CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[jespah]

so then can this happen? Ax Prod sells sound stage to consortium for half a million, consortium declares bankruptcy before paying off, AP has first dibs on liquidation of consortium, sound stage is valued 100k in bankruptcy, AP gets sound stage back and gets 400k writeoff?

Well, AP doesn't own the real property; it's leased. What the consortium is trying to do (and the landlord can say no, because s/he owns the land and the building and can decide on who to lease to, provided it's not for a discriminatory reason. Hence the landlord can refuse to lease/sublease to someone without a verifiable credit rating, or who is outside of the country unless some wicked bond is put up, etc.) is pay cash to take over the leasehold. AP gets liquidity. But does he get anything else?

1. If the leasehold is shorter or the monthly payments are higher, then AP loses out. I think he's too shrewd to agree to either, even though it's nice (and valuable) to have liquidity.
2. If the leasehold is longer or monthly payments are decreased, then AP gets a win and the consortium loses out. Don't forget, AP needs space for all his Propworx stuff. This is beyond filming or the semantic shenanigans of soundstage versus studio versus warehouse. No matter what, the props need a home and I believe there are more than someone could store in a standard one or two bedroom or some townhouse in Florida.
3. If the leasehold is for the same amount of time or payments don't change or both, then AP still gets a benefit in that his cash is no longer tied up in a long-term leasehold. He is free to either stay (a good idea if the leasehold is cheaper, of course).
4. Or the consortium kicks Axa or they leave anyway. Because they need a place, it may be positive (cheaper rate) or negative (uncertainty) for them to do this. For the consortium, either it's a bad deal (they have to find a new sublessee) or it's a great one (they have a new sublessee lined up; presumably, this would be someone making a film). If the latter happens, then the Valencia property does the thing AP and RMB had been trying to do all along - it becomes a place to lease out to small indie filmmakers and make a buck.

Question, of course, is whether AP retains any interests or is a part of the consortium or is related to someone who is. And if they are teetering on bankruptcy and/or can barely afford the leasehold, the landlord should get on the stick with due diligence and refuse the arrangement.

 

[Firebird]

Make no mistake, after listening to that podcast it's clear AP & RMB are setting up a rival business corporation based on stealing I.P. financed with donor money.

They're the Kevin McClory to Para/CBS's EON Productions - except without the ability to actually produce a finished product.

 

[urbandefault]

Well, AP doesn't own the real property; it's leased. What the consortium is trying to do (and the landlord can say no, because s/he owns the land and the building and can decide on who to lease to, provided it's not for a discriminatory reason. Hence the landlord can refuse to lease/sublease to someone without a verifiable credit rating, or who is outside of the country unless some wicked bond is put up, etc.) is pay cash to take over the leasehold. AP gets liquidity. But does he get anything else?

1. If the leasehold is shorter or the monthly payments are higher, then AP loses out. I think he's too shrewd to agree to either, even though it's nice (and valuable) to have liquidity.
2. If the leasehold is longer or monthly payments are decreased, then AP gets a win and the consortium loses out. Don't forget, AP needs space for all his Propworx stuff. This is beyond filming or the semantic shenanigans of soundstage versus studio versus warehouse. No matter what, the props need a home and I believe there are more than someone could store in a standard one or two bedroom or some townhouse in Florida.
3. If the leasehold is for the same amount of time or payments don't change or both, then AP still gets a benefit in that his cash is no longer tied up in a long-term leasehold. He is free to either stay (a good idea if the leasehold is cheaper, of course).
4. Or the consortium kicks Axa or they leave anyway. Because they need a place, it may be positive (cheaper rate) or negative (uncertainty) for them to do this. For the consortium, either it's a bad deal (they have to find a new sublessee) or it's a great one (they have a new sublessee lined up; presumably, this would be someone making a film). If the latter happens, then the Valencia property does the thing AP and RMB had been trying to do all along - it becomes a place to lease out to small indie filmmakers and make a buck.

