReAction?
- will Minuous continue ReAction on his own, regardless of rights, NDAs and agreements?
- will the MorphOS team compile a 68k release just to stirr up the pot?
- will ppcamiga continue to moan about MUI as if it's an Amiga OS component?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC