Statute of limitations is normally an absolute defense, that is, it should get thrown out of court relatively quickly, I’m not sure why they’re going forward with it in the first place. Funi has money to waste on this? Or do they feel Sentai et. all is weak enough the fees will cripple them?
[quote=rebecca12]
Statute of limitations is normally an absolute defense, that is, it should get thrown out of court relatively quickly, I’m not sure why they’re going forward with it in the first place. Funi has money to waste on this? Or do they feel Sentai et. all is weak enough the fees will cripple them?[/quote]
While you are correct, it is often times a debate as to when the clock should start on the statue of limitations. By Sentai’s clock, it’s past the statue of limitations.
I don’t recall the section of legal code I read specifying a statute of limitations, but it’s most likely rather close to up if it isn’t already. The thing is, even if the trial goes past the statute of limitations so long as the paperwork for it was filed before the deadline collection can still be enforced.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-feature/2012/01/26/feature-adv-vs-arm-a-tale-of-two-lawsuits
An interesting little tid-bit posted on CR.
“Unrealistic expectations” just about sums up the root cause of most nearly all lawsuits.
You would think the people involved in running a line of business for as long as those at ADV, Funimation, etc. would be aware of just how volatile that business was.
Mark Gosdin
[quote=Razmoudah]
I don’t recall the section of legal code I read specifying a statute of limitations, but it’s most likely rather close to up if it isn’t already. The thing is, even if the trial goes past the statute of limitations so long as the paperwork for it was filed before the deadline collection can still be enforced.[/quote]
What if they argue the clock doesn’t start until the Funimation deal was struck with ARMs? The debate over when the clock starts is the part of statute of limitations that matters. Sometimes it’s not clear cut.
[quote=Prede]
[quote=Razmoudah]
I don’t recall the section of legal code I read specifying a statute of limitations, but it’s most likely rather close to up if it isn’t already. The thing is, even if the trial goes past the statute of limitations so long as the paperwork for it was filed before the deadline collection can still be enforced.[/quote]
What if they argue the clock doesn’t start until the Funimation deal was struck with ARMs? The debate over when the clock starts is the part of statute of limitations that matters. Sometimes it’s not clear cut.[/quote]
Even if that is the case, if the statute of limitations is only two years as Neo-ADV claims, it’s still past the 2 year mark, since the clock would start from July 2008 putting it at a July 2010 end point.
Now, if it’s 4 years, as some posts I’ve seen would suggest, they’re still within the time frame.
Reading over this whole disaster causes me to have even more reservations about this whole mess. First of all, if all this was going on why didn’t Sojitz sue for their back payments in the first place? Why include them in a contract for the titles when you are going to have to write them off anyway? This suggests to me that one of the executives from ARM/Sojitz took this all personally and was attempting to later punish ADV for their failed partnership or that Funimation requested it to later use against ADV.
Secondly, allowing your primary creditor to not only negotiate for titles for you, determine what you will pay, and appoint your CFO is a terrible idea and a clear conflict of interest. Of course a CFO appointed by Sojitz is going to work for their best interest and not ADVs. A financing company is going to want to recover their investment as quickly as possible and not want to exercise the patience required when working in entertainment. Sometimes properties can take years to turn a profit but it’s clear Sojitz was not willing to wait.
I’ve heard from more than one source that ADVs CFO at the time was basically asleep at the wheel and caused huge problems for the company. These numbers make me believe it even more. $1 million for Kurau? That’s insane. Sure it’s a great show and has not only one of ADVs best dubs but one of Matt Greenfields best works as director, but it would have never recovered that. ADV is the same company that passed on End of Evangelion because Gainax wanted a million dollars for it and that was a proven property. There is no way that ADV would have paid some of these without extreme pressures from Sojitz or an appointed CFO that just wasn’t doing their job.
ADV has made some mistakes in the past. They overextended their company and grew it far too quickly. They jumped feet first into the manga market with far too many titles far too quickly. They also signed what we would later learned would be a disastrous deal with Kadokowa for NewType. They, like Geneon, Bandai, and even Funimation had overpaid for some titles (sometimes due to bidding wars) and had dubbed titles that couldn’t support it. However, I just can’t see them paying some of these prices considering what they’ve passed on over the years.
The terms of the deal with Sojitz make it seem like ADV was somewhat desperate at the time. Like so many people and companies out there, it looks like they may have fallen prey to a predatory finance company with executives looking to make some quick and easy bonuses. The deal was a very bad one an I’m sure Ledford and company look back on it with a lot of regret.
However, it seems from those mistakes that they’ve learned a lot. You can see it simply from how Sentai does business compared to ADV. They’re a lot wiser now and I doubt they will ever make this type of deal again or pay this much for licenses again. In fact, I know they’ve passed on some major properties in the past two years because they were just too expensive or the Japanese insisted on a singles release. There are also some newer people behind the scenes with some good management skills. Once this past them, I think they will just fine.
One more thing in closing. Did anyone else notice the part where Sojitz that ADVs $8 million dollar debt exceeded the value of its assets? If that’s really the case, it may make it hard for Funi to prove that anything was sold below market value.
[quote=TheCoffeeGod]
[quote=Prede]
[quote=Razmoudah]
I don’t recall the section of legal code I read specifying a statute of limitations, but it’s most likely rather close to up if it isn’t already. The thing is, even if the trial goes past the statute of limitations so long as the paperwork for it was filed before the deadline collection can still be enforced.[/quote]
What if they argue the clock doesn’t start until the Funimation deal was struck with ARMs? The debate over when the clock starts is the part of statute of limitations that matters. Sometimes it’s not clear cut.[/quote]
Even if that is the case, if the statute of limitations is only two years as Neo-ADV claims, it’s still past the 2 year mark, since the clock would start from July 2008 putting it at a July 2010 end point.
Now, if it’s 4 years, as some posts I’ve seen would suggest, they’re still within the time frame…[/quote]
And to put it in a nutshell, that is the crux of the issue. Since none of us here seems to know what the statute of limitations is for the case we can’t even guess as to when it ends/ended. The more important factor is how long the statute of limitations is, as even a 3 year statute of limitations would’ve expired around mid-2011 if you go by when the deal between Funimation and ARM was made. As a statute of limitations is always in whole years, and it was the tail end of December 2011 the lawsuit was filed (I think, I don’t think it was filed in January 2012) I’ve got a feeling that the statute of limitations is 4 years, as otherwise it would be thrown out of court before the judge has even given everything a complete initial look through.
As an important note about the Crunchyroll post: Since it was effectively a line of credit that was being used to acquire titles even if the titles acquired buy it were reclaimed by ARM ADV would still owe the portion of the balance that isn’t equivalent to the remaining value of the titles, and as such a value of $8 million would be approximately correct based on the figures posted.
EXTRA: I would’ve had my post in here faster, but my ISP’s daily server reset interrupted that, so I’m having to edit this onto the end of what would’ve been my post.
@dragonrider_cody: ADV didn’t have a choice about the JCI appointed CFO, because of the stock that had been purchased by JCI they were able to partially pull the strings. I agree that it overall sounded like a bad deal, but when the person/company you’re dealing with partially owns yours they suddenly get a lot of ability to force you into things that are good (or at least seem that way) for them and extremely bad for you. Of course, with that degree of conflict of interest I’m surprised that the courts took as harsh of a stance against ADV as they did, but then again JCI isn’t an American company, so our government can’t do much to them for something equivalent to ‘insider trading’.
