Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

Bruce Hudson

Super Anarchist
3,251
847
New Zealand
Judge Meyer expects that scheduling for every civil case will anticipate the commencement of trial as soon as possible and not later than 18 months after the filing of the complaint. Provided that the deadlines selected by counsel for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions are reasonable, the Rule 26(f) Report will serve as the basis for the initial scheduling order in the case. The report should provide the Court with a meaningful overview of the case and should serve as a vehicle for the parties to consider narrowing of claims and the possibility of settlement. Judge Meyer generally honors requests for status or settlement conferences and may choose to conduct such conferences in person or by telephone.

http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/content/jeffrey-alker-meyer

 

JimC

Not actually an anarchist.
8,276
1,239
South East England
If the parties were to settle this out of court...
So what you're saying is the only way for legal cases to progress is for the parties to give up on the broken legal system? Do you not spot the irony?

This is not the place for an extended tirade on the evils of the executive class, but suffice to say that the problems of the legal process (and this isn't unique to the legal system) are intrinsic to the way the system has developed and don't require specific collusion by the lawyers. Indeed they're almost certainly entirely ignorant of the wrong they do, because they have been trained to think of it as the correct way to run the process.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

torrid

Super Anarchist
1,089
437
More and more, any time you sign a document for something quasi-legal there is a clause agreeing to arbitration to settle any disputes. For example, I had to sign such a document the last time I bought a new car. I'm not sure how binding it is, but most people get screwed in arbitration. It's never about who is right or wrong, just the easiest path to a settlement.

 
Obituary for Ian Bruce, developed the Laser.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ian-bruce-brought-sailboat-racing-back-to-the-basics-1933-2016-1460751405

Looks like you may need to login in.

Full story below:

By

JAMES R. HAGERTY
Updated April 15, 2016 11:59 p.m. ET10 COMMENTS

Ian Bruce, an engineering school dropout, developed one of the most successful sailboats ever and established it as a fixture in Olympic races. Most of the profits from his Laser dinghy flowed to other people.

Mr. Bruce died March 21 of cancer in Hamilton, Ontario. He was 82.

Through what he described as a fluke, the Canadian industrial designer brought the sport of sailboat racing back to the basics.

“We were all getting complicated,” said Peter Bjorn, a longtime sailing friend and business partner. Races were likely to be won by the sailor able to afford the most expertly equipped and modified boat. Mr. Bruce insisted that all models of the Laser be built the same way and raced without modifications.

That way, said Mr. Bjorn, it wasn’t about the boat: “If you make it go faster, you’re better than me.”

The boat, designed for a single sailor, is so simple that it can be rigged and launched onto the water within 10 minutes of being taken out of the box. “It is a lovely little boat to sail,” said Jeff Martin, a British sailing race organizer.

Ian Boyack Bruce was born in Jamaica into a family of Scottish and French descent that had lived there for 15 generations. His family later moved to the Bahamas, where his father was in the rum business. As a youth, he found sailing a bore and preferred spearfishing. At age 12, he was sent to boarding school in Port Hope, Ontario, where he was a captain of the cricket and ice-hockey teams. At the urging of his father, he then studied engineering at McGill University in Montreal but dropped out after deciding it wasn’t his calling.

For a time he taught ballroom dancing before studying industrial design at Syracuse University. He took up sailboat racing after being pressed by a friend to take the place of an ill crew member in a race and discovering he loved the sport. Mr. Bruce later represented Canada twice in Olympic sailing events and was given an Order of Canada award in 2009 for his contributions to sailing.




While working as an industrial designer in Montreal in the 1960s, he set up a small shop in nearby Pointe-Claire to build racing boats. There was little money in that, so he wanted to make a small mass-market boat that people could strap to the roof of a car and use on weekends.

Mr. Bruce called a friend, Bruce Kirby, editor of a sailing magazine, to ask for a boat design. Mr. Kirby began sketching on a legal pad while they were still on the phone and soon produced detailed design drawings.

Mr. Kirby later persuaded Mr. Bruce to rush out a prototype of the boat to race in the America’s Teacup regatta at Lake Geneva, Wis. The nearly 14-foot boat, with a fiber glass hull, generated so much favorable comment that Mr. Bruce decided to launch it commercially, for less than $700, far cheaper than most dinghies. Mr. Kirby got a design royalty on each boat.

