Originally Posted by
Zoomer2398
Childs' camp started to make the case public in June 2013 on a 2+2 podcast. Until the case was resolved two weeks ago, I never made a public comment, including to media that contacted me as a result of the Childs camp going public ... As the backer, I can assure you that Childs was far deeper into makeup on numerous occasions before the lawsuit was instituted. This case has nothing to do with trying to recover makeup; obviously, any backer knows that staking is high-risk and, in my testimony, I likened it to a venture capital investment where there is a high risk of loss. The lawsuit hinged on a clause in our contract that states Childs is responsible for outstanding makeup if the contract is terminated due to him violating it. Although not called "liquidated damages" in the contract, that is essentially the intent of the clause. I tried for several years to get him to comply (except for the provision of schedules six months in advance, which Childs and I agreed was unrealistic and thus revised to three months early on). Ultimately, his violations made it too uncomfortable for me to continue backing him, and so IMO liquidated damages applied ... Without reading actual transcripts from depositions and the trial, it is impossible for anyone to really understand the case. And the jury did rule that Childs violated the contract in six different ways. The jury also offered their opinion that Childs owes me $5000 for a personal loan, but they did not have the authority to award it to me (which is true because it was not a separate issue in the lawsuit). Zeitlin's write-up has some key points in it but, as he himself states, much of it is just his opinion. The links he provides are not to a comprehensive set of documents. IMO, if the goal were to provide a complete picture of the case, then links would have been provided to sworn depositions and trial testimony. And there are some incorrect statements in Zeitlin's write-up, such as (to pick an innocuous one) that I was not present on the last day of court. And other statements are clearly open to interpretation. For instance, and again selecting an innocuous one, the observation that a juror rolled his eyes and another had an expression of contempt while I was testifying may have been directed toward me, or it may have been directed toward the senior Zeitlin who kept asking me the same questions over and over. I believe the jury to have been attentive and have tried to do a good job ... I was (and still am) far from a heavy-handed backer. We even had a joint bank account that required only one of our signatures to withdraw money! Nor has there ever been even a minor issue between myself and anyone else I have backed ... Nothing in this case was sealed, and I welcome anyone who wants to take the time to read transcripts and then be able to come to a well-informed opinion ... From my perspective, this is simply a business deal gone bad. My hope is that the outcome of this case does not discourage backers who rely on contracts from backing in the future.
Reply With Quote
