Extortion and the UGO Network? 239
An Anonymous Webmaster asks: "I'm the webmaster of one of the largest websites on the UGO Network. This past month UGO gave notice to all affiliates that they say all guarantees are gone and will only make payments up to February's ad traffic at half rate. Yes they are currently 2 months behind on payments. (This includes HardOCP, ShackNews, BluesNews,
VoodoExtreme, Telefragged,
OldManMurray, my website and many others. UGO handed out contracts last week saying we must forfeit all our rights to previously owed money and rights to sue them to get those last 2 checks. Yes that's right, if we don't
sign a paper saying we wont sue them they will withhold 2 months of payments they already owe and have available to them. Does anyone have any realistic advice for all these webmasters? A lawsuit just doesnt seem like it would really net any cash." Now this just doesn't sound fair at all. It's a shame that these big site networks aren't able to pay their sites what's owed, but is such extortion really the answer? I'm sure many webmasters may have found themselves in this position before. What did you do to resolve this kind of problem?
UGO? IGO. (Score:1)
UGO lies! (Score:1)
McDonald's sues London Greenpeace for presenting the public with the facts
Disney expands its international market with help from the CIA
Coors uses consumer support to help finance the KKK
Ending oil protests with executions Nigeria belongs to Shell
Pepsi dealt with the oppressive regimes in the Phillipines to build another Taco Bell
General Motos creates competition with their "whipsawing" tactics role
Dupont alone is responsible for four percent of the ozone layer hole
Don't sign, file in small claims court. (Score:1)
Call their bluff (Score:1)
This happened to me! (Score:1)
UGO's ad-based revenue stream got shafted like everyone else's. I can sympathize with this. I don't sympathize with their treatment of affiliates. I've read the types of things they try to force affiliates into signing and, truly, I think selling your soul to Satan leaves you with more freedom and legal recourse. And hey, it's Satan, you expect twisted evil plots to cheat you.
I advise any UGO affiliates who think they are being screwed now to re-read their contracts a few times, and carefully ponder each clause, specifically regarding termination and payment. Then go take a few advil and lie down.
Suing will probably cost you more than you stand to gain. Just remember, YAHOO (You Always Have Other Options). They are trying not to pay because they claim to have no money. However, things like this seem to suggest otherwise:
http://news.excite.ca/news/bw/001218/n y-ugo-networ ks
Perhaps the affected parties could get together to file suit against UGO. IANAL.
Amazing (Score:1)
Perhaps they should renegotiate their loans, their executive pay and their contracts. But merely screwing over their customers is not acceptable to me.
Illegal Contract (Score:2)
DEBT FOR EQUITY!!! (Score:5)
so whatever you do, DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING LIMITING YOUR RIGHTS! This contract is written by their lawyers to do one thing.. !@#%!@#$ you over!
GET ORGANIZED with the other large web sites, and put forward an organized front. UGO can bully you guys one at a time, but not if you all stand together.
You're already looking at lost money from UGO, more is obviously on the horizon, so whatever they're trying to withhold now may be just the trickle before the dam breaks. Forget about actually getting paid in dollars.. they dont have any.
If you go to trial, or seriously threaten such.. they will likey reconsider, and may try to work out a debt for equity swap were you get like 50 cents on the dollar. Remember, you are their customers.. since its through your web sites that they make money for ads. They can't alienate you to the extent that you pick up shop and leave.
good luck
Re:Well... (Score:2)
hawk
Re:Well... (Score:2)
I believe that all 50 states require you to maintain a safe following distance, which is enough to stop your car in time no matter what the car in front of you did. Barring a sudden shoot backwards, I have yet to see any explanation of how you can hit the car in front of you while keeping this distance--it's a matter of definition . . .
hawk, esq.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
> stopped in the road to turn without signaling
If he couldn't stop in time when the car in front of him decellerated, he was following too close. Driving the same speed as the car in front of you while following too close is driving too fast.
hawk
Re:Well... (Score:2)
hawk, esq.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
>you on the right, and slams their vehicle into the space in front of
>you when all of the traffic ahead is slowing down, forcing you to stab
>your brakes hard.
But that's not "the car in front of you." that you're hitting--it's a car from another lane, and the collision would be his fault.
hawk
Re:Well... (Score:5)
If you want a lawyer fool enough to take a contingency fee on a small amount against a dotcom . . .
I once had someone come in expecting me to *defend* a wrongful death case on a contingency (How would that work? I pay a third of the judgment if he loses?
And the one hurt on a motorcycle, expecting me to arrange for "my compensation."--the fool had run into the car in front of him (Unless the vehicle in front of you disabled its backup lights and suddenly went into reverse, the fact that you collided with it is conclusive evidence that you were following too close . .
hawk, esq
Third option. (Score:2)
Small claims is easy to do yourself, if the amounts involved are not above the limit ($5000 most places, I think). Unfortunately, you may have trouble with jurisdiction if your agreement with UGO specified one that is not close to you.
Once you get a judgement, you may have to go to the collections agents that others recommended.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Can't Get Blood From A Stone (Score:5)
If they are forced to go out of business, no amount of complaining, emailing or suing will get you cash.
I'd chalk it up to experience and move on. You may use this as an opportunity to exit the web, as you may find (as your network did) that it's much harder to run at a profit than it was a year or two ago. Tough conclusion to reach, but it's better to reach it with a few bucks left in your pocket.
co-op sites (Score:2)
More likely to suceed would be a gaming site like this:
- A co-op based on membership fees, where visitors to the site would pay like $5 a year
- The co-op as a whole sells merchandise --
computer parts and stuff of interest to gamers at good prices
- Individual sites within the co-op provide real content and little duplication (i.e. don't need 5 cut-and-paste news sites). No vanity sites either (you know what I mean).
- The sites within the coop are run by paid staff at a fixed (and reasonable, i.e. not enough to buy porsches and stuff).
- a small amount may be made by the co-op by selling advertising.
- excess revenue from hardware sales etc. is either distributed back to the membership (i.e. the people who visit the co-op sites) yearly or used to build the site.
It'd be really, really hard to run such a thing without some big time corruption or someone getting in there to skim funds off. But it could work.
Collection agencies are REALLY good at this (Score:4)
I don't know about any particullar ones, but you may even be able to find one that will pay you 2/3 or so the amount owed themselves, in exchange for selling the debt to them.
That is, they will take on all of the risk that the debt won't be settled, and just pay you some fixed portion of it. Collection agencies have a huge absolute advantage on collecting on bad debt. A lot of times all it takes is a letter from the collection agency to convince somebody to pay up. They know about all of the legal options there are to getting your money (liens on property/future income, small claims, whatever), and can do it quickly and cheaply.
If you don't think it's worth a lawyer, contact a collection agency. If nothing else, they should be able to tell you the likelyhood of collecting.
Step 1: Talk to a lawyer (Score:2)
By the way, I'm a partner in a large website and we make a little bit of money from banner ads. But we recognized pretty early on that the whole banner ad business was smoke and mirrors and my partner and I decided that if we were going to have any revenues that we would depend on that they would have to come from somewhere else. Also, we've searched out the best deals on web hosting, even to the point of putting some of our repetitively viewed files on a non-bandwidth limited DSL connection. It works...we have no out of pocket expenses and when all is said and done, we even clear a few bucks at the end of the month.
I think that if you look at the kinds of web sites that are flailing around in the banner ad crash, you'll see that they're often birds of a feather with little to differentiate themselves. And since their operators have hitched themselves to a (rapidly) falling star, they are faced with the fact that they are either going to go out of business, find a business model that works, or cease to be a "business" and turn back into what many of them used to be: a hobby.
There's not a lot of difference between the tightening of the high-tech industry and the demise of web site after web site. Those that are unsteady to begin with are going to go away and the industry is going to consolidate into a few successful businesses and many "successful" hobbies. And guess what? There's nothing wrong with that! It's the way that capitalism works.
-h-
From an Ex-Employee of UGO... (Score:5)
All I can say is that the "NY suits," - as we called them back then - were as ruthless and morally depraved back then as they seem to be now. They had a history of having the "Inverse Midas-Touch" curse: everything (and everyONE) they've touched, before and after the aquisition, has turned to crap. Their business plans for the future of UGO (which *used* to stand for "Unified Gamers Online", BTW) could easily be summarized as "throw money at it until it becomes profitable, and milk the affiliates for all they are worth before giving them the finger." Once UGO was purchased (at an unbelievable profit to the original owner), the people on Park Ave. managed to run what was once a dedicated online gaming resource for the People(TM) into the ground by A) Firing any and all people who were associated with the "Old Regime," B) spreading out to other, unrelated forms of entertainment, and C) hiring third-rate porn writers to be primary writers and editors.
They have a legal team seemingly funded from on high by the Prince of Darkness Himself, as is evidenced by exactly how badly and often they've screwed over employees, affiliates, and anyone else who's had the unfortunate foresight to get involved with them on any level. In fact, I've seen roughly 30 people that I personally know (or knew) get trampled by them monetarily speaking, and nothing has ever happened to them to balance the scales. Any ex-affiliate or ex-employee of UGO that doesn't speak badly about them was probably paid an unusually high bonus for their silence (and I speak from personal experience on that, but screw 'em: if they wanted my _continued_ silence, I'd still be getting checks.)
If I were you, I would take the last two months pay and jet. My experience with the (many) other situations of this kind dealing with UGO would strongly suggest that a legal battle with them will be nothing short of a waste of your time and a massive drain on your resources. The only way you'll actually get something out of it is to take whatever money they're offering and wash your hands of it. It may not be the most honorable way of handling the situation, but in this case, I'd bet a week's pay that taking the honorable road will earn you starvation (if this web site is your only source of income).
--WorLord
Threaton to drop (Score:2)
The reasoning is three fold.
1. They are fearful you will sue. While it's not practical that has not entered the logic. So they'll be conserned that you will sue for moneys owed and they lose you.
2. Something stinks. A sign of bad things. Cut the loss now instead of later when it'll be worse.
3. If they think they need this then if you stick around you may find your survival depends on the rights they are now asking you to sign away.
It is unlikely you'll need those rights normally but when someone asks you to forfit them then chances are really good you'll need em really soon.
Lawsutes are impractical.
So drop them.. If they cave then stay if they don't sticking around is probably not a very healthy thing to do.
I'd like to add. In todays banner ad market I'm supprised more websites don't folow Slashdot's example and set up a banner ad server like AdFu..
Ad services were nice. Someone RELIABLE dose all the hard work and you generate the traffic. It WAS a good healthy relationship. But things went bad. Unreliable services came up and no-so-savy people would buy out successful services.
Eventually everyone would cave to pressuers and go the dishonnest route.
There are some honnest guys left. They'll die off or get take over. The ecconomy is bad. The middle men won't survive. Just cut them out and stay afloat.
MOD THIS UP!!! (Score:2)
This is not unreasonable. (Score:2)
You can't get blood from a stone.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Sounds to me like UGO wouldn't be able to pay you even if they wanted to fulfill their obligations, because of cash-flow problems. My advice is to talk to a lawyer to figure out what you can realistically get from them, then cut your losses and move your website somewhere else.
Re:Talk to a lawyer now! (Score:2)
I guess you might get some priority treatment when they go through bankruptcy, but its not like they are going to have any assets that are worth anything anyway.
Save your time and money and cosider it a (painfull) lesson learned.
free publicity (Score:3)
Oh, wait...
Gleaning the Pube. (Score:3)
God knows what someone like Blue is going to do. Of all the sites, his is the most useful gaming cut and paste site on the net.
The problem has been, and will continue to be, the cost of bandwidth. Serving out 100k hits a day or greater just costs way too much money for an independent person to deal with unless they are independently wealthy. One good
But networks can't exist on ad banner money alone, and users expect the web to either be free or, failing that, MASSIVE bang for the buck.
I still maintain that the furure of these networks is to offer massive content at a yearly subscription rate, paying affiliates by continuing to use ad banners. How would it work? Like this. Say an ad banner network, GAN, has 50 affiliates. They offer full access to all 50 affiliates for 9.95 a year. (here's the massive content/bang for the buck part) Now since the network cant survive on that alone and pay their affiliates, they also offer one single ad banner on their affiliate sites (at a rate much lower than has been done previously) and they pay their affiliates that way.
For those who say "no fucking way I'm paying a yearly subscription and still put up with ad banners", well that's how magazines work. You pay your 4.95 for newsweek or "out" magazine AND LO AND BEHOLD! The mag ALSO has advertisements. And newspapers work the same way. And fucking paying for cable TV doesnt stop the commercials. Jesus, they even play commercials in front of movies in the theater now. Buck up and get with the fucking program hippie. The web isnt any different.
Will Blue (or even the
To think that anyone could make a living, or even deserve to, simply posting links readers send in is a little ludicrous. And yeah I understand the irony that that is exactly how
S.
Protection from current issues or future ones? (Score:2)
If they do have the money it would be an interesting (don't know the legality) tactic to allow them to later change the rules of the service or what-not, and point to this contracts "no sue" clause as protection.
Yet one more reason a lawyer should be involved on your side. (and you should think of a different group to do buisness with).
What did you do to resolve this kind of problem? (Score:2)
Extortion?! Try bankruptcy court (Score:2)
No, you could always wait 'till they file bankruptcy, and then wait, as an UNSECURED CREDITOR, to see how much is left over to pay the debt to you. What, you've never had a customer file for bankruptcy before?! This is just the beginning!
Re:DEBT FOR EQUITY!!! (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with taking equity, but you are, in effect, doing what wall street is unwilling to do... give these people capital. I sure wouldn't bet a plug nickel on these folks. Don't like their business plan or the business acumen. So telling someone to take stock is a bad play.
Obviously, if this company will survive, that is a different story. If they will live to fight another round of investment, again, different story. However investment is hard to come by, and their business plan is easily bypassed.
Why should a valid creditor take less than he is owed? Because bankruptcy court could give him decidedly less, and then he pays a lawyer to boot. All a judgment on how likely it is this company survives. Don't know the company well myself. Seems like just another dot com with a spurious business plan.
Better question, why is anyone still doing business with them?! Why not shift the contracts off to other vendors? No one is paying these prices these days. Still, do business with someone else, even at the lower prices, as these people can't be trusted to live up to contracts. Oh, and the punch line. When a traded company starts cutting deals like this, you really need to start watching the exits!
BBB (Score:2)
--
what about the day after? (Score:2)
But as I read the question, this guy is being asked to accept a unilateral, retroactive change to an existing *and ongoing* contract. If his company agrees, what's next? They'll have no grounds to complain when the company retroactively cuts payments in half again in 6 months, then again, then yet again. Having gotten away with it once, why on earth wouldn't the company try the same trick again?
Worse, by accepting this it's possible that his company is setting itself up for a lawsuit for "breech of contract" once it decides that enough is enough and tries to yank the ads before the end of the contract. Right now, it's likely that the other company has breeched the contract and his employer can yank the ads without risk. (The details, as always, are in the contract.) Once they've demonstrated a willingness to honor the contract despite non-payment, they might lose the right to consider non-payment a material breech in the future.
IANAL, and I'll be the first to admit that this is one of those cases where you need to bring one in. Not to tell you what assholes the other guys are, but to tell you what you need to do to keep your options open in the future.
P.S., if we are talking about an ongoing contract, the money at question isn't just the late payments. It's also half of every payment through the end of the contract. A lawyer might be able to make a good case that *this* is amount of money in question in any suit, plus treble damages for breech of contract.
class action (Score:3)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
------
Replace their ads with "UGO Sucks" lemon ads (Score:2)
I say, abandon any hope of payment from UGO, and replace all the UGO ads in your ad rotation with lemon-ads, saying things like:
"I got screwed out of my ad contract with UGO"
or,
"UGO is doomed to go out of buisness in a few months, so don't even bother visiting their site"
or just
"UGO Sucks"
Remember, if you buy a car from a dealership, and it's a piece of crap, you have every right to park your car in front of the dealership with a big sign that says "I bought this car from xxx dealers, and IT SUCKS".
If I'm in a union, and my employeer violates my contract, the union has a right to strike and protest out front of the business with signs like "Marriot Hotel is Unfair and Violates the Contract".
Employees, affiliates, what's the diff (Score:3)
counting crows (Score:2)
So let me elaborate on number 3 since it may offend many people who do place ads. Trying to find a surefire method of advertising in these economic times are murder. With so many companies getting tossed, its only a matter of time before most of those "place a banner get paid companies" become completely extinct.
