Dorchester Publishing / Leisure Books

veinglory said:

Seems to me like a bit of a shell game.

Click to expand...

Oh, definitely.

Do you think this -- filed 2/21/2012 -- is the same True Renditions, LLC?

I was trying to figure out who the owner is of TR.

Well the new name is on on the NY State site for corporations here. It would cost $5 to get a copy of their certificate to see whose on it.
You'll find a couple for Dorchester Publishing here. Just type in the corp name and choose "All" for status so you get the inactive as well as active corps. (I'd do it but I have to get to work.)

You can also look up Dorchester's UCC liens here. Click on NY standard debtor's search. Link is to the left. (Its in frames so I can't copy/paste the direct link.) You can open the actual files to look at them and print them out. It's all to banks. These might be worth reading as often they have to list assets. To see if it says anything like all books now printed or to be printed in the future, stuff like that.

Deb Kinnard said:

I wonder (not for Dorchester, but in a global sense) why the owners of the copyrights are considered unsecured creditors? Or is this just another example of writers getting stiffed by laws that benefit the bigger players in the industry? I have no experience nor expertise in the law, but I've heard this fact stated before, and it mystifies me.

Click to expand...

Deb,

It means that an author has no collateral to seize when the debtor (publisher) defaults on the money they are owed. The only thing an author can do is get back the original rights to their work (and make money on it in the future), but they cannot claim property/computers/other assets to compensate for the loss of payment owed from rights already exercised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsecured_debt

Without suing, that is.

Can an author not file a lien against the money owed? If you build a homeowner a porch and he doesn't pay you, you can get a lien against the property. I don't see the difference.

Deb Kinnard said:

Can an author not file a lien against the money owed? If you build a homeowner a porch and he doesn't pay you, you can get a lien against the property. I don't see the difference.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of law. Most states recognize some sort of mechanic's lien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanic's_lien) against property they repair. It's complex and varies by state.

And yeah, there ought to be a law to protect folks like us.

If you look at my post above, #378, those are UCC liens. They are for 5 years. Mechanics liens are only for a year, and usually just against the property till a house is built - those kinds of things. So a UCC lien maybe is something to consider, or a judgement actually. Anyway, they have an awful lot of banks holding UCC liens against them now. I can look up the figures.

EDIT: Sorry I meant to say UCC's are 5 years, judgements are 10. (Corrected above.)

Yep, aside from real property the UCC liens cover, equipment, fixtures, etc (a bunch of stuff) it also covers "trademarks, trade names, copyrights, computer software, and other intellectual property used by debtor in connection with the property." Link here to look at one of them so you can see the text. Pretty similar on all four.
They have four altogether that are active.

But if they are no longer at that address did they just move or did the debt holders seize their collateral, being the property and assets? Really don't know on that. Could be why they folded all together and started a new one which certainly would leave the authors in limbo.

And by the by, aside from being a historian, I'm also an abstractor which is someone who title searches property. UCC liens are always part of a property search. Just so you know that is why I knew where to look.

After months of trying to get her books back, author Linda Hilton sent a letter to the auction firm letting them know that Dorchester was in arrears, etc. They forwarded the letter to Dorchester who replied with this gem.

If you don't want to click, the gist is that Dorchester is trying to auction off their publishing division. They won't do any reversions of rights. The author will, according to Dorchester, have 30 days to negotiate with the new buyer before the auction is closed and final. Dorchester says authors will be able to get reversions then and discuss monies owed with the new buyer.

I'm sure the "new buyer" will want to sell the authors their rights for top dollar. After all, serious money is being made on backlist books when they're managed properly.

I would bet True Renditions is simply another of the owner's companies. The filing date really does give that one away. That was my point earlier about the use of the legal structuring to protect the guilty. That wasn't the reason those structures were originally created.

HistorySleuth said:

I'm also an abstractor which is someone who title searches property. UCC liens are always part of a property search.

Click to expand...

Neat. I'm learnin shtuff. I had to look up what UCC (Uniform Common Code, correct?) stood for though.

The letter stated:

After the auction, the buyer has 30 days to speak and negotiate with authors before closing. The new buyers will negotiate directly with the author and agent about arrears. Any author that still wants to revert, can, at that time.

Click to expand...

Who is legally responsible for contacting the other party, the buyer or author? If one or the other doesn't within 30 days what happens to the rights? Does it revert automatically to one of the parties?

