Chinese Yellow Pages v. Chinese Overseas Marketing Service Corp.

Filed 8/21/07 Chinese Yellow Pages v. Chinese Overseas Marketing Service Corp. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elizabeth A. Grimes, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Hall R. Marston, Douglas J. Collodel, and Michele L. Flowers for Defendant and Appellant Chinese Overseas Marketing Service Corporation.

Law Offices of J. Jay Chang, and Jye Chang for Defendant and Appellant Alan Kao.

Law Offices of James T. Grant and James T. Grant; Murtagh & Associates and Paul G. Murtagh for Plaintiffs and Respondents Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc., and Chinese Yellow Pages, L.P.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants, Chinese Overseas Marketing Service Corporation (Overseas Marketing), and Alan Kao, appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. and Chinese Yellow Pages, LP, doing business as Chinese Yellow Pages, following a jury trial. We reverse the judgment insofar as it finds defendants committed a contract breach. But we affirm the judgment in all other respects.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Underlying Lawsuit

Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. is a California corporation. Chinese Yellow Pages, LP, is a California limited liability partnership. The two companies, which were joined by a 2001 merger, do business under the fictitious business name of Chinese Yellow Pages. When it is clear which of the two entities was in existence when events occurred, it will be referred to by its specific name. For example prior to the 2001 merger, we will refer to Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. When it is unclear which of the two entities was the subject of testimony, they will be referred to collectively as plaintiffs. Most of the pre‑2002 events involve Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. Defendant, Overseas Marketing, is a California corporation which does business under the fictitious name of Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages. Mr. Kao owns and operates Overseas Marketing. Both plaintiffs and Overseas Marketing publish Chinese language yellow pages directories within the Chinese community in Southern California. The publications are financed by fees paid by advertisers who purchase space in the competing directories. The companies compete for the same advertising customers.

On November 23, 1999, Overseas Marketing filed a lawsuit which alleged Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. engaged in misleading advertising and unfair competition. On October 27, 2000, the parties entered into a settlement and release agreement resolving the lawsuit in its entirety. Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. agreed to: pay $3,750 to Overseas Marketing; refrain from engaging in making, disseminating, or causing to be made or disseminated before the public, in any newspaper, other publication, or advertising device, by public outcry or proclamation, or in any manner whatever, any statement that is untrue or misleading, and that is known, or by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue and misleading[]; and execute a stipulation for entry of judgment which included a permanent injunction. The parties agreed to release each other from any claims they had amongst themselves and the settlement agreement was not an admission of any liability. A confidentiality provision was specifically deleted. Thereafter, Judge Andrea K. Richey entered judgment on the stipulation as well as a related permanent injunction. A joint press release acknowledged that the parties had entered into a confidential settlement which resolved the case in its entirety.

B. The Third Amended Complaint In This Case

In their third amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged claims for: contract breach; intentional contractual relations interference; intentional prospective economic advantage interference; unfair competition; libel; and slander. Plaintiffs alleged that between March 2001 and May 2005 defendants intentionally misrepresented: the outcome of the initial lawsuit; the nature and scope of the stipulated injunction; and the circumstances surrounding the printing of plaintiffs 1999 directory. Plaintiffs further alleged that Overseas Marketing, Mr. Kao, and their counsel, Peter Hwu, distributed a Permanent Injunction Packet. The packet was distributed to advertisers in plaintiffs directories. The packet allegedly misrepresented that plaintiffs defrauded their advertisers by printing only 80,000 copies of its 1999 directory rather than the advertised 100,000 copies. Further, plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations were made concerning their directory circulation. According to the third amended complaint, Overseas Marketing sales staff falsely stated plaintiffs had not printed the number of directories promised to their customers. All of this allegedly was done with Mr. Kaos knowledge and consent. The Overseas Marketing sales representatives also provided the packet to plaintiffs customers.

Plaintiffs further alleged Overseas Marketing distributed a notice to plaintiffs advertisers, which was prepared by Mr. Kao in Chinese. The notice set forth the allegations from the initial lawsuit without reference to either the settlement agreement as a whole or reference to the provision that the resolution of the litigation was not an admission of liability by any party. The notice set forth documents produced during the previous lawsuit and those sections of the Business and Professions Code that forbid false advertising or unfair competition.

The third amended complaint further alleged, Defendants have engaged . . . in an ongoing attempt to severely damage [plaintiffs] business reputation and goodwill and to subvert [plaintiffs] relationships with its existing and potential advertisers. In addition, it was alleged defendants sought to harm plaintiffs financially. This was done in an effort to reduce plaintiffs ability to compete in the Southern California market. Plaintiffs sought: compensatory damages in excess of $1 million as to the first, second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action; punitive damages as to the second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action; injunctive relief as to the second through sixth causes of action; attorneys fees as to first cause of action; costs of suit; and further relief as deemed proper.

C. Trial Testimony

Scarlett Yen was the marketing director at Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. between 1996 and 2000. In that capacity, she reviewed the companys revenue generated by advertisements. There was competition amongst sales personnel who sold advertisements. Ms. Yen dealt with all department managers. Ms. Yen coordinated the sales, production, and administration departments of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. In 1996, the gross revenue for the annual directories was approximately $2 million. It increased thereafter on an average of five to six percent annually. Ms. Yen returned to work for plaintiffs as the business development director between 2001 and 2003. The renewal rate for plaintiffs advertising customers was 87 to 92 percent during her employment. Ms. Yen also dealt with GTE, the printer of their directories. Between 1996 and 2000 Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. was the market leader. It was the first publisher to join the Yellow Pages Publisher Association and won several awards for marketing strategy. Its major competitor was the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages, printed by Overseas Marketing. Overseas Marketing had approximately 50 to 60 percent of the same advertisers as Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. The directory prepared by Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. included information for new immigrants on such topics as: medical resources; motor vehicle testing; long distance calling; and emergency services. In 1999, Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. won an award for developing the China Expo in Los Angeles, which provided a different medium for their advertisers to promote their products or services.