This will most likely have an effect on Funimations ability to enforce collecting on the debts owed, especially if someone half ways intelligent comes along, compares the data, and is able to definitively prove that the ADV suddenly changed their business strategies obviously for the worse after the JCI appointed CFO and CSO (Chief Financial Officer and Chief Strategic Officer) started their duties. That would be clear and obvious evidence of intentionally destroying a business do to conflict of interest, and since the only way to have prevented or reversed it would’ve been to buy the stocks back, if JCI wasn’t willing to sell (and there weren’t enough other stocks available on the market to offset what JCI had) it can be concluded that JCI intentionally destroyed their business partner. Aside from the CFO and CSO they appointed having a conflict of interests from their positions it isn’t quite illegal, but mostly because such a situation has never been dragged into the courts for a judge or jury to make a decision over it.
Heck, if that portion is pointed out to a jury in a jury trial Funimation doesn’t stand a prayer of winning the trial, then again in a judge trial it could hurt them considerably. Wait, after just typing all that up I’ve just had a strange thought occur to me. What if Funimation isn’t actually after the money? There are so many shady business decisions with this whole mess that it seems impossible for Funimation to win, and equally impossible for them to not be aware of that fact. So, what if instead they are trying to bring the entire mess to light? The only way to do that is if they were directly a part of things somehow, and having the rights to collect on the unpayed portion of the line of credit that ARM extended to ADV does allow them to do so, by filing a lawsuit that seems doomed to failure because of too many shady business transactions being in the background. Actually, there isn’t much of any other way to force the situation into a place where a court decision about the legality of what JCI and ARM did, as ADV can’t do so since they did sign the contracts in the first place, it requires a third party, that is still somehow involved, to reveal the entire mess. Well, that’s just a very messed up hypothesis, but sadly it makes more sense than thinking that Funimation is trying to use this lawsuit to screw over their competition, as the more digging people do one the background of the situation the more sympathetic they’ll feel towards ADV and its successors, which would screw Funimation over in a jury trial very royally.
[quote=Razmoudah]
[quote=TheCoffeeGod]
[quote=Prede]
[quote=Razmoudah]
I don’t recall the section of legal code I read specifying a statute of limitations, but it’s most likely rather close to up if it isn’t already. The thing is, even if the trial goes past the statute of limitations so long as the paperwork for it was filed before the deadline collection can still be enforced.[/quote]
What if they argue the clock doesn’t start until the Funimation deal was struck with ARMs? The debate over when the clock starts is the part of statute of limitations that matters. Sometimes it’s not clear cut.[/quote]
Even if that is the case, if the statute of limitations is only two years as Neo-ADV claims, it’s still past the 2 year mark, since the clock would start from July 2008 putting it at a July 2010 end point.
Now, if it’s 4 years, as some posts I’ve seen would suggest, they’re still within the time frame…[/quote]
And to put it in a nutshell, that is the crux of the issue. Since none of us here seems to know what the statute of limitations is for the case we can’t even guess as to when it ends/ended. The more important factor is how long the statute of limitations is, as even a 3 year statute of limitations would’ve expired around mid-2011 if you go by when the deal between Funimation and ARM was made. As a statute of limitations is always in whole years, and it was the tail end of December 2011 the lawsuit was filed (I think, I don’t think it was filed in January 2012) I’ve got a feeling that the statute of limitations is 4 years, as otherwise it would be thrown out of court before the judge has even given everything a complete initial look through.[/quote]
A case doesn’t automatically get thrown out of court just because it may be past the statute of limitations. Both sides will meet before the judge and make their arguments as to why or why not they believe the statute of limitations is still in effect. There is not one blanket statute and it depends on what Funimation is attempting to argue. They appear to be arguing “unjust enrichment” which has a two year limit.
However, even if it is thrown out at the pretrial hearing in October, Funimation could potentially refile and claim another argument that would have a limitation of four years.