You are correct Bicycle.

I would think the holders of the UCC liens would have been contacted about the auction, but maybe not. I wonder if they know. I would think the Dorchester attorneys would have notified them. I wonder if the authors contacted the UCC holders or their attorneys, see what they thought of Dorchester's reply to Linda. I can't imagine they would be pleased with Dorchester letting the new owners decide who to pay. Just spouting off the top of my head here trying to think outside the box.

According to the paperwork (I should have clicked the link History Sleuth. Sorry) the UCC lien filed on Dorchester is a secured lien. That still puts them ahead of writers, who are unsecured creditors.

I don't know how that would work in an auction. In bankruptcy it's up to the court to decide, as far as I know.

Dorchester Publishing

Yes--I checked on True Renditions LLC and the filing date was a dead giveaway. But what is a real giveaway is the address TR used to file: 177 Sands St. Suite 2 J, Brooklyn. According to Property Shark that address is owned by NY Housing Authority. There are NO suite numbers--just apt. numbers like 2-E. There are several other businesses in the projects at that address--construction and day care, presumably people operating out of their apartments. There are no suite numbers in this residential housing project.

Yes, Jana. After research I agree with your conclusion. John Backe has so many corporations and legal experts to protect himself.

I've contacted major media right and left--and no response yet. One person says they have a friend who works at CBS. So we'll see. I was hoping a media investigation would coerce Dorch to do the right thing.

I don't like going after people legally. Even if not one of us can recover money--I still want these people stopped from doing it again under shell corporations.

I despise publicity and drama. But the only way (in my opinion) is to get an attorney who can bring the media circus scrutiny to Dorch that they earned and deserve.

When it comes out that some podunk like me has been contacting media for weeks to no avail--and no media coverage outside of publishing circles..That is a story in itself.

I contacted Gloria Allred today. Whether we agree with her tactics--I feel she has the power to laser-focus on Dorchester. I actually want the sale of Dorch stopped. Thirty days my arse to contact them! I have no stake in the book division--but it's flipping insane.

I say meet insane with someone who knows how to run a three-ring circus.

It's news-worthy just in itself that in ONE week Dorchester goes from announcing a move to Park Avenue to a UPS box and a corporate address in the projects. Damn! I wish I was an investigative reporter in NY--so I could see what's really going on in the hood.

For the record--I will be a part of any legal action, but in no way will be on camera.

I'm dead serious about this and following through--but it's also a test to see if the legal system is as broken as the media system.

I encourage others to go to Gloria Allred's website and submit information about Dorchester (limited to one page). I can't speak from the book division side--only the mag side. And I only mentioned people: Brian Keene, Kristin Nelson and Linda Hilton, who all have public blogs or websites. So those of you who want to be confidential, as I do, it can't hurt to shoot Gloria the scoop on Dorch. She also deals with another firm--so there are two chances to get some action and/or publicity.

Yes--the Dorch auction lawyers are "superlawyers" and rated at the top of U.S. New and World Reports of the best lawyers. So I would not imagine any authors without top gun legal representation would stand a chance.

Here's another question I have: Dorchester Media stiffed about 250,000 subscribers to its magazines--and now they are offering new subscriptions. Are they planning to make good on the old subscriptions?

The fraud is so far reaching--from consumer to intellectual property to corporate fraud--that it would take a super lawyer to unravel it.

If the media and/or legal system won't address this, I suggest someone (seriously) writes an e-book about the fraud and sells it on Kindle. Just what I've picked up from this website and dozens of others--there's enough information to fill a book.

Bicyclefish said:

Neat. I'm learnin shtuff. I had to look up what UCC (Uniform Common Code, correct?) stood for though.

The letter stated:

Who is legally responsible for contacting the other party, the buyer or author? If one or the other doesn't within 30 days what happens to the rights? Does it revert automatically to one of the parties?

Click to expand...

I missed this last part. Good question. How are the authors supposed to know who to contact? What if Dorchester follows the same underhanded path and doesn't issue a press release until after the 30 days? How would one find it out?I doubt they'd tell the authors.

I'm curious too JulieB how the auction would work. You get what you get and pay who you can?

HistorySleuth said:

I'm curious too JulieB how the auction would work. You get what you get and pay who you can?

Click to expand...