The directories were distributed to local businesses such as supermarkets, restaurants, banks, and book stores where consumers could easily pick up a copy. It was important to circulate the directories in late October or early November for the following year. Plaintiffs directory printing and distribution was audited and certified by a private company.

In April 1997, Ms. Yen signed a contract on behalf of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. with Ledner Cunningham, a sales representative for GTE in Dallas. The contract provided for the printing of 100,000 copies of the 1998 directory. Delays in printing the 1998 edition resulted in additional expenses for Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. in the form of repeat advertisements on the local radio station and in the local newspaper. GTE was also printing the Overseas Marketing directory during that period. GTE employees mistakenly sent Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. proofs to Overseas Marketing. Following negotiations, GTE credited Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. for some of the delay-related expenses.

In September 1998, Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. again contracted through Mr. Cunningham with GTE to print 100,000 copies of the 1999 directory. Because of normal overruns, Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. guaranteed that 100,800 copies of the directory would be printed. On December 30, 1998, a few days prior to the anticipated delivery of the 1999 directory, Ms. Yen learned that GTE was printing only 80,000 copies of the directory rather than the contracted for 100,000 directories. Initially, Mr. Cunningham stated that only 80,000 copies were ordered. However, after reviewing copies of the contracts and checks paid by Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc., Mr. Cunningham acknowledged that 100,000 copies had been ordered. GTE was unable to print the remaining copies immediately because of other orders that were utilizing its printing press. In addition, Mr. Cunningham admitted to Ms. Yen that he had not ordered enough of the special yellow paper from a paper mill to print the contracted for 100,000 copies. Mr. Cunningham estimated that the earliest GTE could print 20,000 additional copies would be the end of February 1999. Ultimately, John Wu, the former chief executive officer of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc., decided not to print additional directories because they could not be distributed until March 1999, when, like a calendar, they would no longer be desirable to the public. This was also well into the time negotiations would be underway for the 2000 directory.

Ms. Yen went on maternity leave in early January 1999. When she returned in September 2001, she learned from the sales personnel that customers who routinely renewed their advertisements were complaining. Ms. Yen had daily conversations with customers to assure them that plaintiffs were not closing, nor going bankrupt, and would continue to print directories. Ms. Yen noted a decline in sales numbers beginning in 2001 and for the next few years.

In September 2001, Ms. Yen was shown a document entitled Permanent Injunction Packet by Joseph Browning. Mr. Browning became president of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. following the 2001 merger. The permanent injunction packet included an unsigned print order for 80,000 directories from GTE. The order did not include a quotation. (In fact, the actual contract entered into by Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. for the 1999 directories with GTE was for 100,000 copies to be printed.) The distribution of the unsigned order for only 80,000 directories suggested to advertisers that plaintiffs were cheating.

Ms. Yen described a telephone conversation with Corina Wu, a distributor for and advertiser in plaintiffs directories. During the course of that conversation, Ms. Wu received a telephone call on another phone from Chris Sun, a salesperson for Overseas Marketing. Ms. Wu placed the call from Mr. Sun on a speaker phone. Ms. Yen could hear the conversation between Mr. Sun and Ms. Wu. Mr. Sun asked Ms. Wu, So are you going to advertise with us? Ms. Wu responded, No, I am not planning to. Mr. Wu said: Well, why do you want to advertise with Chinese Yellow Pages? Theyre not a good company. Theyre dishonest and they financially have problems. Theyll go bankrupt. So why do you want to advertise with them?

Mr. Kao was the owner and operator of Overseas Marketing. Plaintiffs had been his major competitor since the early 1980s. In 1999, Overseas Marketing sued Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. Overseas Marketing alleged the circulation stamp on the 2000 directories was false. Also, Overseas Marketing contended that the claim of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. that over 400,000 directories were distributed nationwide was false. Overseas Marketing sought to enjoin Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. from engaging in misleading advertising. Mr. Kao testified a settlement was reached between the respective attorneys for the two companies. Mr. Kao understood the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement was deleted. As a result, Overseas Marketing employees could talk about the settlement when clients inquired. Mr. Kao acknowledged that two days prior to the settlement, on October 25 and 26, 2000, two articles were published in the Chinese Daily News regarding the settlement. One of the articles spoke of a source from Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages which Mr. Kao believed was Mr. Wu. Mr. Kao denied speaking to the newspaper. Mr. Kao believed the settlement resolved all of the disputes with Chinese Yellow Pages prior to that date.

After the settlement agreement was signed, Mr. Kaos attorney prepared a document in English. Mr. Kao translated the document into Chinese. The document was given to those advertisers who inquired about the initial lawsuit. The document explained that a reduced number of directories had been printed by Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. in 1999 and described the subsequently filed Overseas Marketing false advertising suit. Mr. Kao acknowledged that the document did not explain the settlement agreement. Rather, it stated, Accordingly, on January 26, 2001, Judge Andria K. Richey of Los Angeles Superior Court, for Case No. KC032014, ordered Chinese Yellow Pages to cease and desist from making any untruthful promulgation. At trial, Mr. Kao acknowledged that Judge Richey did not find that Overseas Marketing had proven its false advertising claim.