The Laser proved immensely popular world-wide, both for racing and casual sailors. Mr. Bruce’s company, Performance Sailcraft, and partners were soon making it in Canada, California, England, Australia and South Africa, among other places. So far, more than 210,000 of the boats have been produced. Since 1996, Laser races have been included in the Olympic Games.

Performance Sailcraft wasn’t a big money spinner, partly because the Laser was priced so low. A 1976 magazine profile said profits on the first 22,000 Lasers worked out to about 50 cents each.

Mr. Bruce had a chance to sell the firm for nearly $10 million to a U.S. company in the late 1970s but couldn’t get Canadian government approval, according to Ward McKimm, a friend and former business partner. Instead, Mr. Bruce sold his interest in a much less lucrative transaction to two colleagues. Performance Sailcraft went into receivership in the early 1980s, and other firms took over the manufacturing.

“He was very stoic about it,” Mr. McKimm said. “Money was not the most important thing in the world to him.”

Mr. Bruce bounced back by designing other items, including bathtubs and shower stalls. He also kept designing boats, though that never proved very profitable. He spent some of his final winters back in the Bahamas.

Mr. Kirby, the designer of the Laser, said he had made “quite a lot of money” from his royalties over the years. Now, however, at age 87, he is involved in a convoluted legal dispute over royalties with LaserPerformance (Europe) Ltd., a maker of the Laser and other boats, and Farzad Rastegar, an Iranian-born businessman long associated with LaserPerformance.

In a lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, Mr. Kirby has accused LaserPerformance of failing to pay royalties. Mr. Rastegar said in a brief phone interview that Mr. Kirby’s claims were “spurious.”

That dispute is a moot point for the family of Mr. Bruce, which stopped receiving income from the Laser long ago. His two daughters plan a celebration of his life at the Royal St. Lawrence Yacht Club near Montreal in May. Rather than sending flowers, they said, friends might consider “encouraging someone you love to learn to sail.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bruce Hudson

Super Anarchist
3,251
847
New Zealand
This is not the place for an extended tirade on the evils of the executive class, but suffice to say that the problems of the legal process (and this isn't unique to the legal system) are intrinsic to the way the system has developed and don't require specific collusion by the lawyers. Indeed they're almost certainly entirely ignorant of the wrong they do, because they have been trained to think of it as the correct way to run the process.
I agree with you Jim about the lawyers - and would like to extend that to the judge - who appears to be the cause of the extended delay.

Regarding the class executives, last I checked, the ILCA was part of Kirby's legal action. There are unresolved issues between Kirby and the ILCA. I don't think anywhere is the place for "...an extended tirade on the evils of the executive [of the] class..." - however there are valid questions that have been raised by Laser sailors (ILCA members, ILCA ex-members and non-members) which so far have not been answered.

For all I know, some executives may be working tirelessly behind the scenes to resolve the rift that this situation has created.

While the ILCA says little or takes no action (because they are unwilling or unable to), the ILCA gives the appearance that they continue to at least in part support LP's position.

 

tillerman

Super Anarchist
6,195
3,031
Rhode Island
This is not the place for an extended tirade on the evils of the executive class, but suffice to say that the problems of the legal process (and this isn't unique to the legal system) are intrinsic to the way the system has developed and don't require specific collusion by the lawyers. Indeed they're almost certainly entirely ignorant of the wrong they do, because they have been trained to think of it as the correct way to run the process.
I agree with you Jim about the lawyers - and would like to extend that to the judge - who appears to be the cause of the extended delay.

Regarding the class executives, last I checked, the ILCA was part of Kirby's legal action. There are unresolved issues between Kirby and the ILCA. I don't think anywhere is the place for "...an extended tirade on the evils of the executive [of the] class..." - however there are valid questions that have been raised by Laser sailors (ILCA members, ILCA ex-members and non-members) which so far have not been answered.

For all I know, some executives may be working tirelessly behind the scenes to resolve the rift that this situation has created.

While the ILCA says little or takes no action (because they are unwilling or unable to), the ILCA gives the appearance that they continue to at least in part support LP's position.
Gantt - could you be a little more specific on what questions you think ILCA ex-members and non-members have raised which should be answered by the executives of a class of which the questioners are not even members and to which they contribute nothing?