Question, of course, is whether AP retains any interests or is a part of the consortium or is related to someone who is. And if they are teetering on bankruptcy and/or can barely afford the leasehold, the landlord should get on the stick with due diligence and refuse the arrangement.

I believe AP will set himself up as the President/CEO/Chairman of whatever the consortium will be, with no personal financial risk. He's going to try to guarantee that he has majority interest and control of whatever it is. There is no evidence of this, but it seems to me that everything he does is to benefit himself.

I think he will do whatever is necessary to make sure that he is in charge of Ares Not a Studio, and that it's financed with other people's money.

 

[Red Shirt]

Well, AP doesn't own the real property; it's leased. What the consortium is trying to do (and the landlord can say no, because s/he owns the land and the building and can decide on who to lease to, provided it's not for a discriminatory reason. Hence the landlord can refuse to lease/sublease to someone without a verifiable credit rating, or who is outside of the country unless some wicked bond is put up, etc.) is pay cash to take over the leasehold. AP gets liquidity. But does he get anything else?

1. If the leasehold is shorter or the monthly payments are higher, then AP loses out. I think he's too shrewd to agree to either, even though it's nice (and valuable) to have liquidity.
2. If the leasehold is longer or monthly payments are decreased, then AP gets a win and the consortium loses out. Don't forget, AP needs space for all his Propworx stuff. This is beyond filming or the semantic shenanigans of soundstage versus studio versus warehouse. No matter what, the props need a home and I believe there are more than someone could store in a standard one or two bedroom or some townhouse in Florida.
3. If the leasehold is for the same amount of time or payments don't change or both, then AP still gets a benefit in that his cash is no longer tied up in a long-term leasehold. He is free to either stay (a good idea if the leasehold is cheaper, of course).
4. Or the consortium kicks Axa or they leave anyway. Because they need a place, it may be positive (cheaper rate) or negative (uncertainty) for them to do this. For the consortium, either it's a bad deal (they have to find a new sublessee) or it's a great one (they have a new sublessee lined up; presumably, this would be someone making a film). If the latter happens, then the Valencia property does the thing AP and RMB had been trying to do all along - it becomes a place to lease out to small indie filmmakers and make a buck.

Question, of course, is whether AP retains any interests or is a part of the consortium or is related to someone who is. And if they are teetering on bankruptcy and/or can barely afford the leasehold, the landlord should get on the stick with due diligence and refuse the arrangement.

I have a question, Jespah. Does the owner of the studio/property have to pay taxes on improvements done by Alec & Co.?

 

[Jam3s1701]

SOOOO a person on Twitter called @Axaninja is playing Vulcan or ??? on twitter lol

This may be fun

Vulcan V Vampire
Vulcan V Lycan
Vulcan V Pixie
Vulcan V Elf
Vulcan V Random point ears lol

its rather funny he used Soval a lot

 

[jespah]

I have a question, Jespah. Does the owner of the studio/property have to pay taxes on improvements done by Alec & Co.?

Depends who owns the improvements.

Fixtures (stuff bolted down, like your electrical system, paint, that sort of thing) generally belong to landlords. Movable stuff like furniture can belong to either (it depends). Appliances kind of get into a gray area. But leases can say nearly anything, so long as it's nondiscriminatory (no one's getting a leasehold because they're Caucasian or het or the like) and the parties agree. If AP and Axa had permission to make the capital improvements and the lease allowed them to own them, then yeah, they are going to have the burdens along with the benefits, so far as I can tell. Paging @Squiggy as I think he will know better. I don't want to tell you the wrong thing.

 

[drt]

I believe AP will set himself up as the President/CEO/Chairman of whatever the consortium will be, with no personal financial risk. He's going to try to guarantee that he has majority interest and control of whatever it is. There is no evidence of this, but it seems to me that everything he does is to benefit himself.

I think he will do whatever is necessary to make sure that he is in charge of Ares Not a Studio, and that it's financed with other people's money.