Their business models are often far fetched, marketed with obscurely written hidden agendas to those posting the ads, and there is really no legal measures you can take to defend yourself.
So lets see you place a banner from a company promising x amount of dollars per x amount of hits. Which means unless your pushing mega traffic its usually worthless to the average site. So you now believe you should take them to court, and now have to evaluate the math by doing that. Court costs for instances like this would be astronomical and often cost you more than you would get in return, not to mention drag on for years before you even get anything, PROVIDED, PROVIDED, that the company doesn't go under...
Wow thats a lot to expect to look forward to when dealing with these companies. Maybe some sites should promote advertising to companies on their own. Provide statistical information for their sites, via methods of logging, then promote the sites on their own. You cut out the middle man and the creating of your own banner generating script is not that hard.
Anyways I stay away from all that crap...
Re:So how... (Score:2)
Its one thing to create a site for your own purposes, then expect others to save your ass via way of advice on how to make money. As I stated if your content is that good, let the stats speak for themselves, post your stats, create your own terms for advertising for companies to look at, and I'm sure somewhere down the line you'll get play.
Listen, I get propositioned by companies involved in the security biz sometimes, and I decline most of their offers since they seem quirky. Show me the money, then we'll talk. If someone is dumb enough to fall for a takl for us, and we'll pay you later deal, then they deserve it. Rule number one in business there are no freebies, and no one is your friend. Once you learn to master that rule you'll be successful with all of the others.
diff strokes folks (Score:2)
My site doesn't charge anything since I don't expect anyone to "feed me." Good content for a site should be expected in order for a site to provide some banner ads to those who WANT to advertise on a site to make money. Some of these sites flat out suck (mines included) but that doesn't mean they can't make money on it. Provide strong content to keep stats up then provide advertising rates on your own, or as stated if you have good content your liable to get companies involved with the core of your content to want to pay you to advertise.
How many sites have you been to which target a specific kind of information, often have banner ads of odd companies (away from the sites core content) in rotation. By creating good enough content, keeping stats going a site would be able to determine how to get revenue whether its by banner advertising or product reviews, etc. Its really not that hard, most people are too fscking lazy and want everything handed to them on silver platters, and think by signing up with some "post a banner make some money" scheme is going to pay for the site which is ALWAYS and I repeat ALWAYS going to be a false assumption. The only person who'll win at that game is the company who suckered others into signing on with them, because they in turn, go back to possible clients with stats. Stats that I stated, if good enough should speak for themselves, and generate revenue for those who are smart enough to get their heads out of their asses and make their own rules for their own site.
As for me I don't need money to run my site. Its freely hosted by means only known to us involved with it, and what's the kicker about it, is we get a lot of attention for ourselves in our targeted market, so we get a lot of queries from companies questioning about services we may speak about, so we get to network with others for money, or we often get contract work via the site.
So as I said I'm fine running with my site the way it is, I think for the most part I provide semi good information, I keep people laughing while making them aware of certain situations, they would otherwise not hear of, and many people can take a quick look around and see we're not stupid when we're serious about something. We may act the stupid role, but most of us involved on my site have 7 years plus Unix administration, Network Engineering (CCNA), Security administration skills under our belts and make decent money, and can afford to keep it banner free.
Try "fraud", not "bankruptcy": the stone is bloody (Score:3)
If you are an affiliate and want your money (all of your money...), you may want to have a closer look at this comment [slashdot.org] and remind the officers of the company that their conduct may expose them to personal liability.
See lawyer - say "class action" (Score:2)
Most important, I would avoid taking any legal advice from here. Even if I was a lawyer (I am not), nothing says I am a good one or even know what I am talking about.
ComLawNet, "Collection agency on the Internet" (Score:2)
I got burned for a few weeks pay by a consulting client last year and they never answered my attorney's attempts to collect so I referred them to ComLawNet.
Try their handy online claim submission form [comlawnet.com]. You will need to agree to their agreement [comlawnet.com].
They seem to have a certain... familiarity... with dot-coms.
Read their FAQ [comlawnet.com]. Note that they emphasize your chances of collecting are much greater the earlier the debt is placed into collections.
I'm still waiting for my money but I only placed them into collections a couple weeks ago.
Mike [goingware.com]
A rock and a hard place.... (Score:3)
It's completely up to you. You'd have a good case, except you can't get money from someone who has none. Go talk to an attorney who can investigate this place and find out if a suit is worthwhile. I don't think any Slashdot readers can give you better information than that, unless maybe they work for the place themselves.
Re:Can't Get Blood From A Stone (Score:2)
IANAL, but I just took a short course on business finance - we were told that when companies go under, people with unsecured debts tend to get around a penny in the pound back.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Yes. Most of those people are thus following too closely.
I don't know how many times I've been driving at a 2 second distance and some idiot will cut in on me. Sometimes (like on city streets) that 2 seconds is barely enough room for his vehicle. And they'll cut in without signalling. Leaving both of us with less than 1 second of distance.
That's the cause of most of my road rage...idiocy on the part of other drivers. People like that shouldn't even be on the road. They're endangering everyone.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
It's a release... (Score:2)
To be a binding contract, however, something of value must be given in return for this release - in this case, it's the two months worth of payments that are already due to the website.
That doesn't sound like substantial value at all, so as a contract, this sounds fishy. It would certainly make sense to go court and try to get an injunction against UGO to stop this nonsense. Saying that you've got two months worth of dues that you haven't paid yet, then saying that you'll only pay them to those sites that waive their right to sue for what should rightfully be theirs anyway doesn't sound right.