 

RMK

Member
326
0
As a dues paying class member I am quite happy with the class staying out of what is a legal matter between Kirby/PSA and Laser Performance.

As to the legal system being broke, it might be but this case isn't evidence of it. There is no need to rush this through and I don't see either of the parties complaining that it is taking too long

 

JimC

Not actually an anarchist.
8,276
1,239
South East England
This is not the place for an extended tirade on the evils of the executive class, but suffice to say that the problems of the legal process (and this isn't unique to the legal system) are intrinsic to the way the system has developed and don't require specific collusion by the lawyers. Indeed they're almost certainly entirely ignorant of the wrong they do, because they have been trained to think of it as the correct way to run the process.
I agree with you Jim about the lawyers - and would like to extend that to the judge - who appears to be the cause of the extended delay.

Regarding the class executives,
Wasn't talking about the Class Officers.

The executive class I mean is basically that social grouping, consisting of those in executive positions in business, the law, government etc. which is enriching itself at the expense of the majority of the population, both working folk and the nominal business owners, and by manipulating education and intern systems, turning itself into a self perpetuating oligarchy in a perversion of the capitalist system. But this is not the place...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SimonN

Super Anarchist
10,544
776
Sydney ex London
As a dues paying class member I am quite happy with the class staying out of what is a legal matter between Kirby/PSA and Laser Performance.
If you think the class has stayed out of the legal matters, you are sadly mistaken. Whether you believe the class did the right thing or not, the way they changed the rules was at the very heart of the legal matter. Without that change, we would have a very different situation today. Some will argue that it would be much worse, because it might be that we have either poor supply of class legal boats or even no supply and all the knock on effects that would have arisen. Some will argue that without the change, LP would have been forced to negotiate with BK and get the matter resolved quickly, or else risk losing their whole market. I am in the latter camp, and believe that we will not know the end result of the association's actions until well after the matter is settled in court. As usual, the benefit of hindsight will tell us what the right course of action was.

 

Wess

Super Anarchist
As a dues paying class member I am quite happy with the class staying out of what is a legal matter between Kirby/PSA and Laser Performance.
If you think the class has stayed out of the legal matters, you are sadly mistaken. Whether you believe the class did the right thing or not, the way they changed the rules was at the very heart of the legal matter. Without that change, we would have a very different situation today.

A.) Some will argue that it would be much worse, because it might be that we have either poor supply of class legal boats or even no supply and all the knock on effects that would have arisen.

B.) Some will argue that without the change, LP would have been forced to negotiate with BK and get the matter resolved quickly, or else risk losing their whole market.

I am in the latter camp, and believe that we will not know the end result of the association's actions until well after the matter is settled in court. As usual, the benefit of hindsight will tell us what the right course of action was.
That is not completely unfair but its easier for someone who is not a Laser class member to take the risk of path B. For those that are Laser class members path A ensures boats being available (as was/is the case), and lets the parties fight it out in court to their heart's content. Path B also means the class has to take a side and fight a battle that is not our battle.

There was and is little to no risk in path A for Laser class members, assuming class members primary interest is to have a class and access to boats called Lasers. I agree that if you assume class members primary interest is to protect BK's claimed and disputed interests, you might go a different direction but at least for me, that is what courts are for; not class associations. The class association is there for its members; not to uphold BK's side of a commercial dispute. I admit I more often than not enjoy coming here and yanking chains/stirring but I will be serious for a moment.

* There is nothing wrong with class members taking steps to get out of the middle of a commercial dispute they are not a part of.

BK can, could, should, and did finally go to a court to decide the outcome of a commercial dispute (as opposed to have the class uphold his claims which a class manufacturer disputes). Good grief; BK and LP both get their dispute heard in the most appropriate venue for it; a court. And Laser sailors buy and race Lasers. Its a good thing. We sail. They fight. And folks type about it here.