[quote=Razmoudah]
[quote=TheCoffeeGod]
[quote=Prede]
[quote=Razmoudah]
I don’t recall the section of legal code I read specifying a statute of limitations, but it’s most likely rather close to up if it isn’t already. The thing is, even if the trial goes past the statute of limitations so long as the paperwork for it was filed before the deadline collection can still be enforced.[/quote]
What if they argue the clock doesn’t start until the Funimation deal was struck with ARMs? The debate over when the clock starts is the part of statute of limitations that matters. Sometimes it’s not clear cut.[/quote]
Even if that is the case, if the statute of limitations is only two years as Neo-ADV claims, it’s still past the 2 year mark, since the clock would start from July 2008 putting it at a July 2010 end point.
Now, if it’s 4 years, as some posts I’ve seen would suggest, they’re still within the time frame…[/quote]
And to put it in a nutshell, that is the crux of the issue. Since none of us here seems to know what the statute of limitations is for the case we can’t even guess as to when it ends/ended. The more important factor is how long the statute of limitations is, as even a 3 year statute of limitations would’ve expired around mid-2011 if you go by when the deal between Funimation and ARM was made. As a statute of limitations is always in whole years, and it was the tail end of December 2011 the lawsuit was filed (I think, I don’t think it was filed in January 2012) I’ve got a feeling that the statute of limitations is 4 years, as otherwise it would be thrown out of court before the judge has even given everything a complete initial look through.[/quote]
Statue of limitations is a defense you make. So unless it’s crystal clear the judge may not throw it out immediately. It would be up to ADV and the others to prove that the statue of limitations is truly up, which shouldn’t be too hard to do. if that is proven, they cannot be found guilty for the crime.
[quote]I was reading some of the ADV v Sojitz documents. As others have said, ADV had at least 3 Sojitz employees working in their office. One was appointed to Chief Strategic Officer of ADV ( Mizushima), Hada assumed the role of CFO, and Ueda assumed the role of business analyst for ADV. ADV claimed “By virtue of the actions of these Defendants, as employees of Sojitz, Sojitz effectively assumed control of ADV, including its day to day operations…Sojitz/JCI/ARM employees analyzed, solicited and substantially directed acquisition of ARM Titles from within ADV while at the same time, under the guise of ARM. Sojitz/JCI/ARM employees approved those acquisitions and the purchase prices of each. Higher purchase prices and a higher ARM balance necessarily increased facility servicing fees ARM charged to ADV and, by extension, the potential profit of ARM under the Agreement and leverage of Sojitz/JCI/ARM over ADV. Despite Sojitz/JCI/ARM 's declaration of ADV’s default of the Agreement, Sojitz/JCI/ARM has failed to pay millions of dollars of outstanding balance they agreed to pay to content owners under many of the license agreements as inducement for those content owners entering into agreements with ARM and ADV.”
It also says
*Sojitz tried to make a deal with another company when they didn’t get paid, they took the lead, and would not let ADV have any say.
*Sojitz made ADV sign off of term-sheets, while stating Sojitz had control over any of these deals being made
*Sojitz made threats saying it would withdraw it’s support for ADV if ADV did not agree to the deals Sojitz wanted.
*At the same time ADV was negotiating loan payments with a bank
*The deals “went away and were not consummated”
*ADV could not make the payments to the bank, notified Sojitz of this
So yes, actually. ADV is claiming Sojitz got into this all just to make a quick profit. They did everything they could, including overpaying for titles in order to squeeze every penny they could out of ADV. By overpaying and licensing a lot they were able to charge ADV fees, in addition to geting a large library of shows to then sell.[/quote]
That’s my post on fandom post. I didn’t feel like re-typing it here…
Prede wrote:
[quote]Razmoudah wrote:
What if they argue the clock doesn’t start until the Funimation deal was struck with ARMs? The debate over when the clock starts is the part of statute of limitations that matters. Sometimes it’s not clear cut.
Even if that is the case, if the statute of limitations is only two years as Neo-ADV claims, it’s still past the 2 year mark, since the clock would start from July 2008 putting it at a July 2010 end point.
