In mid-2022, Ironmace Co. Limited (“Ironmace") entered the indie game ecosystem as the new kid on the block


Marketing their new title Dark and Darker through Steam Early Access, the studio garnered substantial praise and attention from both typical consumers and gaming influencers alike. A year later, the rising studio is mired in legal disputes with a large Korean publisher, Nexon, resulting in the game’s removal from Steam and lawsuits in both the United States and South Korea. As of the publication of this article, the U.S. case was dismissed due to America being an inconvenient forum for the lawsuit, while the South Korean case remains ongoing.

The Allegations

Nexon is suing both Ironmace as an entity and two of its top executives, Ju-Hyun Choi and Terence Seungha Park. Nexon makes several allegations: that when Choi was terminated from Nexon, he improperly accessed source code for an unreleased Nexon project (“P3”), recruited other Nexon employees to work for Ironmace, and leveraged P3 assets to quickly cobble together Dark and Darker. A similar case involving stolen trade secrets in game development occurred between NCSoft and Bluehole Studios / En Masse Entertainment. In that case, the Korean criminal court found the former NCSoft employees guilty of stealing the trade secrets and repurposing the assets into a new game and a 2012 U.S. civil lawsuit resulted in an undisclosed settlement.

The Nitty-Gritty: Legal Arguments

When allegedly taking the source code for an unreleased Nexon project, Choi may have wrongfully appropropriated what Nexon was rightfully keeping secret, thereby violating Trade Secret Laws. That is because the law awards protection to a business’ ‘secret sauce,’ if you (1) maintain that information as confidential; and (2) if that information’s value is derived from its confidentiality. In other words, it is valuable because you are keeping it secret.

In game development, a trade secret can take the form of privately designed tools (e.g., code that procedurally generates an area with a medieval theme) that are not publicly available and that a developer has taken measures to keep secret. So far, the Korean courts have found that Ironmace did not steal and repurpose any of Nexon’s protected assets, though more evidence will need to be reviewed in order to determine whether Dark and Darker incorporated actual code or audiovisual material from the P3 files.

The outcome in this case will have significant impacts on the indie game landscape, particularly as more and more executives for AAA developers branch out as studio heads on new IP. For example, a studio like Frost Giant should be wary of “reviving” the classic RTS game, as some of the indie’s top talent had worked on Blizzard’s Warcraft III and Starcraft II, two forerunners of the genre.

Unlike trade secrets, a company can also protect its copyright in information only if that information is (1) an original expression that is (2) fixed in a (3) tangible medium. Infringement occurs when there’s an unauthorized use of another’s copyrightable material resulting in a work that is substantially similar to the original. Among many copyright infringement claims, Nexon alleged that Ironmace used Nexon’s tangible game assets (e.g., audiovisual displays) without Nexon’s permission in creating Dark and Darker and that Dark and Darker had contained the exact same six class options on initial release as did P3 (Barbarian, Cleric, Tanker or Fighter, Wizard, Thief or Rogue, and Ranger). It has since, wisely, added several more classes.

A copyright infringement claim is difficult in games, unless there is a verbatim, or close to verbatim, copying involved because video games are such a diverse and interdisciplinary form of art. This Blog shines light on the borders of copyright protection here. With regard to these arguments it seems that Dark and Darker can likely rely on the so-called doctrine of scènes à faire, which basically says that no one can hold a monopoly on generic tropes necessary to create an individual and original expression and work of art. In a medieval-centric, Dungeons-&-Dragons–esque games like Dark and Darker and P3, players would likely expect to play in such generic roles, as is common across the board for similar games. It is therefore more a question of whether the individual design of the classes as a whole is similar rather than whether the classes are the same.

Take-Away: Make Sure to Start with a Clean Sheet

The Ironmace case is a prime example of what to watch out for if you are starting your own studio—make sure that you have a clean sheet! To avoid the legal headaches caused by misappropriation, wrongfully soliciting former employees, and more, any indie dev leaving another project should ensure they start from scratch and incorporate the following tools into their arsenal:

  • Non-compete and non-solicit exclusivities: Check your employment agreement, acquire a written waiver from the old employer for your new actions, stating that they do not conflict with your plans. Some of these agreements usually include regional limits (i.e., you can’t start a studio within X distance of the other employer) or express bans on creating or joining a competitor to the former employer. Work agreements may also preclude you from soliciting certain customers or vendors that did business with your former employer.
  • Make a different game and create your own content and brand: It is impossible to guarantee that you will not use what you have seen. The distinction between inspiration and copying is a fine line. Hence, make sure to create new assets and avoid using any common elements from the old project, whether we are talking actual game assets, information, or branding. Put the effort into not copying and pasting.
  • Review your former agreements (incl. employment, contractor, or invention assignment agreement) as partner for the scope of your assignment (or even work made for hire) or exclusive licensing of rights to assets and information that you had created previously. Oftentimes, these agreements are far reaching and go beyond only the specific material that is included in the project you worked on, but covers all assets that you created during the time that you worked on that project, regardless of its connection to the project.
  • Lastly, ensure that your partners and employees are screened for the above mentioned issues; otherwise you are implicated by these issues all the same.

There are several other business- and legal-related tasks when starting your own studio. The above list is in no means meant to be comprehensive, but rather for attempting to flag some concerns that you will likely have with your former employer or business (of which you were a founder or member).

Bonus Level (for experts only, read at your own risk): Pick Your “Level”!

Two technical (though important) aspects of the case were jurisdiction (whether the U.S. court’s power to bind parties to an enforceable decision) and venue (whether a U.S. federal court is the proper place to hear the lawsuit). Nexon’s complaint argued that a U.S. court had proper jurisdiction because Ironmace purposefully targeted U.S. consumers through the widespread sale of Dark and Darker throughout the country.

Although the case was initiated in a U.S. federal court in Washington, Ironmace sought dismissal based on forum non conveniens and won, arguing that settling the dispute in the American legal system is both improper and inconvenient. And because Nexon already sued Ironmace for similar criminal claims in a Korean court, the U.S. judge did not wish to hear a case that binds two foreign parties where a remedy can be granted more appropriately by the Korean court.

Interestingly, Ironmace appears to have consented to jurisdiction in the Washington court in its April 2023 response to Valve’s DMCA takedown notice. A unique legal question presented by this turn of events is whether that “consent” would have trumped whatever forum-selection clause was in the former Nexon employees' contracts. These clauses dictate what courts will hear and what law applies in the case of an employer-employee dispute. Ironmace’s motion to dismiss noted that because Korean law applies to this dispute, it’s logical to dismiss the U.S. case and settle the matter in Korea, where the case is further along anyway and where the majority of evidence is located.

While this legal foray may seem annoying or excessive, it can become a deciding factor where a dispute is heard. Furthermore, the journey of disrupting a proceeding before it finds its proper venue can stifle motivation, increase frustration, and create confusion, all of which are viable tools in a dispute. Therefore, studios selling their games in foreign markets should be aware that they may subject themselves to legal actions in those markets. A common tool to control such issues in most cases is to have clear language in your agreements that clarifies where a dispute is heard and what law is applicable.


Author: Matthew Vernace

Release: 11/21/2023

If a French authority wants to know who really stands behind a company registered in the United States, can it find out? The answer sits where three layers of law meet: federal, state, international and they do not always line up.

The federal layer : FinCEN

The United States created a tool designed for precisely this purpose. The Corporate Transparency Act passed in 2021 as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 it created a register of beneficial owners held by FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, to make it harder to hide behind anonymous companies; at launch it was expected to capture tens of millions of entities.1 Then it ran into trouble.


Small businesses challenged it across the country as exceeding Congress’s powers and as an unreasonable search, winning a string of injunctions before the appellate courts ultimately upheld the statute.2 In the meantime, to spare millions of low-risk domestic businesses the compliance burden and to refocus on higher-risk foreign entities, the Treasury narrowed the rule in March 2025: companies formed in the United States are now exempt, and only entities formed abroad and registered to do business in the country still report.3

This was a deliberate choice, not a legal requirement. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent presented it as part of an effort to ease the regulatory burden on American small businesses4. What followed made this even clearer. In December 2025, a federal appeals court “the Eleventh Circuit” ruled that the CTA was constitutional after all, overturning the lower court that had struck it down5. Even so, the narrower rule stayed in force. The result is a register that was built to reveal who owns American companies, but that now covers almost none of them not because reporting became optional, but because the government deliberately narrowed who has to report. A system once expected to cover tens of millions of companies now applies to only about 12,000 foreign ones.