 
As a dues paying class member I am quite happy with the class staying out of what is a legal matter between Kirby/PSA and Laser Performance.
If you think the class has stayed out of the legal matters, you are sadly mistaken. Whether you believe the class did the right thing or not, the way they changed the rules was at the very heart of the legal matter. Without that change, we would have a very different situation today. Some will argue that it would be much worse, because it might be that we have either poor supply of class legal boats or even no supply and all the knock on effects that would have arisen. Some will argue that without the change, LP would have been forced to negotiate with BK and get the matter resolved quickly, or else risk losing their whole market. I am in the latter camp, and believe that we will not know the end result of the association's actions until well after the matter is settled in court. As usual, the benefit of hindsight will tell us what the right course of action was.
In some respects we already have the benfit of hindsight.

From a purely legal standpoint, the ILCA appears to have taken the least litigious path.

They face a nuisance suit of tortious interference from the BKI parties which has made little progress.The tortious interference claim vs ISAF has already been dismissed and the claim versus the Class Association is even weaker. As I recall the BKI parties have not even replied to ICLA motion to dismiss (although I haven't checked in on the filings for a long time, so I'm ready to be corrected) . The case has boiled down to a contractual dispute between LP, PS and BKI.

As I predicted in earlier posts, the tortious interference claim vs ILCA has worse odds than an ice cube in hell of making it to a jury. Simply put it doesn't meet the basic pleading requirements of tortious interference.

Furthermore, the ILCA decision was based on a vote of its membership. Thus for tortious interference, the plaintiff would have to prove either (a) that the membership who voted in favor of the rule change had malicious intent to interfere with trade or ( B) that the voting process was deliberately abused and misrepresentative. Either of those options would require testimony from the membership and we would have heard if members were being deposed. Discovery is over. I think we can safely assume that the claim is dead with a tag on its toe!

I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of the ILCA's position in the matter, merely pointing out that from a legal basis they have threaded their way along the least litigious route.

If the class association had gotten drawn into the dispute by either decertification of a trademark owner's production or refusing to decertify, one suspects The class would have been sued directly and the legal costs would have been substantial. The legal rights of the class to cause a trade mark owner/builder to cease production were very weak. The class rules as written were a can of worms from a strict legal point of view. Class rules do not supersede the law of the land.

 

Wess

Super Anarchist
OK, one last (semi)-serious post then...

Gouvernail said:
The only power the class ever had was to say, "if the boats are not built by somebody who has a contract with Kirby, and the right to use the name Laser we won't score them in our races." Well they have the power and do say more like has to be built by class and builder owned construction manual.


My objection to the class' management of the situation was and remains the continued protection of the businessmen who own the rights to the name. Class is not protecting him; he is in court with Kirby where they both belong to settle a commercial dispute.

Why? LP bases its position upon the fact ANYBODY can build the boat.

The absolute only reason the class won't allow other IDENTICAL boats to be scored in our games is ...... construction manual noted above but like you I am in favor of multiple builders ala Opti. Most Laser class members disagree with me and prefer SMOD version of OD vs Opti version of OD though.

Actually I cannot finish that sentence because I know of no rational reason for locking the game under the absolute control of whoever owns the trademark. Well if you want it called a Laser there is good reason but I am with you as noted above. Heck I would love for BK to deliver on his promise and produce Torches and would be in favor of a Laser class that accepted Torches (at least at the club level like we accept generic sails) but most clas member would disagree with me here too.

Wess and I agree, "we had no reason but personal loyalty to continue to defend Kirby." ( I would continue to defend Kirby he wouldn't) There is no reason (or desire AFAIK) for the class to defend or attack him; let him win or lose in courts on the basis of the merits of his argument.

We also have no reason to defend the owner of the name copyright or trademark except ...,,,, There is no reason (or desire AFAIK) for the class to defend or attack him; let him win or lose in courts on the basis of the merits of his argument besides class members wanting to sail in a Laser class ( I don't care if you call it the TFIG class and include Torches should BK ever actually do what he said as noted),

Another sentence I cannot finish You're welcome...