Now, if it’s 4 years, as some posts I’ve seen would suggest, they’re still within the time frame.
And to put it in a nutshell, that is the crux of the issue. Since none of us here seems to know what the statute of limitations is for the case we can’t even guess as to when it ends/ended. The more important factor is how long the statute of limitations is, as even a 3 year statute of limitations would’ve expired around mid-2011 if you go by when the deal between Funimation and ARM was made. As a statute of limitations is always in whole years, and it was the tail end of December 2011 the lawsuit was filed (I think, I don’t think it was filed in January 2012) I’ve got a feeling that the statute of limitations is 4 years, as otherwise it would be thrown out of court before the judge has even given everything a complete initial look through.
Statue of limitations is a defense you make. So unless it’s crystal clear the judge may not throw it out immediately. It would be up to ADV and the others to prove that the statue of limitations is truly up, which shouldn’t be too hard to do. if that is proven, they cannot be found guilty for the crime.[/quote]
Although the statutue of limitations is used as a defense in a trial it initially comes up at the pretrial, and the prosecutor has to prove why it either wasn’t in effect at the time of the initial filing or why it shouldn’t be applied. That argument has to be resolved before the rest of the case even matters, even for just the pretrial.
And thank you Prede for the extra info. That was what I was getting at when I typed it sounded like there was a lot of shady business practices going on, and if it can be proven that something illegal, or at least should be illegal, went on with that it’s entirely possible that the entire debt will be declared null and void.
Rereading through this thread and the various post that are around I can not for the life of me figure out why Funi would want a jury trial, they are trying to win on technicalities and juries would favor ADV one would think because of all the information.
All I can figure is Funi is maybe trying to merge with Sentai… but that can’t be it.
I had a thought.
Now this is a most speculative, out in the far left field sort of thing, so feel free to ignore it.
What if this is a pre-emptive act on Funimation’s part?
Suppose they had reason to believe that the shell of ADV was going to sue to have the original incredibly-bad + mucked-up deal voided?
Suppose that since Sojitz, and it’s allied businesses, no longer exist that Funimation thought they might end up holding the bag if a trial court found the original contracts void and ruled that the licenses and all subsequent earnings belong to the shell of ADV?
The oddly late seeming filing by Funimation might make sense with that assumption.
Anyway, end of speculation for now.
Mark Gosdin
I really doubt that’s the case. The guys behind the scenes have moved on since then and want to make a clean break from the past. The deal with Sojitz is not something they really want to revisit. Not to mention that many of those licenses will be expiring in the next year or two and the super cheap SAVE releases that Funi has put out has pretty much robbed them of any value. In fact, Nerima Daikon Brothers is going out of print and I’m sure others will be following shortly.
Plus, if Sentai would attempt to revisit the original contract in court, they would be fighting with Sojitz and they would likely be found liable for any loss of income or property, regardless of who has them now.
[quote=mitamaking]
All I can figure is Funi is maybe trying to merge with Sentai… but that can’t be it.[/quote]
no.
Also they want a jury trial because they aim to win on theatrics, not letter of the law. The jury will get bored, fall asleep, nod off, when they go over all the boring business legal mumbo jumbo. Even if they don’t, will they really have a good understanding of it? Funimation’s lawyers will just try to play everything up, and attempt to win on portraying Sentai/Section 23 as a rebrand of ADV. They’ll say ADV rebranded its self to screw off it’s creditors and “that’s not right…we’re owed money!”. The law be damned, that’s what it looks like, and that’s what their lawyer will say over and over. If the jury buys it, they may say “yeh…Sentai should pay ADV’s debts” .
First the case has to make it past the pretrial, and from a lot of what I’ve been seeing in others posts it’s starting to sound questionable if Funimations lawyers can pull that off or not.
Just remembered that.
[quote=“psychopuppet”]Just remembered that.
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13545.html[/quote]
I forgot about that article. Remember reading it when it came out. I was so pissed when ADV split up.