I'm pretty sure the "consortium" is another scam, its money likely coming from the KS/IG, but shell-gamed around to keep it away from CBS.

 

[muCephi]

Well, AP doesn't own the real property; it's leased. What the consortium is trying to do (and the landlord can say no, because s/he owns the land and the building and can decide on who to lease to, provided it's not for a discriminatory reason. Hence the landlord can refuse to lease/sublease to someone without a verifiable credit rating, or who is outside of the country unless some wicked bond is put up, etc.) is pay cash to take over the leasehold. AP gets liquidity. But does he get anything else?

1. If the leasehold is shorter or the monthly payments are higher, then AP loses out. I think he's too shrewd to agree to either, even though it's nice (and valuable) to have liquidity.
2. If the leasehold is longer or monthly payments are decreased, then AP gets a win and the consortium loses out. Don't forget, AP needs space for all his Propworx stuff. This is beyond filming or the semantic shenanigans of soundstage versus studio versus warehouse. No matter what, the props need a home and I believe there are more than someone could store in a standard one or two bedroom or some townhouse in Florida.
3. If the leasehold is for the same amount of time or payments don't change or both, then AP still gets a benefit in that his cash is no longer tied up in a long-term leasehold. He is free to either stay (a good idea if the leasehold is cheaper, of course).
4. Or the consortium kicks Axa or they leave anyway. Because they need a place, it may be positive (cheaper rate) or negative (uncertainty) for them to do this. For the consortium, either it's a bad deal (they have to find a new sublessee) or it's a great one (they have a new sublessee lined up; presumably, this would be someone making a film). If the latter happens, then the Valencia property does the thing AP and RMB had been trying to do all along - it becomes a place to lease out to small indie filmmakers and make a buck.

Question, of course, is whether AP retains any interests or is a part of the consortium or is related to someone who is. And if they are teetering on bankruptcy and/or can barely afford the leasehold, the landlord should get on the stick with due diligence and refuse the arrangement.

thanks for all this! my question revolved around the specifics of bankruptcy being a step during the transfer of any material or leasehold assets to the consortium. could they play it so that the assets end up back with Axanar Productions in the scenario I outlined? are there perhaps other scenarios that also end up in unexpected places?

 

[Lynsioux]

Thanks for all the news/analysis posts. Mine is strictly opinion.

As long as the sun sets in the West, as long as Cubs fans still hope for next year, as long as tornadoes strike Oklahoma, Alec Peters will find a complicated way to pull off some kind of skulduggery with the participation of innocent Trekkies, whereby the cashflow is entirely into his pocket, in whatever continent that pocket happens to be.

 

[Jay]

By the by - let's lay off the fat jokes. It's tiresome and childish.

Hope you don't mean me. I didn't make a fat joke about RMB, I just asked if he'd put on weight. Noticing something without making fun of it isn't a joke. ("Wow, I never noticed he was tall" isn't saying, "Man, RMB is a bean pole.")

 

[Squiggy]

Depends who owns the improvements.

Fixtures (stuff bolted down, like your electrical system, paint, that sort of thing) generally belong to landlords. Movable stuff like furniture can belong to either (it depends). Appliances kind of get into a gray area. But leases can say nearly anything, so long as it's nondiscriminatory (no one's getting a leasehold because they're Caucasian or het or the like) and the parties agree. If AP and Axa had permission to make the capital improvements and the lease allowed them to own them, then yeah, they are going to have the burdens along with the benefits, so far as I can tell. Paging @Squiggy as I think he will know better. I don't want to tell you the wrong thing.

As long as it's not blatantly discriminatory against a protected class, a commercial lease can pretty much say anything as long as it's not against some other law.

Not being privy to the nuances of California landlord-tenant law (or specifically how movie-studio-but-not-really-because-warehouse leases are normally written, I can't really say what specifics would be included.