I bet Melges, Rondar, or a bunch of others could build simply wonderful boats that meet the letter of the law set forth in the triple super secret builders manual. So could BK. He even said he would/was...
Besides, LP want to transfer some non-Laser class production to China and for sure that is a good thing. They gotta be able to do a better job there than some dude in Texas could do. :lol:

Yea, I'm kidding but come on this thread left sanity behind (for the most part) long ago. :p

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SimonN

Super Anarchist
10,544
776
Sydney ex London
Furthermore, the ILCA decision was based on a vote of its membership. Thus for tortious interference, the plaintiff would have to prove either (a) that the membership who voted in favor of the rule change had malicious intent to interfere with trade or ( B) that the voting process was deliberately abused and misrepresentative. Either of those options would require testimony from the membership and we would have heard if members were being deposed. Discovery is over. I think we can safely assume that the claim is dead with a tag on its toe!
A small point here. The vote was actually rather dubious. The ILCA sent out the details of the rule change and did not give both sides of the argument. Knowinmg the other side of the argument would get out, they implored people to vote early, claiming that it was important to do so. Forums are filled with stories of people who feel cheated because they did what the association wanted, believing that they were supporting the association, only to find that they would have voted differently after BK told his side of the story. My understanding is that after BK told his side, votes just about dried up.

While I accept that there are some who would never have voted to support BK by keeping the status quo, it is also clear that if both sides of the story had been known from the start, the amounts of votes on both sides would have been different. Nobody can know if there would have been a different result, but i believe that the association acted in an underhand and deceitful manner.If the class association had gotten drawn into the dispute by either decertification of a trademark owner's production or refusing to decertify,

If the class association had gotten drawn into the dispute by either decertification of a trademark owner's production or refusing to decertify,
This is a complete misrepresentation of what happened. There was no decertification involved. It was exactly the opposite. It was a case of whether to certify or not. The class rules clearly stated that to get a plaque, the boat had to comply with 2 conditions. The LP built boats no longer complied, so plaques (certificates) could not be issued. They changed the rules in order for them to be able to issue certificates.

What really winds me up about the whole situation is that a manufacturer held a gun to the associations head and the association crumbled. Forget what the issue was for a minute, because it is actually no different from the manufacturer saying you can't have Lasers from them any more unless you change any one of the other rules. They changed a rule to ensure supply. Where do we go next? The precedent is set. LP now knows that with the right pressure, the association will crumble.

 

SM123

Member
86
0
California
What really winds me up about the whole situation is that a manufacturer held a gun to the associations head and the association crumbled. Forget what the issue was for a minute, because it is actually no different from the manufacturer saying you can't have Lasers from them any more unless you change any one of the other rules. They changed a rule to ensure supply. Where do we go next? The precedent is set. LP now knows that with the right pressure, the association will crumble.
You seem to be under the impression that this is the ICLA's fight. It isn't. It's BK's fight and, in my opinion, the ICLA only did what was required to enable it to continue to operate.

Was there an alternative builder ready to replace LP?

 

SimonN

Super Anarchist
10,544
776
Sydney ex London
What really winds me up about the whole situation is that a manufacturer held a gun to the associations head and the association crumbled. Forget what the issue was for a minute, because it is actually no different from the manufacturer saying you can't have Lasers from them any more unless you change any one of the other rules. They changed a rule to ensure supply. Where do we go next? The precedent is set. LP now knows that with the right pressure, the association will crumble.
You seem to be under the impression that this is the ICLA's fight. It isn't. It's BK's fight and, in my opinion, the ICLA only did what was required to enable it to continue to operate.

Was there an alternative builder ready to replace LP?
You miss the point. The class had a set of rules. The class changed the rules to ensure one builder kept building the boat. It doesn't matter what that rule is. The builder now knows that all it has to do is threaten to cease production and the class will cave into any demand to change the rules. The rule itself is irrelevant. It is the principal that has now been established.

As for there being somebody to replace LP, yes, there are a number capable of doing so. There is an issue with trademarks, but they aren't insurmountable. Moreover, any other builder would probably be better for the class than LP, who have shown nothing but disdain for the association and only recommenced behaving decently towards the association when they needed the rule change. Before that, they had pulled the plug on paying their fair share of costs through things like advertising and sponsorship. they were simply along for a free ride.

Again, this isn't really isn't that relevant. What was the alternative? If the class had held strong and told LP that the rules had to be complied with, if they had stated that boats without plaques weren't class legal, it would have been a very short time before LP would have sat down with BK and this would have all been resolved. This view is supported by the fact that LP only completely severed contact with BK after they had gained the support of the class.