Take the Money and Ditch UGO (Score:2)
If you are on some sort of exclusive deal, refuse the money and the contract and ditch UGO immediately for being in breach of contract.
Factor the debt (Score:3)
IANAL but IMHO the best way to handle this is reject the settlement, find a new sponsor/advertiser and factor the debt to an expert recovery company. These will Charge you about 12% off the top.
Trickle Down Economics (Score:2)
The larger issue at hand is the total collapse of Banner Marketing. Click Through is too low, too many Dot Coms are going under and not paying the ad companies. Good sites get screwed over. The use of banner ads were a neat way for a grass roots site to start and actually break ever (or make a profit.) Until that point you had to depend on a getting venture capital and a marketing department.
I feel bad for all parties concerned, but UGO is a dead end street. I doubt any lawyer would take it on contingency.
The best route to go is to replace the ad revenue and quick. In house, a different network, co-op deals with online retailers.
Re:They *HAVE* to do this to stay in business. (Score:2)
Bottom line is that the company signed into a binding contract and they SHOULD NOT be let out of that contract. If you can't do business the way you promised you shouldn't do business at all. Stealing services from someone else is wrong and should be procecuted.
The unfortunate bit in all of this is even if you win the lawsuit the chances of you getting any money are slim because it sounds like the company doesn't have any. I'd say sue them (nearly any lawyer should be able to win this case for you if the facts are as clear cut as you say though IANAL) and find a different means for revenue on your site.
Go to collection (Score:5)
Even if your creditor goes bankrupt, you'll probably collect something. And you may be able to force them into bankruptcy before they totally run out of cash, so it's better to start sooner rather than later.
As a rule of thumb, never let a commercial creditor get more than 60 days behind. The probability of payment declines rapidly after that point.
Re:Fan sites just don't have the clout. (Score:2)
If anything these these sites need to band together to put a stop to the abuse foisted upon them.
Or do what I've been suggesting for months now: band together and start their own ad network, under their own control.
Re:Simple answer really... (Score:2)
Re:Banner advert blindness (Score:2)
Banner advert blindness (Score:3)
That could be why an increasing (and increasingly desperate) number of sites have taken to displaying popup windows instead. Unluckily for them people will ignore these too and become alienated from the site in the process. I already unconciously close popups before they've even finished loading.
Bankruptcy Petitions (Score:2)
. .
I live in the UK.
Been there, done that.
Six months to a central London hearing during which time assets stripped.
Unless, that is you can file in the High Court, apply for an Interlocutory (preliminary) Injunction for freeze of assets bason on previous form.
Any amount >750 GBP does the job here, but you _have_ to avoid the small claims process.
Also, take note, if these guys are skulduggerous (man, I like that word and haven't used it much ;-) they'll find a counterclaim, apply to court to have the cases combined (which in one case I've worked with so confused the Plaintiff that she - and I say here I say this only after the fact - allowed a settlement to be made citing the *wrong* counterparty, making enforcement very difficult) and then, under Fast Track rules, you'll be forced to do twice the work to attack the core issues, as it complicates the issue before the Magistrates or Judges or whoever on account the opportunity offered under the counterclaim to besmirch you as well.
Also, there is the overriding concept in UK law of "Balance Convenience" whereunder you will have to prove that a bankruptcy order is *the only* way to recover your monies. Otherwise a simple order will be made for payment. Then you have to wait six months before you can get a Sherrifs Order to send out Bailiffs.
Believe you me, find other ways if you can to get your dues. See my other post. - John
One sided contract = adherence contract (Score:2)
You may then strike out under Statutory Provisions any clause which is "unfair" without varying any other right.
Allowed our company to tell any number of a%%hole cell / isp companies to go ram when they "fixed" the terms suddenly.
For more reading, go look up Law of Equity in the library, I'm not saying Google will have much, even allowing my audience :) - John
Re:Hate to say it (Score:3)
By induction, if they are offering a very one sided contract it is becasue they want to stay in business.
If they cannot _ unless you sign, then they have problems you can make painful for them, see my other post.
So if they are planning to be able to stay in business, they can in due course pay you. Just - apparently (though I don't trust this without further information) - not now.
You may personally feel it is not their fault. But the law offers people who start a business a limitation of personal liability, privided you follow the rules (also see my post above) in return for the responsibility those rules and other aspects of the law convey upon them.
I have studied many systems in collapse, from social, psychological and quanitive persectives. What we *need* in this world of capitalism is a sense of pay - back for those who enter into business frivolously or without honour. You may disagree with my ancient point of view, but to "blame the system" is a cop - out, and more people, good bad, indifferent as well as intentionally fraudulent will just be encouraged to try their hand without any conscience about the matter if we all exonerate every failure that tries to screw upon their *customers* the minute they encounter a little trouble. Damn it, I have to go home now, but I _really_ wished I had the time here to rant from the perspective my several very painful (financially, emotionally and every which way) experiences with sharp operators in business. - John.
p.s. my company trades advertising contracts in Europe, if your site is interested in non - exclusive agreements for wholesale onward sales, contact me intially via my spam account above. We have a good legal team, too.
Directors' Personal Liability (Score:5)
. .
IANAL, but I handle all our company's contracts in the UK and USA.
Look carefully at the pattern of earnings and balance sheet reporting that UGO has made during recent fiscal periods.
This may not be formally reported or up to date. In the UK there is Comapnies House, to which Directors (but, interestingly, not the companies) are obliged to file annual accounts and shareholder information).