Mr. Kao also created approximately 100 copies of a packet entitled Permanent Injunction to summarize the results of the lawsuit. Thereafter, at a weekly sales meeting, Mr. Kao informed his sales representatives they could provide that information to advertisers if they inquired about the lawsuit. Mr. Kao did not include the settlement agreement in the Permanent Injunction packet because he thought it involved personal information between the litigants. The document included a quotation from GTE to Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. for an order of 79,718 directories. Mr. Kao acknowledged that no Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. employee signed the quotation and there was no price quoted. The GTE document had been located by Mr. Kaos attorney, Mr. Hwu. The packet also included a claim form to be used by advertisers to request a refund from Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. Mr. Kao also authorized Mr. Hwu to place an article in the Chinese Daily News on October 25, 2000, which discussed the Overseas Marketing lawsuit against Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. The article stated: [Mr.] Kao indicated that Chinese Yellow Pages falsely stated on the cover of [its] year 2000 phone books. That the publication exceeded 100,000 copies. Mr. Kao knows the numbers are false because, We used the same printing company. An article in the October 26, 2000 edition of the Chinese Daily News stated: According to sources close to Chinese [Consumer] Yellow Pages, it contacted Chinese Yellow Pages on the 25th with a merger proposal which was rejected. The response from T.C. Wu of Chinese Yellow Pages said there was never such a proposal. Who cares to sell to him[?]

In addition, Overseas Marketing utilized radio advertisements on KAZN AM 1300, which was the largest radio station in the local Chinese community. The advertisements were aired during commuter drive time. The advertisements included: To avoid being cheated, when you take out an ad in a telephone directory, you have to check the circulation first. Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages is on the same page with you. The term cheated means being lied to in the Chinese community. Another radio advertisement read: Employee: Boss, if you want to take out an ad, why dont you pick the one thats cheaper? [] Boss: That is why Im the boss and you are the employee. If you take out an ad and there is not sufficient circulation, there is no guarantee. Even if its cheaper, its still a waste of money. [] Employee: If you take out an ad in Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages, is there a guarantee of their circulation? [] Boss: Of course. Theyre the only one who guarantees 100,000 copies with contract. No other contract dares to say so. [] . . . Narrator . . . : All smart bosses will choose Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages . . . .

Mr. Kao acknowledged that the number of advertisers Overseas Marketing serves had steadily risen between 2001 and 2005. Overseas Marketings revenue had increased as well during that period. At the time of trial, Overseas Marketings gross revenue for the 2006 directory was approximately $3.5 to $4 million. Overseas Marketing experienced an average revenue growth of five percent each year since 2000. When Mr. Kao was served with the complaint in this lawsuit, he lied about his true identity. Mr. Kao testified: I told him I was Alan Kaos either older brother or younger brother. I dont remember which. On June 14, 2005, Mr. Kao signed a declaration under penalty of perjury in which he stated, This summary was also mailed to certain Overseas customers. Mr. Kaos declaration also indicated, Overseas prepared an 11-page information packet that was mailed to some of its customers. Mr. Kao testified the packet of information was handed out to customers.

Todd Van was the office manager for the law offices of Dale C. Frailey. In that capacity, Mr. Van purchased advertising in both the Chinese Yellow Pages and the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages directories in 2001. On July 18, 2001, Mr. Van received a facsimile transmission from Mary Wang, an Overseas Marketing employee. The facsimile transmission consisted of a 12-page document entitled Permanent Injunction including a notation, Dear Todd, if you did the edition of the 1999 Chinese Yellow Pages, . . . you may ask them to refund you the advertising fee according to the permanent injunction[.] Ms. Wang also telephoned Mr. Van and inquired whether he knew about the lawsuit. Ms. Wang told Mr. Van, Its possible to have a refund back because they have shorted you in their printing. Prior to that time, Mr. Van was unaware of the untitled lawsuit filed by Overseas Marketing.

Chao Yang Li worked at a company known as Bank Card Services. In the past, Bank Card Services purchased advertisements in the Chinese Yellow Pages, plaintiffs directory. In 2005, Bank Card Services purchased advertisements in both the Chinese Yellow Pages and the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages. The advertisement in the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages was the same size and color as the one in the Chinese Yellow Pages. The advertisement in the directory printed by Overseas Marketing was more expensive that the one produced by Chinese Yellow Pages. In July 2005, Mr. Li spoke with Angel Chi, an employee of plaintiffs, regarding renewal of the advertisement. Mr. Li questioned Ms. Chi about the number of directories in circulation. Mr. Li testified he decided not to purchase an advertisement from plaintiffs until the following year.

A portion of Ms. Chis deposition testimony was read to the jury. Ms. Chi testified that she telephoned Mr. Li about a renewal on July 22, 2005. Mr. Li told her that he did not want to renew because he had heard that plaintiffs did not print the advertised number of copies of its annual directory. Mr. Li also said: plaintiffs print less and come out later than Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages; plaintiffs do not distribute their annual directories to the areas where most Chinese consumers are located; and plaintiffs are not as effective as the one published by Overseas Marketing. According to Mr. Li, Chinese Yellow Pages, plaintiffs directory, is not chosen by consumers because they only want one telephone book in their homes. Mr. Li said his primary concern was that he did not think that plaintiffs were printing enough directories. Ms. Chi advised Mr. Li that plaintiffs were printing over 100,000 directories annually and forwarded, via facsimile transmission, a copy of an audit report showing the exact circulation. However, Mr. Li refused to renew his ad in plaintiffs 2006 directory.

When Mr. Browning acquired Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. in May 2001, it had a revenue growth of approximately five percent per year. Mr. Browning and his brother and sister invested approximately $3.5 million in Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc., which amounted to approximately eight times the companys presumed $600,000 pretax annual profit. Mr. Browning discovered the 1999 shortfall approximately one week after the merger closed. This occurred when Mr. Browning was contacted by a journalist. She asked Mr. Browning for his reaction to the permanent injunction. Confused by the inquiry, Mr. Browning described what occurred then: I said, What do you mean, permanent injunction? [] She said, Well the permanent injunction the advertisers are seeing.