The New York layer

New York had moved in the same direction, for reasons close to home. Anonymous LLCs had long been used to buy New York real estate with money whose origin was hidden, and to shield landlords who mistreat tenants, contractors who commit wage theft and owners who evade tax so the State passed its own LLC Transparency Act to unmask the real people behind such companies and give regulators and law enforcement a way to hold them accountable.6 The law took effect on 1 January 2026, with its own database of owners. But New York had tied its definitions to the federal statute so when Washington narrowed the federal rule, New York’s narrowed with it, and the Governor vetoed the corrective bill in December 2025 to avoid burdening New York businesses beyond the federal baseline.7 The result is striking: the New York law now reaches only non-US LLCs registered in the State. A French company holding a New York LLC may be among the few entities that must actually file, by 31 December 2026, while American LLCs need not.

The international layer : treaties

This is where the real question emerges. Under the US Constitution, only the federal government concludes treaties; a State cannot.8 France therefore cannot simply ask New York for the information its requests travel through federal channels: the France–US tax treaty, the FATCA agreement, mutual legal assistance.9 New York’s confidential, state-run register is not wired into those treaty routes. With the federal register emptied of domestic companies and the State register limited to foreign LLCs, a foreign government searching for the person behind a purely American company faces a genuinely open question. Two legal systems chase the same goal : knowing who owns what, and where the money sits and arrive in very different places.

For a firm whose clients live on both sides of that line, the gap is exactly where counsel earns its place: identifying what foreign clients must file in New York, monitoring federal rules that are still in motion, and keeping a company’s ownership picture clean before anyone has to ask for it.

The same logic governments trading information drives an obligation that touches almost every cross-border client: declaring bank accounts held abroad. France and the United States both demand it, both feed the same machinery of automatic exchange, and both enforce it. What differs is the cost of getting it wrong.

DECLARING ACCOUNTS HELD ABROAD

FRANCE

UNITED STATES

Form 3916

Filed with the annual income-tax return; one form per foreign account.

Civil (tax) penalty for non-declaration: €1,500 per account, each year up to €10,000 for a non-cooperative state.10

The FBAR : FinCEN Form 114

Required for foreign accounts over $10,000 in aggregate; filed with FinCEN.

US civil penalties for non-compliance: up to $16,536 per report (non-willful); for a willful failure, the greater of $165,353 or half the account balance. Criminal penalties may also apply.11

Same architecture but very different stakes.

What held me was not the technical detail but the shape of the thing: a single objective, pursued from two legal traditions, landing far apart. Sitting between them turning one system into the language of the other is the daily work of a cross-border practice.

By Sarah Mansouri · Legal Intern, KBL Roche · New York, June 2026

This article reflects the personal perspective of the author and offers general information on developments in cross-border law as of June 2026. It is not legal advice.

notes and references:

1 Corporate Transparency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5336 (2021). FinCEN estimated about 32.6 million entities would have to report (fincen.gov). 2 Court challenges to the CTA, e.g. Nat’l Small Bus. United v. Yellen (N.D. Ala. 2024) and Texas Top Cop Shop (E.D. Tex. 2024). The federal appeals court (11th Cir.) upheld the Act on 16 Dec. 2025.
3 FinCEN interim final rule limiting reporting to foreign companies, « Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirement Revision and Deadline Extension », 90 Fed. Reg. 13688 (26 mars 2025)
4 Treasury Department press release, "Treasury Department Announces Suspension of Enforcement of Corporate Transparency Act Against U.S. Citizens and Domestic Reporting Companies" (2 mars 2025)
5 The Eleventh Circuit decision — Nat'l Small Bus. United v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 24-10736 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2025)
6 N.Y. bill S.995-B, sponsor’s justification (nysenate.gov); Gov. Hochul, statement on signing the LLC Transparency Act (22 Dec. 2023).
7 N.Y. Limited Liability Company Law § 1106. The corrective bill S.8432 was vetoed on 19 Dec. 2025.
8 U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2 (treaty power is federal) and art. I, § 10 (States may not make treaties).
9 France–U.S. tax treaty of 1994 (information-exchange article) and France–U.S. FATCA agreement of 2013.
10 Code général des impôts, art. 1649 A (duty to declare) and art. 1736, IV (the €1,500 / €10,000 penalty).
11 31 U.S.C. § 5314 (FBAR obligation), § 5321 (civil penalties: up to $16,536, or for willful failures the greater of $165,353 or 50% of the balance) and § 5322 (criminal penalties).

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Subscribe to our newsletter

Latest Articles

Q1 2021 Tax Deadlines

2021 Estimated Tax – 2020 Tax Returns