In the USA you will have to look at individual State Registrars, unless UGO is under SEC rules to file federally because of number of shareholders, public offers or listings.
Get *every* piece of detail you can about the INDIVIDUALS who run the business.
Companies in common law, USA and UK are Legal Persons, intentionally separated from their officers, in both countries (in the UK Companies Act, and once again your local state law) there is the concept of PERSONAL LIABILITY of officers and directors in the event they operate the company KNOWING IT CANNOT FINANCIALLY SURVIVE.
This *is* a complex affair.
But you may be in a position to apply pressure to obtain needed severances from contracts, so that you can do business elsewhere.
Or you may want to try to negotiate a settlement from any cash reserves still remaining.
You may yet be a creditor in the event UGO becomes insolvent or files Chapter 11.
I know you said a lawsuit may be futile. I am not advising on that (though these steps would be prepared by a good forensic accountant's legal team) but I *am* suggesting you get what info you can to apply LEVERAGE upon the officers, directors or whoever is responsible.
If you feel you can follow these steps and also read your local legal codes, _and_ provided you treat this in a resonably detached manner (I learned many skills years ago when such an investigation became a personally charged affair because my business was very hurt, but I still don't recommend the vendetta, you're smart enough to see the reasons for that) then you can at the very least feel as if your own intelligence can apply to the awful and unpleasant situation you are in. This aspect alone, for anyone bright enough to have managed their own business, gives a certain amount of better sleep and can reduce personal bitterness and sense of hopelessness. In fact many fraudsters OPERATEON THE BASIS that it is a common perception that legal recourse is hopeless. Legal recourse does not mean you have to go to court. The vast majority of serious cases are settled between big companies.
If you find a basis for argument that the directors or officers of the company have operated and ENCOURAGED NEW BUSINESS in the knowledge that their financial models are unsustainable, and / or they are broke, they may fall foul of insolvency rules, and in the UK I can say for certain I would immediately file suit for fraud against the INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES. In the UK companies law makes it a CRIMINAL offence to operate a company when you know it can't meet its bills. Check your local State Codes for the equivalents WHERE THE COMPANY IS DOMICILED AND OR LOCATED...
Finally, for this post at least, WRITE UP what you find, quoting law and precendence wherever you can, and copy it to officers _home_ addresses, circulate to investors and advisors (who may also legally be culpable in some circumstances) and think seriously about putting a release across PRWire or another news service which gets picked up by the mainstream press. If the likelihood of fraud is widespread, and key officers of UGO have personal assets, you may find a specialist attorney calling you offering a deal to pursue in return for a reasonable commission. In other words, get in position to have your pound of flesh back, _as well as_ what is already legally due to you, and you may suddenly find yourself treated *much* more fairly.
I could comment further on contract law, too. But if you want to ask me anything write my spam account above with a very clear header, and I'll write back from my main a/c with some further pointers when I'm in less of a hurry. (only pointers, mind).
Whatever you do, my very best luck to you. - John
Re:Talk to a lawyer now! (Score:2)
Many states have an anti-SLAPP statute.
SLAPP (Score:2)
For more information on SLAPP and anti-SLAPP [casp.net] you can go to www.casp.net [casp.net].
individual liability (Score:2)
Many times, if a company goes under, the people in charge grab money for themselves -- so if you can piece the corporate veil, it's yours. Many companies have insurance that covers bad acts by management, if you can get that, you avoid issues of bankruptcy.
Talk to a lawyer now! (Score:3)
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
Re:Dear Slashdot, (Score:4)
Sometimes, in real life, people are confronted with situations where they don't know what to do. In such situations, they generally seek out the advice of their peers and colleagues, people that perhaps have been in similar situations, before making a decision that could possibly affect the rest of their lives. It's called getting as much information as possible, and doing everything within their power to make an informed, wise decision.
I know this is probably difficult for you to comprehend, since you were apparently born with the sum total of all human knowledge, but try to understand that this is very helpful for the rest of us.
Maybe this law doesn't apply to dot.coms... (Score:2)
...but I'd normally file a bankrupcy (they owe me money, I can prove it, they don't pay it, last I checked that ment they are bankrupt) and ask the court to immidiatly seize funds and/or assets to cover the money owned so all is not lost, even a dot.com usually has something worthwhile.
Besides, that usually provokes some rapid action from the counterpart, unless they're really going bankrupt, in which case you'll probably lose the money anyway, so the earlier you try, the more likely there'll actually be something to get.
Kjella
[Sigh] Ugo Contact info (Score:2)
http://www.ugo.com/services/about/mediakit/coinfo_ exec.asp
The contact infomation is here:
http://www.ugo.com/services/about/mediakit/ contact .asp
with telephone, fax, and email.
Someone may want to save the data someplace, just in case. These guys sound a bit unpleasant, but I'm sure they are fine at a party.
[right ...]
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:UGO? IGO. (Score:2)
I still see no disadvantage to signing the letter since I don't see how anyone is going to realize the full amount owed.
Re:UGO? IGO. (Score:3)
I agree with what the previous poster said. Take the money and run - lawsuits take time and energy and one against a failing company may yield little more than a micro-thin slice of the bankruptcy settlement.
Depending on your financial situation, you may be able to write off the other half of the money as a loss or bad debt allowing you to recover 25% or more of it in reduced tax obligation.
Re:Well... (Score:3)
The best advice I think is to take the 1/2 and write off the rest as a bad debt / business loss. You'll likely end up with a minimum of 62.5% of the total money owed (depending on your tax situation you could get more). If you go the lawyer route, you will get no more than 66.7% of the amount owed.