Mr. Browning spoke with the previous owner, Mr. Wu, and decided to begin refunding money to advertisers. By September 1, 2001, after securing legal assistance and developing a release form, plaintiffs began making refunds to 1999 advertisers. Approximately 70 percent of the advertisers who could be located received refunds. Some of the advertisers were no longer in business. A subsequent class action was filed August 20, 2001, which resulted in a court order to discontinue contact with advertisers and settlement negotiations. Under the terms of the settlement, Mr. Wu paid approximately $400,000. Mr. Browning paid approximately $1 million. The 1999 advertisers were paid approximately 70 to 80 percent of their billings as refunds. In addition, the 1999 advertisers received credits toward their future advertisements in directories for four years. However, the newspaper advertisements and, in Mr. Brownings words, the smear campaign initiated by defendants in June and July 2001, caused sales to begin to drop prior to the filing of the class action by approximately $375,000. In addition, because of the negative information disseminated by defendants, plaintiffs were forced to extend its sales campaign to recoup losses. By extending the sales campaign, the directory was issued late and plaintiffs lost an additional $70,000 in revenue over the prior year.

On December 27, 2001, the Su and Li law firm, located in the building next to plaintiffs offices, gave a sales representative a request for refund form. In fact, the Su and Li firm had already received a 20 percent refund in October 2001. When Mr. Browning looked at the document, he recognized that the form had been sent via facsimile transmission to the law firm on Christmas Eve when plaintiffs office was closed. Moreover, the phone number on the facsimile transmission itself was different than plaintiffs fax number. Additional refund forms were received within the following month that were not generated by plaintiffs office. Mr. Browning was suing defendants to: recover lost revenue; restore customer confidence; repair damage to plaintiffs reputation; and improve employee morale. Sales representatives were often confronted by advertisers with such claims as, You are a dishonest company. During the four‑year period between the initial distribution of the information packets and trial, Mr. Browning was forced to place company growth plans on hold. The value of plaintiffs business enterprise had been devalued according to Mr. Browning. Mr. Browning believed he could not sell the enterprise for top dollar.

Lloyd James was the general manager of the GTE printing facility from 1994 to November 2003 when he retired. Mr. James was familiar with a reduction in the printing of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. directories from the September 8, 1998 order for 100,000 to 80,000. Mr. Cunningham authorized the reduction in the number of directories to be printed. Mr. James was unaware that Mr. Cunningham had apologized to Ms. Yen over the reduced production of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. directories by GTE. An unidentified employee of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. requested that the additional 20,000 copies of the 1999 directory be printed. But the additional 20,000 directories were never printed because of the six-week estimated printing requirement. Mr. James heard that Mr. Cunningham was later fired. Mr. Cunningham extorted money from Mr. Wu, the former owner of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc.

The parties stipulated that Leonard Lyons was qualified to testify concerning plaintiffs damages. Mr. Lyons had a law degree and a masters degree in business administration in finance and investments. Mr. Lyons worked for the Resolution Trust Corporation investigating potential causes of action for failed savings and loans. Mr. Lyons was hired by plaintiffs to determine whether there were lost profits and diminution in their value. In that capacity, Mr. Lyons reviewed: the revenues generated after Mr. Browning acquired Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc.; the yellow magic system of record keeping for the company to capture revenues and accounts year by year between 2001 and 2004; and the 1998 and 2000 records for the period when Mr. Wu was the owner of Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc., including a database of accounting records related to revenues. Mr. Lyons also compared and merged into a major database approximately 2,500 to 2,700 accounts per year. After reconciling the two databases, Mr. Lyons came very close to calculating the actual numbers as to whether the accounts were renewals or those of new customers. The goal of the review was to determine if there was evidence or any reason, other than the negative information spread by defendants, for the reduction in customer numbers and revenues during 2001 and subsequent years. Mr. Lyons used the following components to determine the damages suffered by plaintiffs as a result of the negative information: the diminution in value of the business; the lost profits, which is a subset of the damages of the loss and value of the business; and the increased financing costs to operate the business.

Mr. Lyons ultimately set forth three projections of lost profits from 2001 to 2009 resulting from the negative information spread by defendants: at a growth rate of 6.5 percent year, the lost profits were $5,795,570; at a 6.5 percent growth rate from 2001 to 2004 and then a 4 percent growth rate from 2005 to 2009, the projected total loss were $4,931,381; and at a 4 percent growth rate from 2001 to 2009, the lost profits of $3,359,81. Mr. Lyons determined that the damages from the defendants spreading of negative information were within a $3-to-$5 million range. He also found, [T]he business was harmed in terms of the value of the business in the little bit higher range because that incorporates the [goodwill] of the business in addition to the lost profits. Mr. Lyons utilized a macroeconomic basis to examine both the state and national economy during the relevant period of 2001 to 2005 as well as plaintiffs growth prior to the settlement of the initial lawsuit. Mr. Lyons observed that the yellow pages directory business in the nation from the 1990s forward grew rapidly including beyond the year 2000. Plaintiffs were growing at a rate higher than the yellow pages directory industry as a whole. Mr. Lyons review included an analysis of Mr. Brownings management practices. Mr. Browning had many years of business experience and knew how to control costs. Nothing related to Mr. Brownings ownership indicated a change in customer retention rates. There was also a stable sales force which would indicate they would continue to increase their revenue or have solid relationships with their repeat customers. On the other hand, Overseas Marketing had significant sales force rotation.

Mr. Lyons examined the 1999 class action and shortfall issues. Plaintiffs gave approximately 60 percent of its advertisers a 20 percent refund. There was no broadly disseminated information about the class action until after the 2001 settlement. As a result, the shortfall did not appear to be a direct cause of the 2001 reduction in customer retention. In his experience as a fraud investigator, Mr. Lyons found that fraud accusations could severely damage a companys reputation.

Between 1998 and 2000, Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. increased revenue by approximately $282,000. In 2001, the revenue decreased by $65,000, despite the fact that the sales campaign was extended by one month. If Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. had closed sales on its usual schedule, the revenues decrease would have been approximately $300,000. In addition, there was a decrease of 140 net customers for the year 2001. In the previous year, Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. gained 151 customers. Mr. Lyons noted that what Mr. Browning referred to as the smear campaign in 2001 involved the distribution of information to potential and existing customers that bad things were occurring. This distribution of negative information included the settlement packet and allegations Mr. Browning was doing bad things. In addition to lost customers, Mr. Lyons also considered that plaintiffs had to give discounts and free upgrades in order to maintain customer loyalty.