In "real America", in a triple net lease, which is what AP signed, the tenant (AP) is responsible for pretty much everything - maintenance, taxes, insurance, utilities. That includes the capital improvements they might do to the "studio". Most landlords aren't going to complain too much if a tenant improves a building at no cost to the landlord and then leave it behind when they vacate. That includes upfitting office space and adding carpet tiles since you either can't take office walls and probably won't run off with the carpet in the middle of the night.

Now, they might have a clause in their lease to return the building to it's original state. Otherwise the landlord will own the largest green-screen in the western hemisphere or whatever RMB was crowing about (which is another thing, you don't really need a giant green-screen - just enough to surround the talent.)

 

[Jay]

Am I to believe that when Marvel does the Avengers or something, they have a smaller green screen?

 

[Jedi_Master]

The giant green screen is a joke. Alec and Co. actually were able to effectively shoot a (rather boring and bland) scene in a fricking parking lot with a mobile green screen carried by sweaty production staff.
There is no reason that a creative individual would not be able to overcome limitations imposed by a smaller green screen. The green screen installation is another example of how Alec plans on building an entertainment company on the backs of CBS IP.

 

[Earthrise]

The giant green screen is a joke. Alec and Co. actually were able to effectively shoot a (rather boring and bland) scene in a fricking parking lot with a mobile green screen carried by sweaty production staff.
There is no reason that a creative individual would not be able to overcome limitations imposed by a smaller green screen. The green screen installation is another example of how Alec plans on building an entertainment company on the backs of CBS IP.

Exactly. Every creative individual is going to have limitations, often in resources. It's how you handle those limitations that demonstrates your level of talent and skill.

 

[steam235]

Am I to believe that when Marvel does the Avengers or something, they have a smaller green screen?

The key to that claim is the largest "Standing" green screen.
I'm sure they've used larger ones, but large studios have the resources to convert an entire studio wall to a green screen for a production and then take it down. And they just have football fields worth of green curtains and scaffolding to hang them on.

 

[Jay]

So, basically it's a waste of space to have a standing one, right?

 

[Jedi_Master]

So, basically it's a waste of space to have a standing one, right?

From what I can tell - yes. However, as AP's goal was to have a studio that could be rented out to other fan productions or "independent" productions perhaps he felt that a giant green screen would impress other simple minded rubes that were basking in the glory of a successful Kickstarter campaign.
Or it was just torpedo envy.

 

[steam235]

Well Alex doesn't find it to be a waste...

That's from the Dec 21st captains log

Which also has this picture...

That level of construction is not needed for a fan film. a sharp corner at the floor/wall would work just as well even if it limited a few shots. That level of construction is in my opinion overkill, it's an example of scope creep where even though it may have started with good intentions hampered the production.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Well Alex doesn't find it to be a waste...

That's from the Dec 21st captains log

Which also has this picture...

That level of construction is not needed for a fan film. a sharp corner at the floor/wall would work just as well even if it limited a few shots. That level of construction is in my opinion overkill, it's an example of scope creep where even though it may have started with good intentions hampered the production.

When you are building to satiate an ego rather than to meet a need, that ^ is the result.

 

[muCephi]

Well Alex doesn't find it to be a waste...

That's from the Dec 21st captains log

Which also has this picture...

That level of construction is not needed for a fan film. a sharp corner at the floor/wall would work just as well even if it limited a few shots. That level of construction is in my opinion overkill, it's an example of scope creep where even though it may have started with good intentions hampered the production.

That sure looks like a permanent improvement to the building, not something that can be 'sold' to investors or moved.

If the donor money sunk into the 'studio' asset (above, wiring, offices etc) actually for all practical purposes would accrue to the landlord in a couple years (or sooner, if Axanar Productions failed) by simply refusing to renew the lease, then why didn't Axanar list the potential loss of the donor's money sunk into this as one of the risks? Perhaps they had a guaranteed lease renewal clause, that's the only way I could imagine the asset could be respresented as being "for" "a studio" as a long term operation.