What the association has done is changed the game. Before, i believe there was a pretty good chance of a settlement where LP kpt building the boats. Now we only have an "all or nothing" situation. If BK wins, the class will lose a builder, because it has gone too far now for BK to agree to allow LP to keep building. In that case, it will be a total mess because the trademark holder for the largest Laser region will not be able to supply boats, and can stop others supplying boats called Laser. If BK wins, the class is in shit.

As for LP, their owner isn't stupid. He has already moved operations away from the US company, placed the trademarks in an offshore entity and if he loses, he will, as he has done before, wind up the US operation so he doesn't need to pay up. In the mean time, he will have pocketed a nice chunk of money that should have gone to BK. And I bet others get hurt as well. Rastigar worked for Boston Consulting and knows how to apply the Boston Consulting Matrix. Look it up and work out his strategy.

Of course, LP could win and if they do, all will be rosy in the Lase world, except that there will be nothing stopping Rastegar continuing to milk away as hard as he can.

In one way I have to admire Rastegar. Because of his total lack of involvement in the sport he makes decisions based solely on very sound business logic. All he is concerned about is maximising his return on investment. It contrasts with the situation 20 years ago with LP's biggest rival, onwed and run by a very successful businessman who loved the sport. The managers of his other companies used to be in despair about how much time and effort he put into the sailboat business and how lax he was in enforcing proper business practice when he did that with his other companies.

 
Furthermore, the ILCA decision was based on a vote of its membership. Thus for tortious interference, the plaintiff would have to prove either (a) that the membership who voted in favor of the rule change had malicious intent to interfere with trade or ( B) that the voting process was deliberately abused and misrepresentative. Either of those options would require testimony from the membership and we would have heard if members were being deposed. Discovery is over. I think we can safely assume that the claim is dead with a tag on its toe!
A small point here. The vote was actually rather dubious........
Indeed, a small point. The tortious interference claim is not merely fatally wounded by not meeting the pleading requirements, it is a corpse!

This is a complete misrepresentation of what happened. There was no decertification involved. It was exactly the opposite. It was a case of whether to certify or not.
The fine distinction between "not certifying" and "de certifying" would not impress anyone if the ILCA had been sued.

Leaving aside the minutiae of this debate, here are my predictions of the winners and losers of the litigation. These are merely speculative predictions for entertainment value only.

WINNERS:

1. Bruce Kirby and his heirs- ironically his position gets stronger the longer the case drags on due to statute of limitations. I expect that Bruce gets to keep his money received for the future royalty stream.

2. ICLA and World Sailing - these organizations strengthen the control of sailors and Laser owners over their destiny. They have effectively taken greater control over any future process to change builder. Any sale of the trademark will have to be approved by ILCA and World Sailing to have any value.

LOOKS LIKE A DRAW BUT IS A LOSS

Laser Performance . Probably fights to a standstill and settles. Ostensibly it wil not have lost much other than legal costs and distraction BUT in reality the oligopoly of supply has been undermined. Builders and trademark owners position going forward depends on the support of ILCA and WS.

LOOKS LIKE A LOSER BUT IS A DRAW

Performance Sailing. Admittedly a bungled and expensive attempt to wrest control of the Asian market. But , after settling they are in approximately the same position as they were before. Both LP and PS are losers because during the course of litigation, the Asian recreational market starts to be supplied by generic, non trade mark boats from a low cost Chinese manufacturer.

 

SimonN

Super Anarchist
10,544
776
Sydney ex London
IPLOre

I hope you are correct at your speculative predictions, because it will get around one of my big fears for the class and that is what would happen if LP wasn't allowed to build the boats any more. It would have been the ultimate SNAFU. The only hope in that situation is that Rastegar woudn't execute a "scorched earth" policy and prevent anybody supplying class legal boats called "Laser" into his market and instead, sold the trademark.

So in the interests of fun, i will add a slightly different take of what a settlement might look like. Rastegar wraps up LP but sells the trademark to a party approved of by all. He will then have achieved the maximum return from his investment and he will never need to deal with sailing again.

Ultimately, for there to be a settlement, Rastegar needs to be able to save face or else he will lose the respect of his investors. He would rather lose in court (and have that excuse) than settle without being able to claim some sort of result (and a draw won't be enough)

 



SA Podcast

Sailing Anarchy Podcast with Scot Tempesta

Sponsored By:

Top