Seattle Go Center sues Nihon Ki-in Japan

kusto · **#121**

the whole thing is politics though haha

Bok Choi · **#122**

badukJr wrote:

My gut feeling just might be someone previously affiliated with the Kiin has moved to NY.

Have any influential Japanese professionals recently moved to New York?

Bok Choi · **#123**

tchan001 wrote:

One implication of this event is how this situation will affect the relationship between the US and the Korean Baduk Association in their joint efforts regarding the American Go Pro system.

If the Nihon Kiin were shutting down the SGC in retaliation for SGC's support of Korean Go, then the KBA/AGA relationship may or may not become more positive. Without the SGC (if it were to go away) the KBA/AGA relationship would likely be damaged, although probably not enough to derail projects such as the American Go Pro system.

shapenaji · **#124**

Bok Choi wrote:

tchan001 wrote:

One implication of this event is how this situation will affect the relationship between the US and the Korean Baduk Association in their joint efforts regarding the American Go Pro system.

If the Nihon Kiin were shutting down the SGC in retaliation for SGC's support of Korean Go, then the KBA/AGA relationship may or may not become more positive. Without the SGC (if it were to go away) the KBA/AGA relationship would likely be damaged, although probably not enough to derail projects such as the American Go Pro system.

This is a lot of conjecture. But my understanding is that the Washington folks were instrumental in forging the AGA-KBA relationship...

I doubt the Nihon Kiin is that petty though...

kusto · **#125**

Code:

http://www.seattlego.org/litigation/

imabuddha · **#126**

I'm no lawyer, but having read through the main part of that document it looks like the Nihon Kiin has some " 'spainin' to do".

:grumpy:

shapenaji · **#127**

Interesting things I learned from this doc:

A) The SGC has been paying the property taxes on the space, that means that the Nihon Kiin hasn't been "supporting the center" at all.

B) The SGC remodeled the space and took care of the rental of the property

C) The SGC has, in fact, been paying down a loan to the Nihon Kiin for years, starting at 72000, they have paid 5000 per year, so that the loan now stands at 21000.

EDIT: Also this, from Mr. Fukuda:

Quote:

49. Nihon Ki-in has never cautioned the Seattle Go Center board to be careful of how much
time and money they invested in Seattle Go Center because Nihon Ki-in might sometime decide
to sell the building even i f Seattle Go Center wa s keeping up its side of the agreement. To the
contrary: from the beginning Nihon Ki-in has always encouraged Seattle Go Center to continue
to take in as much in the way of time and money donations as possible.

jts · **#128**

I read the complaint but not the exhibits. Some highlights for people who are more careful with their time than I am. This is just what interested me in the complaint. YMMV.

1. At the time candidate sites for Iwamoto go centers were being selected, a Mr. Fukuda in Seattle was informed that Seattle would have a better chance if he provided a personal financial guarantee for the self-sustainability of the Go center.
2. When Seattle was selected, a contract was signed giving the center to Seattle on four conditions: (i) The SGC has to be self-sustaining, (ii) Mr. Fukuda reiterated his personal financial guarantee, (iii) the SGC has to take care of all maintenance and property taxes, (iv) the SGC has to promote Go and spread Iwamoto-sensei's vision of international and interethnic understanding through Go in the Pacific Northwest.
3. At the opening ceremonies, a director of the Nihon Ki-in spoke of returning for the 10th, 20th, and 30th anniversary celebrations of the center, and made reference to the 50th and 100th anniversary celebrations. Iwamoto-sensei spoke of the center lasting until the end of time. A decade later, when the center asked the Ki-in if they had any objection to giving a 30-year lease on the first-floor retail space, the Ki-in told the center to do whatever was in the best for the financial viability of the center.
4. At the opening of the center the Ki-in imposed a 70k loan on the SGC, half of which was to pay for renovations to the retail space and half of which was to fund the opening ceremonies and travel for the Japanese dignitaries to the opening ceremonies, which the Ki-in insisted the SGC pay for.
5. The plaque that was commissioned at the opening of the center states clearly that Iwamoto-sensei funded the center. The Ki-in now insists that it was funded out of the general budget of the Nihon Ki-in.
6. The Nihon Ki-in incorporated itself in Washington to own property, but that incorporation lapsed in 2004. From 2003-2004 Takao Yoshida held power of attorney for the Nihon Ki-in in the state, but in 2008 power of attorney was transferred to Mr. Fukuda. (No idea what the relevance is, just seems odd to me.)
7. In January 2012 Ms. Kobayashi personally told the board of the SGC that the Ki-in was selling the center because it needed money in Japan. In March, however, the SGC received an official letter from President Hideo Otake stating that they were selling the center to fund the NYGC.

Well, there you go. The basic contention seems to be, first, that there is a contract; second, that there has a been sustained and intentional effort to give the SGC the impression that they would have use of the real estate so long as the contract was honored, without which impression the financial guarantees would not have been forthcoming, the loan would not have been accepted, and the donations and time put into the center, the building, and the loan would not have volunteered; and that the claims the Ki-in is currently making about where the money came from, and where it is going, are fraudulent. I hope if I've confused anything others will correct me.

hyperpape · **#129**

shapenaji wrote:

A) The SGC has been paying the property taxes on the space, that means that the Nihon Kiin hasn't been "supporting the center" at all.

You can think of them as paying an "opportunity cost" for years. They could have sold the property at any time and used that money for other purposes.

But most of us don't naturally think that way, and the law may not either. Actually, I don't even think the opportunity cost means the same as a tangible cost (and my wife constantly complains that I think too much like an economist). After all, if the Ki-in were paying money on a regular basis to the SGC, then they could say "we really don't have this money." Whereas with a mere opportunity cost, it's a case of them selling the center to reallocate that money elsewhere. And that makes a big difference.

PeterHB · **#130**

The http://www.seattlego.org/litigation/ makes sad reading. Signing the "Power of Attorney" and "Contract for rental of real-estate property at no charge" without legal advice seems amazing. Ouch. Frank K. Fukuda comes across as a completely honourable and admirable fair dealing man. Sadly naive to have signed those two documents though. Having done that, I can see that the 30 day cancellation clause is likely to have been a driver for the SGC to want to sue for injunctive relief before the building got sold out from under them. For me it explains why the SGC were so quick to file suit.

badukJr · **#131**

PeterHB wrote:

The http://www.seattlego.org/litigation/ makes sad reading. Signing the "Power of Attorney" and "Contract for rental of real-estate property at no charge" without legal advice seems amazing. Ouch. Frank K. Fukuda comes across as a completely honourable and admirable fair dealing man. Sadly naive to have signed those two documents though. Having done that, I can see that the 30 day cancellation clause is likely to have been a driver for the SGC to want to sue for injunctive relief before the building got sold out from under them. For me it explains why the SGC were so quick to file suit.

Yes, its very strange. Not only signing without legal advice but advice from others in the go center. They also didn't keep a copy of the signed documents. Does Seattle's tenant rights supersede this 30 day cancellation in any way?

Yeah, it sucks that SGC paid all this money, but that was their decision, and doesn't make them or iwamoto the owner of the building. They are basically arguing against the "Contract for rental..." document with things like verbal agreements, a plaque, and a bust.

The most stunning thing to me is that after so many people were going on about contractual obligations, is the absolute lack of contracts terms. All of the signed documents total over 17 years is less than that of a normal lease agreement for an apartment space.

Joaz Banbeck · **#132**

badukJr wrote:

...Does Seattle's tenant rights supersede this 30 day cancellation in any way? ...

Almost certainly not. Tenant's rights almost always apply to residential tennants. Business tenants are considered just a step above trespassers.

Bok Choi · **#133**

tchan001 wrote:

One implication of this event is how this situation will affect the relationship between the US and the Korean Baduk Association in their joint efforts regarding the American Go Pro system.

Bok Choi wrote:

If the Nihon Kiin were shutting down the SGC in retaliation for SGC's support of Korean Go, then the KBA/AGA relationship may or may not become more positive.

shapenaji wrote:

I doubt the Nihon Kiin is that petty though...