The customer renewal rate averaged 90.4 percent between 1998 and 2000. In 2001, the customer renewal rate dropped to 79 percent. Thereafter, the renewal rate gradually increased over the following years to 80, 83, 86, and 91 percent. Mr. Kao testified that his business had grown at approximately 5 percent per year. Without the dissemination of negative information, Mr. Lyons projected that plaintiffs would have grown between 4 and 6.5 percent each year. That projection is consistent with Ms. Yens testimony that Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. had been growing approximately 5 percent per year from 1996 to 2000. Mr. Lyons testified that plaintiffs and Overseas Marketing compete in a two-party system for the Southern Chinese community advertisers. During the same period of time after 2001, if Overseas Marketing had growth rate of 5 percent, those gains were losses to plaintiffs.

Mr. Lyons surmised that based upon a 4 percent growth factor, plaintiffs lost profits were $3,359,817. He considered the 4 percent growth rate to be a very, very conservative estimate. Mr. Lyons also reviewed all companies involved in this type of industry over the five years prior to trial. He studied what the companies sold for versus their revenues. Ultimately, Mr. Lyons concluded that under a 6.5 percent growth rate, the damage to plaintiffs was $5.8 million at the time of trial. Lost profits make up part of the loss of business value. In addition, Mr. Browning was forced to increase borrowing costs, which is another form of damages.

In addition to the decrease in customers, plaintiffs had to give discounts or free upgrades to maintain customer confidence. Mr. Lyons found no other cause for plaintiffs lost revenues and customers. Mr. Lyons review of the deposition transcript of Dr. Jubin Merati, an economist retained by defendants, did not suggest any other cause for plaintiffs losses. Mr. Lyons testified his calculation of plaintiffs losses did not include any duplication of damages.

The parties stipulated that Dr. Merati was qualified to testify as to damage issues on behalf of defendants. Dr. Merati has a Ph.D. in economics and is a forensic economist. Dr. Merati was retained to examine if there were any damages sustained by plaintiffs as a result of any of defendants actions. Dr. Merati reviewed Mr. Lyons analysis. Dr. Merati formed the opinion there was no correlation between what happened to plaintiffs and any of defendants alleged actions. Dr. Merati testified plaintiffs suffered no financial harm. Dr. Merati concluded plaintiffs revenues merely flattened out. He cited figures which showed that the earnings in 1998 and 1998 were about $2.4 million and continued to stay in that range until 2001. The earnings figure then dropped in 2001 by about $60,000 which out of $2.4 million is nothing in Dr. Meratis view. The figures continued another $95,000 up and down and then back up again. The earnings figure was up at the $2.4 million range in 2005. Dr. Merati stated that Mr. Lyons had improperly used regression analysis to reach an opinion which showed financial losses. According to Dr. Merati, Mr. Lyons opinion concerning financial losses was inaccurate. This was because: Mr. Lyons used 2 years to project the next 10 years of business activity; Mr. Lyons failed to use 3 to 5 years of earnings to make a projection; Mr. Lyons methodology was based on wrong assumptions and mathematical errors; Mr. Lyons used billion dollar companies to get comparable values to a $2 million business; Mr. Lyons incorrectly utilized the multiples which are applied to profits not revenues; the loan penalty could not have been caused by the $60,000 loss of revenue; and Mr. Lyons did not take into account the discounts Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. should have given to its customers after the 1999 lawsuit.

The parties stipulated that Dr. Robert Grayson was qualified to testify concerning advertising. Dr. Grayson has a Ph.D. in business; a masters of business administration degree; and a bachelors degree in economics. Dr. Grayson was employed to render an opinion as to why people advertise. Dr. Grayson testified that there was a duopoly between plaintiffs and Overseas Marketing in the Southern California Chinese market for yellow pages advertisements. Credibility and reputation are very important and any damage to reputation would have a significant impact on one of the companys revenues. A directory typically weighs about seven and one-half pounds and he could not fathom why anyone would want more than one. The fact that plaintiffs were charging a lower rate than Overseas Marketing should have overcome everything. If defendants allegations were believed, that would be a factor in an advertisers decision to buy advertising space from Chinese Yellow Pages. If the advertisements and negative statements were repeated, there could be an impact on an advertiser to the extent the allegations are believed.

D. Pretrial and Trial Proceedings

On October 28, 2005, at the final status conference, the trial court ordered the parties to jointly submit jury instructions and jury verdict forms. The trial court stated: [E]verything has to be joint. I want to make one thing real plain. I dont do anything for you. If you cant agree on something, it wont happen at all. When I have had counsel who cant agree on the joint statement of the case, I dont tell the jury what the case is about. I wont tell them a word except that it isnt criminal. [] And if you cant agree on a verdict form, Ill take an oral verdict. I dont do your work, so you have to agree. Okay.

On November 4, 2005, the trial court discussed trial duration estimates. One of defendants lawyers, Christopher Kim, reminded the court that it had previously set aside eight days for trial on July 21, 2004. The trial court stated: Im not going to give you eight. Im going to give you five. Im going to give you the 16th, the 17th, the 18th, the 21st and 22nd. So figure out how to do it in five. The trial court decided that the time would be split evenly between the plaintiffs and defendants. Defense counsel interposed no objections.

Trial began on November 15, 2005. The trial court granted defendants in limine motion to exclude testimony about Chinese culture including the communitys interest in rumor and fear of litigation. The trial court told the parties they had been allocated a total of 18 hours for testimony, opening statements, instruction, and closing argument. Defense counsel interposed no objections. The trial court advised the parties that the trial schedule would have to be changed. This was because the trial court was unavailable on the morning of Monday, November 21, 2005, but that trial would be conducted in the afternoon. The trial court noted that it intended to compensate for the lost time on November 21, 2005, by conducting jury selection on November 15, 2005. The jury was selected and empanelled.