It depends on what they've got up for auction and what the new owner takes on. There's this from the above link:

After the auction, the buyer has 30 days to speak and negotiate with authors before closing. The new buyers will negotiate directly with the author and agent about arrears.

Click to expand...

I hope more details will emerge.

Have you considered writing to your congressman?

Writing congressman--good idea. Hadn't thought of that one.

What I am also concerned about (after getting a lengthy email from an author deep into the Dorchester debacle) is all the shadowy corporations Dorchester has apparently (not verified yet--since the scope is beyond us to dig into) been spinning off to defraud writers in new ways. We all know about FAA and True Renditions. She informed me of another possible one that lists no incorporation papers. A clue is that former/current Dorchester employees are involved with these companies--and then their names are abruptly taken off.

I've been digging into what government agency is responsible for this type of stuff. It falls into corporate fraud, consumer fraud, intellectual property, stolen goods and possibly unemployment issues. I can't quite nail it down as to who needs to be made aware of this. Any ideas?

Then it gets sticky--does one report in the state one lives--or in the state the company is in? The Feds--and which agency?

So (having read the linked Dork response), if the buyer doesn't contact the author, can the author contact the buyer? And what are his/her chances of actually getting in touch with anyone who can make a shred of difference?

This smacks of theft. One thing that irks me as I grow older: we're so busy using the "correct" terms, sometimes we forget to call a thing by its true name.

Let me explain a few things about how the author/publisher relationship works in this sort of situation:

An author is not considered a "vendor" for most commercial commerce issues. This is why authors have such a difficult time getting paid during a bankruptcy. In this case, no bankruptcy has occurred, but the standard still applies.

The books published by a publisher, as well as the contracts themselves (for past and future books) are ASSETS of the company. It's the contracts that will likely be sold to a new publisher. The royalties owed from the publisher to the agent aren't actually debts of the publisher. They're closer in nature to dividends on stock. An author is closer to a business partner than a creditor. So disputes are civil disputes between equals, instead of master/servant (employer/employee) or vendor/vendee. I know...it's confusing.

I've read some of the older Dorchester contracts, and the way it reads is that the author has the duty to contact the new publisher with their contact information. I hate that wording. HATE IT! But it's what's in the older deals.

Royalties owed on existing contracts may or may not become the liability of the new publisher, because the new publisher is often only buying the ASSETS of the company. They may or may not be buying the company as a whole, or merging with that company. So the liabilities of Dorchester would remain Dorchester's responsibility.

That then becomes a problem. Because now the author is split between two entities---old books with old debts that are the responsibility of a company that is no longer doing business (hence, having no ability to repay) and a new company with no liability on any books it hasn't yet marketed under a new ISBN. There will be new ISBNs because they're publisher specific.

I would think that what a proactive author should do is contact an attorney to file a civil suit against Dorchester and try to get a judgment against them for failure to pay. Then, you could potentially attach the monies from the sale as a now "secured" creditor. A judgment puts you up with rents and wages in most states. This is definitely an attorney situation if ever I saw one.

I'll also be interested to see what happens with the old Dorchester 'reserves on returns' clauses. The way it used to be written, there was no requirement that Dorchester EVER pay out the held reserves so long as the books were still being sold. With them selling off the contracts, will that remain forever, or will it trigger the requirement to pay...FINALLY?

Those of you with pre-2000 Dorchester contracts should get thee to an entertainment attorney ASAP to see if there's something that can be done to trigger that clause. Since I know several authors who this would apply to, I would get a great deal of joy from watching that particular iron go in the fire.

peakbloom said:

Writing congressman--good idea. Hadn't thought of that one.

What I am also concerned about (after getting a lengthy email from an author deep into the Dorchester debacle) is all the shadowy corporations Dorchester has apparently (not verified yet--since the scope is beyond us to dig into) been spinning off to defraud writers in new ways. We all know about FAA and True Renditions. She informed me of another possible one that lists no incorporation papers. A clue is that former/current Dorchester employees are involved with these companies--and then their names are abruptly taken off.

I've been digging into what government agency is responsible for this type of stuff. It falls into corporate fraud, consumer fraud, intellectual property, stolen goods and possibly unemployment issues. I can't quite nail it down as to who needs to be made aware of this. Any ideas?

Then it gets sticky--does one report in the state one lives--or in the state the company is in? The Feds--and which agency?