Is the 4.2% extra you get worth the lawsuit? Especially considering the amount of work you will have to put in and time you will have to wait? And considering the risk that if the company goes belly-up before your case is settled you will probably get nothing...
No one-sided contracts (Score:2)
However, provided you're willing to consider legal action, you might be able to get away with having your cake and eating it too, by signing the contract and then arguing that the contract was valid. In addition to the obvious extortion, it's my understanding that, to be valid, a contract must provide consideration to both parties.
The example I recall from my business law class involved a rich uncle signing a contract with his nephew, where his nephew agreed not to engage in various illegal behavior and the uncle would provide the nephew with a bunch of money after a set amount of time. Because the behavior of the nephew fit within what he was already required to do by law, he wasn't really doing anything for his part of the contract. As such, the contract was declared void. Since UGO is already contractually obligated to pay you this money, they aren't providing you with any considerations in this contract. Of course, this would be contingent on the details on the contract (for example, it might provide some small additional benefit to you that wasn't mentioned in the summary, thus negating this whole argument). All in all, the obvious IANAL disclaimers apply, but it might be something worth thinking about and asking a lawyer about.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Traffic often behaves in non-intuitive ways--there are cases where traffic patterns in major cities have been improved by closing streets.
I usually do a good job of maintaing "Assured Clear Distance" even during rush hour, and I never get people honking at me or glaring. What I do get, however, is a few waves from people who have been desperately waiting for a chance to switch lanes.
Re:Banner advert blindness (Score:2)
where else to go? (Score:2)
However, the contract is pretty weak and could be voided in a class action. Question is where else to go? I dont know of any place else to go for ad outsourcing. As much as we all hate it we need to make some money just to pay for the basics of our sites. Free hosting just doesnt offer enough (ie MySQL, specific Apache changes, etc, etc, etc) and hosting and bandwidth arent cheap.
Before we all leap off the cliff and sue them into non-existance maybe we should have somewhere to land....
There was an article on here awhile back about improved advertising. Dont suppose anyone's done anything with it or thought about forming a co-op for sites too big to be on free hosting and too small to afford our own ad sales staff?
Anyone interested in such a thing? How'd we go about getting startup capital in the current market?
I suppose it'd be a bit much to get OSDN to sponsor the co-op...
Making money from banner ads (Score:2)
What probably is over is entire companies being supported by the ad revenues from their websites. I make a nice living off my website. The site wouldn't, however, be able to support an entire company.
I charge a "per view" (CPM) rate less than Yahoo even though, being a focused technical site, I would be warranted in charging four times what I do. But everything I charge is for me; I don't have to share the proceeds with anyone. This means I can give my advertisers an incredibly good price and I still make money. Everyone wins.
Banner ads should be discrete (at the top or bottom of the pages--not in the middle of the content) and not take too long to load. They ought to be related to the content of the site, too.
What I am totally against is sites that now put huge banner ads on their site (they look silly and take up too much real-estate) or those sites that open up their ads in new browser windows. Weather.com now has normal banner ads on their site AND opens a banner in a new window. For that reason, I now get my weather only from CNN.COM and Yahoo.com.
... Apparently they think by creating more and more large and annoying banner ads they can generate more revenue--more likely they'll just drive people away to other sites and they'll make less. Duh.
eFront did the same thing... (Score:2)
Looks like UGO is on it's way to becoming a member of Pud's list [fuckedcompany.com]...oh wait, nevermind...Pud has an article that UGO just bought Bla-Bla! [ugo.com]. Sheesh! Rough times indeed...
In related news... (Score:5)
What 'Cho Talkin' Bout, Willis (Score:2)
Re:Gleaning the Pube. (Score:2)
--
Re:UGO? IGO. (Score:2)
you any more money than just signing
the paper,..."
----
No, but it _will_ punish the guilty.
C//
Re:UGO? IGO. (Score:2)
--CTH
--
Brutality (Score:2)
Keep up the good work.
Virg
Professional agencies want cash up front.. (Score:2)
Bunch of dummies, for the last two quarters advertising companies are demanding cash up front for producing content/ads for web companies. A lot of other companies demand the same from any web based enterprise.
Why do web based enterprises think they are immune from the same treatment? Just because your both web based doesn't mean you have some secret handshake protecting you.
You would have thought the guys at VE would have learned by now.
Suggestion, get all these sites together and file a single lawsuit. In the meantime don't run their ads
Fan sites just don't have the clout. (Score:2)
If anything these these sites need to band together to put a stop to the abuse foisted upon them.
I am quite sure the executives at UGO are highly paid, and protected if they should be let go. Its crap like Webvan's recent settlement with their EX-CEO that show who really benefits on the web, http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-5940466.html
Hopefully they will piss off a site that has connections, and get their ass handed to them legally.
Until then, fan sites will continually be screwed. The net isn't free, and if we want good sites we are going to eventually have to pay (even if its micropayments - I would not mind paying a few cents per day to these sites for their content)
Re:class action (Score:3)
Re:They *HAVE* to do this to stay in business. (Score:3)
Yeah, but that's not his problem. They owe him money, and they're threatening to renege on their obligations entirely if he doesn't give legally binding consent to let them renege partially.
This is a very drastic decision for them and they wouldn't be doing it if it wasnt an absolute necessity.
If they're in such dire straits, what the hell were they doing acquiring Bla-bla? They should have used that cash to pay their affiliates.
Perhaps they really are out of money, but I have no way to verify that - this may just be a ploy to reduce the amounts they pay affiliates. Either way, it's not the poster's problem, and there's no reason he should put up with it.