As noted previously, before jury selection commenced, the trial court stated it expected to complete the trial by Monday afternoon, November 21, 2005. On November 18, 2005, the direct examination of Mr. Lyons, the last of plaintiffs witnesses, concluded. Prior to the cross examination of Mr. Lyons, the trial court raised the issue of scheduling the defense witnesses testimony. The following transpired: The Court: Were not having proceedings Monday morning, as you recall, Im sure, and I want to complete the evidence on Monday afternoon. [] Mr. Kim: Yes. [] The Court: And I think we cant do that. []  Mr. Kim: Ill rush through faster. Im sorry. []  The Court: How much more do you have, Mr. Kim? []  Mr. Kim: Quite a bit. []  The Court: Quite a bit. You want to use your time []  Mr. Kim: No, Im not going to use all my time. []  The Court: I would get him off in the next five minutes, if I were you. []  Mr. Kim: I cant do that, your honor. []  The Court: How much time do you need, then? []  Mr. Kim: By fast Im thinking about at least 20 to 30 minutes, probably more like 30.

At this point, during the discussion, the trial court asked one of plaintiffs attorneys, James Grant, if he intended to conduct redirect examination. Mr. Grant stated no redirect examination of Mr. Lyons would be conducted. The trial court then asked Mr. Kim if he wanted to ask the jury to stay until 4:30 p.m. The trial court also stated that it did not want to cut Mr. Kim off if the jury would stay late. Mr. Kim replied he would rather wait until Monday and then added: Ive got four hours, your honor. Mr. Kims comment prompted the following: The Court: No, thats not going to happen anymore. Were going to complete the testimony. Didnt you just tell me youd complete your testimony on Monday afternoon? []  Mr. Kim: Your honor, I going to use whatever hours I have. []  The Court: No, youre not. . . . As will be apparent, the trial court did not carry out this suggestion.

The jurors were then excused for the weekend. After the jurors were excused, the subject of scheduling witness testimony was resumed. Mr. Kim stated that he intended to call three or four witnesses and he characterized their testimony as quick. The trial court subsequently calculated that plaintiffs had used 9 hours and 25 minutes exceeding their allotted time by 25 minutes. Plaintiffs were given an additional 25 minutes for closing. Defendants, which used 6 hours and 25 minutes (including closing), objected to giving plaintiffs additional time. However, Mr. Kim did not request additional time to present defense evidence.

Later, after the jury was instructed, the trial court discussed the verdict form with counsel. Mr. Grant, co-counsel for defendants, stated that he had a problem with the portion of the form dealing with defamation. To which the trial court replied: Just agree on one version for the verdict form. I dont care which it is, but make it simple. I will give a general verdict and then a general verdict form if you cant agree on it. I dont want to spend any more time on this case. This case is ancient and you still cant agree on the verdict form. After a noon recess, the trial court stated, The two Mr. Grants with respective parties are before the court and submitted a general verdict form which you know is more than just a general verdict form, and you stipulated to have this sent in the jury room; is that correct? Mr. Kim and plaintiffs counsel responded, Yes, your honor. The jury returned a $3.5 million verdict in favor of plaintiffs on all the claims. The jury found: defendants conduct warranted a punitive damages award; Overseas Marketing breached the settlement agreement with Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc.; and plaintiffs did not breach the settlement agreement.

E. The Punitive Damages Phase

The trial court ordered production of defendants financial information for the punitive damages phase of the trial. Defendants objected to any testimony by Mr. Lyons as to the reliability of their evidence concerning their financial condition. Defendants further argued: plaintiffs failed to identify Mr. Lyons as an expert witness on this issue; there was no reasonable opportunity to depose Mr. Lyons; and the parties had entered into a stipulation regarding disclosure of expert witnesses. The stipulation provides in part, 6. This stipulation and Order does not apply to any opinion and/or the basis for any opinion that is only offered in rebuttal, where the opinion to which the rebuttal is offered . . . at trial and was not disclosed prior to trial. The trial court found the stipulation did not encompass the punitive damages phase of the trial and defense counsel should have known that an expert witness would be called to testify on the financial condition issue. Because the jury had already found punitive damages were warranted, the trial court ruled that evidence would be limited to net worth.

After the jury was instructed, plaintiffs called Bing Kho, who was Mr. Kaos accountant. Mr. Kho had been hired a few days before the punitive damage phase of the trial. Mr. Kho provided a personal financial statement for Mr. Kao. Mr. Kho looked at appraisal reports for the real estate and company financial statements for Overseas Marketing and South Bay Corporation. Mr. Kao was asked whether he had a 401K plan or retirement plan, certificate of deposits, savings, and anything else of financial value. Mr. Kao responded that he had a checking account containing $9,000 and no other cash assets. Mr. Kho did not look at any documents to support Mr. Kaos statements. Mr. Kho testified that he did a compilation which is the lowest level of accounting service that he could provide. As such, he could not vouch for its accuracy. Mr. Kao admitted the statement was not prepared in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles which require audited computation of financial data.

Mr. Kho testified that Mr. Kao owned three properties, one of which is commercial with a value of $2 million with a $400,000 mortgage. The net worth of the commercial property was between $1.6 and $1.7 million. Mr. Kao also owned a house free and clear with a value of $1.275 million. Mr. and Mrs. Kao wholly own Overseas Marketing which had a book value of $194,962. Mr. Kao acknowledged this is not the fair market value of the company. Mr. Kho concluded that Mr. Kaos financial worth totaled about $3.3 million.