Click to expand...

Well New York State has all kinds of complaint forms (not just consumer complaints) at the Attorney General's website.

We have lots of depts:
Consumer Frauds Bureau

The Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, part of the Economic Justice Division, prosecutes businesses and individuals engaged in fraudulent, misleading, deceptive or illegal trade practices.

Now you may think that may not apply, but it is part of the Economic Justice Division, and there are different depts there. Besides, if Dorchester still has authors books for sale, then it is a consumer issue too. Imagine if they got bombarded with complaints.


He seems a pretty gung ho AG so far. He set up some new thing last year targeted at government corruption, so I would think authors would at least get an answer if they got enough complaints.

Oh yes, and the AG's whistle blower dept.
"If you see or have evidence of fraud or illegal or corrupt practices, we encourage you to contact us."

Disclaimer #1 -- I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV or on the interwebtubenets.

Disclaimer #2 -- I am a former Dorchester author whose one and only title with them was published in 1985.

Disclaimer #3 -- As far as I know, they do not owe me any money. That title has been out of print since. . . .1986.

Disclaimer #4 -- I have no experience with or knowledge of anything to do with Dorchester Media LLC, True Renditions, or any of the "True" magazines.

I would offer the following caution before you go after a high-priced (is there any other kind?) IP attorney -- Dorchester Publishing, which is the entity that holds your book contract and royalties-in-arrears if there are any, pretty much has no cash or other liquid assets, so unless you think you're going to squeeze a whole lot of blood out of a turnip, you might want to hold onto that retainer. At most you'll probably get a judgment against Dorchester demanding that they pay you, but they have nothing to pay you with.

Writing your congressperson is not going to do you one single bit of good. Dorchester is a very small fish in a big media pond, and the back royalties don't amount to a hill of beans to congresspeople. You might get a nice little form letter from a staffer and that's about it. In a phrase, get real.

If you have an agent, tell your agent to start yesterday negotiating for reversion of your rights. That's all you can reasonably expect at this point. As you can see at my blog, where I posted the complete text of the email I received from Samantha Hazell, Dorchester is putting all such requests into the process and waiting to see what happens if/when a sale goes through.

I interpreted Hazell's message to me as meaning that if I don't want to stay with the buyer, I can get my rights back from them. Not that I will have to negotiate with them or take another deal with them or whatever -- just a simple, "The new buyers will negotiate directly with the author and agent about arrears. Any author that still wants to revert, can, at that time." I have no arrears to negotiate. All I want is a reversion of my rights, and I understood her email to mean that once the sale goes through, once the new buyer takes over, I can have my rights reverted.

I will hold them to that.

Obviously, if there is some restructuring that allows Dorchester to remain in business, all of the above no longer applies.

Once again, I am not a lawyer. I can't comment on the terms in anyone else's contract and no one here has seen mine. I can't recommend enough that anyone with a contract with any publisher, no matter how "reputable" that publisher may appear to be, go over that contract with a very very fine-toothed, nit-picking comb. (That's what fine-toothed combs are for, by the way: picking nits.) DO NOT trust your agent to do so. And do not ever ever ever trust a publisher.

I have more information on my blog at www.LindaHilton.blogspot.com. Feel free to visit.

This Dorchester (True Renditions) saga doesn't seem to end. All I can say is: Jana, Jana! You were correct!

By the way, I enjoyed your latest Harlequin ( Valentine's gift from hubby).

I know this is a lot to ask, but I'd appreciate objective opinions on me being semi-publically called out by a Dorch employee (on April 3).

I threw up an unedited blog that looks like crud (just to protect myself from the apparent firestorm that is brewing and have it on record what happened with emails and posts between me and Dorch/True Renditions employees).

If anyone has about 15 minutes (long blog post), I'd appreciate an opinion after reading: TRUE STORY: You Be The Judge at www.begrudgingwriter.blogspot.com

It appears Dorchester Publishing's accounting department is no more. That also affects True Story and True Confessions magazine writers. Loretta Folk was Dorchester Publishing's controller--or accounting department. As of 4-3-12 (when her post was updated), she has posted on JobFox, offering her services as a full charge bookkeeper. For more details on this: www.begrudgingwriter.blogspot.com

If anyone has information proving this untrue--just leave a comment and I will correct my novice blog.