Sue them into bankruptcy, says I.
OK,
- B
--
Well... (Score:4)
If they're contractually obligated to send you the money, I'd suggest that you find a lawyer who'll work on contingency for a portion of the proceeds, and sue them. They're bascially telling you that unless you let them rewrite the contract, they'll break it anyway. That's wrong, and even if it won't net you much cash, there's no reason to let them think they can screw people like that.
I mean, it's one thing for them to want to rewrite the terms of the contract going forward, but this is bullshit - they're attempting to dodge obligations they've made. Such arrogance should not be tolerated. If they can't meet their financial obligations, let the bastards file for bankruptcy like everyone else.
OK,
- B
--
in other news........UGO Raises $13 Million (Score:5)
UGO PRESS RELEASES
UGO Networks Raises $13 Million; Closes A New Round of Funding with $23 million
New Proceeds will be Used to Grow its Technology Business and Develop Advertising Sponsorships Packages
New York, NY March 5th, 2001 - UGO Networks, a leading entertainment company for 18-34 year old males, announced today that it raised $13 million dollars, closing a new round of funding with a total of $23 million. Lead Investors are GRP and Missouri-based Gryphon Holdings II, LLP Inc. and their investment partners. UGO Networks has raised in total $80 million. UGO Networks consists of UnderGroundOnline (www.ugo.com), a network comprised of 350 affiliated sites which feature content in animation, music, games, wrestling, technology, TV & film, celebrities and UGO Networks Technology Solutions, which provides Web hosting and other professional services to UnderGroundOnline affiliates, strategic partners, and third parties. Board members include Strauss Zelnick, Former President and CEO of BMG Entertainment and Yves Sisteron, Managing Partner of GRP.
"UGO Networks' strength lies not only in the size and composition of its audience, 18- 34 year old males, but in the way in which its unique business model enables multiple revenue streams," said John Wehrle, Managing Partner of Gryphon Investments. "The Company's management team has proven to be extremely adept at leveraging and maximizing all of its internal resources."
"UGO Networks has demonstrated the ability and business acumen not only to survive but to succeed in today's market environment," said Yves Sisteron, Managing Partner of GRP. "The management team is highly adept at both managing cash and generating revenue. The company has had tremendous success in building a base of blue chip advertisers and technology clients."
UGO Networks has overall annual revenues of $15 million.
"UGO Networks will use the new funding to continue operations until our breakeven which will happen before the end of calendar year 2001," said UGO President and CEO, J Moses. "To this end, we are taking cost cutting measures to increase efficiencies in our business."
UGO Networks will use the new proceeds to grow UGO Technology Solutions, its technology business and to develop and sell advertising sponsorship packages.
"As a well funded company, we are looking to leverage our cash position to explore potential strategic partners. An ideal partner would enhance our market position and leverage the Company's core assets," said Joe Robinson, Chairman and Founder, UGO Networks.
....
Re:Maybe this law doesn't apply to dot.coms... (Score:2)
Lawsuit? What other options are there? (Score:2)
Re:in other news........UGO Raises $13 Million (Score:5)
Yeah? Is that right? A company with money is trying to use it to get more money? Shit dog, I never would have expected it. Seriously, what is the point of making this statement? Is it not OBVIOUS that a company looking for money is interested in using that money to grow a company? You see, this is the kind of dumbass shit that makes the absurd dollar amounts of most CEOs something sickly laughable -- they use the same methodology as everybody else, and when they fail using that methodology it's the market's fault and when they succeed it's because that CEO is somehow better than other CEOs using the same bullshit methodology and rhetoric. Shit, at least athletes thank Jesus for their fluke victories.
Is that right? Well, captain dotcom, my ideal partner is a leggy blond with a sweet honeypot and tits til tuesday, but I don't feel the need to usher a press release -- because anybody could guess it. Why not spend less time looking for this magic rich bitch of a dotcom partner and spend a little time finding a successful business model? UGO is in charge of the futures of some of my favorite sites and net personalities (Kyle from HardOCP, who is my hero, Seanbaby and of course lovabel Miguel from fatchicksinpartyhats). And rather than try and innovate their way into profitability, they're praying to the partner fairy and relying on a dead advertiser's market. Why not do something useful instead of treading water with these damn bloodthirsty VCs?
Re:Go to collection (Score:2)
Re:Hate to say it (Score:2)
> "one of the most one-sided contracts I've seen in my life."
Your lawyer has never seen an EULA or ISP TOS before, has he?
--Blair
"All your right are innate to us."
Ask Slashdot: Lawyers 'R Us (Score:2)
Now if this had been phrased differently like: Here's what is being done to screw honest web-hosting nerds out of their due money... It might pass as news for nerds.
Now don't get me wrong. I dislike companies pulling this kinda shit just as much as the next guy. But I think this guy should hire a lawyer and slashdot should post news.
--
Hate to say it. (Score:4)
Re:Dear Slashdot, (Score:2)
"A lawsuit just doesnt seem like it would really net any cash"
and wants to get peoples advice about how the situation can be sorted:
"Does anyone have any realistic advice for all these webmasters?"
Lots of webmasters read slashdot so it seems like a fair enough place to ask what others have done in this situation.
I think you're being a bit harsh.
Re:Hate to say it (Score:5)
UGO is, as the rest of that sector of the net, hit hard by the current crisis. It is not their fault, how much even I hate it. (I have sites under UGO)
There simply is no money to pay the sites their $10K+/month anymore. The party is over. Get over it, get a real job.
Involuntary bankruptcy (Score:3)