Mr. Kao testified that Overseas Marketing grossed $4.5 million in revenue as of October 31, 2005. The estimate did not include any accounts receivable. Mr. Kao had no idea what the amount of the accounts receivable were or what his bonus would be. Mr. Kao estimated that he received about $500,000 in cash from Overseas in 2004 but after taxes he was had only $9,000 in cash assets.

Mr. Lyons testified in rebuttal to Mr. Kho. Mr. Lyons agreed with Mr. Khos real estate appraisals. However, Mr. Lyons disagreed with: Mr. Kaos personal financial statement; Mr. Kaos financial net worth calculation; and the value of the businesses. According to Mr. Lyons, Mr. Kaos financial statement was based on a compilation of information given to Mr. Kho, the accountant, rather than an audit of financial data which is done for reliability. The financial statement was not calculated on a tax basis and did not utilize generally accepted accounting principles. Mr. Kho should have used the Statement of Position under the American Institute of Public Accountants. Mr. Kho should have used the current market value of assets and liabilities. Mr. Lyons calculated the fair market value of Overseas Marketing as $11.4 million (based on a 3.9 multiple of revenue less a 35 percent discount as a private company) and $14.7 million (based on a 5.0 multiple of revenue as a market leader). Mr. Lyons calculated the value of South Bay Area Yellow Pages, an Overseas Marketing affiliate, to be between $2 million and $2.58 million. Mr. Lyons concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Kao had a net worth between $16 million and $20 million. The jury awarded punitive damages of $500,000 against Mr. Kao and $250,000 against Overseas.

On December 15, 2005, the trial court denied plaintiffs permanent injunction request and defendants motions to dismiss the defamation claims. Judgment was entered on January 6, 2006. Defendants new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict motions were denied on March 6, 2006. Defendants filed a notice of appeal on April 3, 2006.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Trial Management

Defendants argue their due process rights were violated by the trial courts management of the trial. Defendants assign as prejudicial error: the trial courts order that the trial, which occurred Thanksgiving week, would conclude before the holiday; the arbitrary allocation of 18 hours evenly divided between the parties for trial; and depriving defense counsel of his full time and allocating additional time to plaintiff to examine witnesses and close.

The due process claim does not provide a basis for reversal for two reasons. First, Overseas has not cited anything in the record that shows it objected to the trial courts management of the case on due process grounds nor has any reason been presented which warrants us considering this issue for the first time on appeal. Hence, the constitutional claim is waived. (In re S. B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1292, fn. 2; People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 918.)

Second, as defendants concede, trial management is committed to the discretion of the court. (Bergman v. Rifkind & Sterling, Inc. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1386; Moyal v. Lanphear (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 491, 497.) A trial court has inherent power to regulate the proceedings and to effect an orderly disposition of the issues presented by the matter. (Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 635, superseded by statute on alternative grounds, as stated in Olmstead v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 804, 809; Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377-1378.) Errors in trial management can only provide grounds for reversal where the trial court has exercised its discretion in a capricious or arbitrary manner and where there has been a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, 13; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566.)

We need not determine whether the trial courts management orders were erroneous in whole or in part. Rather, we conclude defendants have failed to demonstrate any prejudice to them because of the time limitations imposed by the trial court. On Friday, November 18, 2005, after plaintiffs rested, Mr. Kim advised the trial court that he did not intend to use his all of his allotted time. The trial court stated that it wanted to complete the case by Monday afternoon. Mr. Kim agreed. The following colloquy then occurred: The Court: And I think we cant do that. []  Mr. Kim: Ill rush through faster. Im sorry. []  The Court: How much more do you have, Mr. Kim? []  Mr. Kim: Quite a bit. []  The Court: Quite a bit. You want to use your time []  Mr. Kim: No, Im not going to use all my time. []  The Court: I would get him off in the next five minutes, if I were you. []  Mr. Kim: I cant do that, your honor. []  The Court: How much time do you need, then? []  Mr. Kim: By fast Im thinking about at least 20 to 30 minutes, probably more like 30.

At this point, the trial court asked one of plaintiffs attorneys if he intended to conduct redirect examination. Mr. Grant stated he did not intend to conduct redirect examination. The trial court then asked Mr. Kim if he wanted the jury to stay until 4:30 p.m. The trial court also stated that it did not want to cut Mr. Kim off if the jury would stay late. Mr. Kim replied that he would rather wait until Monday and then added: Ive got four hours, your honor. This statement prompted the following: The Court: No, thats not going to happen anymore. Were going to complete the testimony. Didnt you just tell me youd complete your testimony on Monday afternoon? []  Mr. Kim: Your honor, I going to use whatever hours I have. []  The Court: No, youre not. . . . The court then excused the jury for the weekend.

The trial court then asked of Mr. Kim how many witnesses he intended to call on Monday. Mr. Kim said he intended to call certain additional witnesses but that the examination would be quick. The trial court subsequently calculated that plaintiffs had used 9 hours and 25 minutes exceeding their allotted time by 25 minutes. Plaintiffs were given an additional 25 minutes for closing. Mr. Kim, who had used 6 hours and 25 minutes, objected to giving plaintiffs additional time. The defense witnesses all testified. Defendants have cited no evidence, documentary or testimonial, which was excluded by the trial courts management orders or style of presiding. Therefore, defendants have failed to establish any prejudice based on the trial courts November 18, 2005 orders.