It would not have to be petty. It could be nationalism. Reading through the litigation documents, it seems like Iwamoto wanted to promote the Go traditions of all cultures. Perhaps the Nihon Kiin now wants to focus on Japanese traditions.

Javaness2 · **#134**

Central fact still left undisclosed here... how strong is Mr Fukuda?

EdLee · **#135**

Javaness2 wrote:

Central fact still left undisclosed here... how strong is Mr Fukuda?

Not very funny.

badukJr · **#136**

Have to agree with Ed, this whole situation jeopardizes foreign support of the game in North America.

jts · **#137**

badukJr wrote:

Have to agree with Ed, this whole situation jeopardizes foreign support of the game in North America.

Do you have a reason to believe this?

If it were generally true that Asian go/baduk organizations were interested in speculating in North American real estate, and as an afterthought were willing to let the local go communities use the real estate until the time came to liquidate the investment, yes, a ruling supporting the SGC could cut off similar real estate investments in the future.

On the other hand, if Asian donors are interested in funding go centers that will promote international go (and even bear their name) in perpetuity, they will undoubtedly by encouraged by a ruling in favor of the SGC and be more likely to make similar donations in the future.

No potential foreign supporter could read the complaint without being impressed by the filial loyalty of the Seattle leadership to the Nihon Ki-in up through the beginning of 2012.

Furthermore, if the Nihon Ki-in had succeeded in selling the center quickly enough to force the cancellation of the May 5 tournament, I seriously doubt the Hanguk Kiwon would have been impressed with the American Go community.

badukJr · **#138**

jts wrote:

badukJr wrote:

Have to agree with Ed, this whole situation jeopardizes foreign support of the game in North America.

Do you have a reason to believe this?

If it were generally true that Asian go/baduk organizations were interested in speculating in North American real estate, and as an afterthought were willing to let the local go communities use the real estate until the time came to liquidate the investment, yes, a ruling supporting the SGC could cut off similar real estate investments in the future.

On the other hand, if Asian donors are interested in funding go centers that will promote international go (and even bear their name) in perpetuity, they will undoubtedly by encouraged by a ruling in favor of the SGC and be more likely to make similar donations in the future.

No potential foreign supporter could read the complaint without being impressed by the filial loyalty of the Seattle leadership to the Nihon Ki-in up through the beginning of 2012.

Furthermore, if the Nihon Ki-in had succeeded in selling the center quickly enough to force the cancellation of the May 5 tournament, I seriously doubt the Hanguk Kiwon would have been impressed with the American Go community.

Unfortunately you are only looking at this from the perspective of the SGC. From the Ki-in's perspective, the SGC is a child organization of the parent org. This is really obvious, especially with the name 'Nihon Ki-in Go Institute of the West'. Nobody in Japan is going to be impressed by SGC hitting back at the parent org in such a severe manner. I have no idea about Hanguk Kiwon, as I only do dealings in Japan.

This is an extremely destructive action. Its hard for me to express in words, the differences of expectations here. Its just something that is learned through experience. You don't have to believe me, but this is a dire situation.

shapenaji · **#139**

badukjr: Then I think it is more accurate to say that this action jeopardizes Japanese support of the game. So, besides the Nihon Kiin (Which is obviously not going to be happy about it) maybe the Kansai Kiin? Have they ever invested in go abroad?

daal · **#140**

badukJr wrote:

Japanese orgs react very badly to being sued.

Part of your argument, here dredged from a previous post, is that there is a cultural misunderstanding going on, and that the Japanese have a different way of doing business than the Americans. While this is undoubtedly true, I can't help but wonder if Japanese companies never sue one another for reasons similar to the SGC's, and if not, would it also be a standard business practice to throw one's weight around and not respond to requests for negotiations?

While the Americans are indeed often rightly accused of cultural ignorance, it's not immediately apparent to me that the SGC is doing something that couldn't happen in Japan.

It seems to me from reading the lawsuit, that the misunderstanding took place well before the litigation, and it was not due to the Pacific Ocean, but rather to differing perceptions on the nature of the agreement. To the Nihon Ki-in, it was contractual, to the SGC it was a matter of good will and an handshake.

Seattle Go Center sues Nihon Ki-in Japan

Who is online