B. Sufficiency Of The Evidence

1. Overview

Plaintiffs argue the evidence is insufficient. We review the judgment for substantial evidence. (Bickelv.City of Piedmont (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1040, 1053, citing Crawfordv. Southern Pacific Co. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 427, 429.) All evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the determination below and conflicts in evidence must be resolved in favor of upholding the judgment. (Bickelv.City of Piedmont, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 1053; Jessup Farmsv.Baldwin (1983) 33 Cal.3d 639, 660.) Under this standard, it is well established that the credibility of witnesses and the weight assigned to their testimony are solely within auspices of the factfinder. (Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1121-1122; Stafford v. Mach (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)

2. Causation and Damages

Defendants argue there was no substantial evidence to support the causation or damages elements of plaintiffs claims. Defendants argue the verdict is based solely on factually unsupported opinion testimony concerning causation and damages. Defendants reason there is no evidence any advertisers stopped or reduced their business activity with defendants. In the trial court, defendants presented evidence the damages model used by Mr. Lyons was inaccurate. Defendants repeat the arguments on appeal as follows : the regression analysis was not based on independent evidence; Mr. Lyons claimed that 1999 performance data was not usable but acknowledged on cross-examination that he had the 1999 data; Mr. Lyons ignored Mr. Brownings testimony that 70 percent of plaintiffs advertisers knew about the shortfall due to settlement agreements and refund checks; Mr. Lyons ignored a judicial admission that the class-action cross-complaint undermined plaintiffs relationships with its customers and Mr. Wus failure to disclose the shortfall; there was contradictory evidence about the number of competitors in the business (Mr. Kao testified there were four and not two as plaintiff maintained); and Mr. Lyons ignored or falsely stated the national and state economies which showed fiscal setbacks and economic declines in 2000 and 2001. Defendants further contend that Mr. Lyons causation opinion failed to properly assess the effect of the class action on damaging plaintiffs reputation.

The weight and credibility of witnesses offering opinion testimony concerning lost profits is a matter for the trier of fact to determine. (Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, 489-490.) The evidence on this issue was conflicting and must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict. (Laico v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 649, 659; Wright v. Beverly Fabrics, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346, 351.) An opinion is not substantial evidence when it is based on speculative assumptions and on facts which are not otherwise proved. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1135-1136; Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 338-339.)

There is substantial evidence defendants misconduct was a legal cause of plaintiffs losses. Dr. Grayson, who was retained by defendants, testified that Overseas Marketing and plaintiffs compete in a duopoly in the Southern California Chinese community. The directories are almost identical and the directory which is printed first will likely be the one a consumer will use. This is because consumers will not want more than one yellow pages directory in their homes. Plaintiffs advertisements were less expensive than those of Overseas Marketing. Thus, plaintiffs should have had an advantage in the duopoly. Dr. Grayson also conceded on cross-examination that a steady drum beat of negative information such as the radio advertisements could impact an advertisers decision to purchase directory advertising.

There was evidence that Overseas Marketing, as one of the competitors in a duopoly, produced and distributed documents entitled Permanent Injunction Packet to potential customers of plaintiffs. The permanent injunction packet included an unsigned print order for 80,000 directories from GTE. The order did not include a quotation. The actual contract for the 1999 directories was for 100,000 copies. According to Ms. Yen, the distribution of the unsigned order would suggest to advertisers that Chinese Yellow Pages was cheating. Overseas Marketing also took out its own radio advertisements which suggested that its competitor cheated advertisers.

Ms. Yen also recalled a telephone conversation with Ms. Wu, a distributor for and advertiser in the Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. During the course of that conversation, Ms. Wu received a telephone call on another phone from Mr. Sun, a salesperson for Overseas Marketing. Ms. Wu placed the call from Mr. Sun on a speaker phone. Ms. Yen could hear the conversation between Mr. Sun and Ms. Wu. Mr. Sun asked Ms. Wu, So are you going to advertise with us? Ms. Wu responded, No, I am not planning to. Mr. Wu said: Well, why do you want to advertise with Chinese Yellow Pages? Theyre not a good company. Theyre dishonest and they financially have problems. Theyll go bankrupt. So why do you want to advertise with them?

There was testimony that, during the preceding years before Overseas Marketing acted to disseminate the information to the potential advertisers, Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. had a growth rate of about five percent per year. After the dissemination of negative information, plaintiffs experienced a decrease in advertisers even though its prices were lower than prices charged by Overseas Marketing. Yet Overseas Marketing had a corresponding increase in the number of advertisements purchased for its directories. Dr. Grayson testified the fact that plaintiffs were charging a lower rate than Overseas Marketing should have overcome all other considerations. If an advertiser believed the negative information promulgated by Overseas Marketing, it would be a factor in the decision to buy advertising from plaintiffs. If the advertisements and statements were steadily repeated, there would be an impact on an advertiser to the extent the negative information was believed. In addition, there was evidence that plaintiffs had to delay a publication date due to renewal problems with its former advertisers. The evidence showed that Overseas Marketing would obtain an advantage over plaintiffs in such a setting. This is because Overseas Marketings directories would be completed first. As Dr. Grayson testified, an advantage would be obtained because he could not fathom why any person would want two seven and one‑half pound yellow pages directories in their homes. Under the circumstances, a jury could reasonably infer that defendants conduct caused advertisers not to purchase advertising space from plaintiffs.

As to the damage issue, citing Kids Universe v. In2Labs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 870, 884, defendants argue that Mr. Lyons relied on legally improper methodologies such as loss of gross revenue rather than lost profits. Defendants assert that Mr. Lyons improperly measured damages as diminution in market value based on the same faulty methodology of loss of revenue rather than lost profits. In Kids Universe v. In2Labs, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at page 884, we did not conclude that loss of revenue was an illegal measure of damages. Rather, we actually held, A plaintiff must show loss of net pecuniary gain, not just loss of gross revenue. (Accord Gerwin v. Southeastern Cal. Assn. of Seventh Day Adventists (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 209, 222-223.) We further held: Net profits are the gains made from sales after deducting the value of the labor, materials, rents, and all expenses, together with the interest of the capital employed. [Citation.] (Kids Universe v. In2Labs, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 884 quoting Gerwin v. Southeastern Cal. Assn. of Seventh Day Adventists, supra, 14 Cal.App.3d at pp. 222-223 and Resort Video, Ltd. v. Laser Video, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1700.)

Further, in Kids Universe our discussion of