MSA Resolution Revisited

Paul King · From: Gainesville, Texas, USA

I am having serious doubts about the sincerity of the current MSA
owner's advertised “Resolution” proposal regarding the losses suffered
by past customers. I followed their advertised procedure for making a
claim, was ignored, made an inquiry, was then questioned as to the
source of my information about their claim process, then ignored again.
I suspect that by revealing my loss here on the Forum, I will be
excluded from the process as one other person has also been. However,
with their avoidance of my claim, it appears that I am being excluded
anyway. Here is what happened to me:

In 1982 I ordered a new MSA steel from Reece Anderson. When the guitar
was ready in early 1983, my brother and I drove to Dallas from my home
in Gainesville, Texas. By then, Reece had severed his ties to Micro
Inc. and was at a new business location, north of Dallas. When I paid
the balance owing and picked up my new guitar I explained to Reece that
I needed to sell my old steel, an MSA Pro-Am Sidekick that I had also
purchased from him. Reece said he couldn't take it in on trade, but if
I would leave it with him, he would sell it for $350.00 and send me the
money. Bud Carter was there and examined my Pro-Am, but wasn't involved
in the agreement with Reece. It was a few months later that I learned
that MSA had gone out of business. I was led to believe that Reece had
gone bankrupt. I considered my guitar a loss.

Several months ago a steel player friend advised me that he had learned
from reading the Forum that MSA was again building guitars and the new
ownership had made an offer to reimburse everyone who lost money to the
“old” MSA firm when it went out of business back in the ‘80s. When told
of this, I was not even aware of the Forum's existence. (Incidentally,
I have since become a Forum member and have read the many past topics
that have dealt with the MSA matter.) From the information my friend
had gathered back then, I learned about the deadline dates for filing a
claim, which by then was close at hand, and he provided me with the
“new” MSA's address. Just before the June 1st deadline I sent my claim
to Kyle Bennett, who is apparently one of the “new” MSA's owners. When
I mailed my claim to him, I sent it via registered mail. The
information in my claim was the same as I am stating here, which
detailed the agreement Reece Anderson had made with me. Thereafter I
read several of Kyle's and Reece's postings about the new MSA, as well
as waited several weeks. After not hearing anything, I sent the
following e-mail message to Kyle:

quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: PAUL KING
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:42 PM
To: kyle@msapedalsteels.com
Subject: option 1

Kyle, Thanks for the effort you are doing. It speaks very well
of this company to take care of matters from the past regardless of what
happened or who was involved. I never really knew what happened.
Maurice wrote me but could not give any details. The past is gone and no
one can go back and undo anything. I am very glad you and this company
are trying to help the depositors out even though you are not liable.
You can e-mail me at this address or by mail...... Paul King 89 Sunset
Village Gainesville, Texas 76240

I waited 5 weeks without hearing anything, then sent Kyle the following
message:

quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: PAUL KING
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:16 AM
To: kyle@msapedalsteels.com
Subject: resolution process

Dear Kyle,

A few months ago I learned of MSA's "Resolution Process"
after reading about it on the Steel Guitar Forum. I followed the
instructions as to how to make a claim per the deadline of Phase #1. I
forwarded my claim to you by registered mail many weeks ago. I have a
return receipt via the Postal Service revealing that you received my
letter. I have also e-mailed you one time. Since then I have heard
nothing. Was my claim overlooked or perhaps rejected? Would you please
advise me? Perhaps this is a bad e-mail address. Your attention to my
request will be gratefully appreciated. You are to be commended for
trying to make amends for problems that are not of your making.
Sincerely, Paul King

Two days after sending the above message I was surprised to receive the
following e-mail from a Dave Horner, not Kyle Bennett to whom all my
prior correspondence had been directed. Here is Mr. Horner's message to
me:

quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: david horner
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:27 PM
To: paul_kin@msa.com
Cc: reece@msapedalsteels.com; kyle@msapedalsteels.com
Subject: Fw: resolution process

Paul,

I have assisted the new MSA in some administrative
activities in connection with the MSA RESOLUTION process and I am
writing you on behalf of the new MSA. I understand from your email
that you were aware the process incorporated a series of due dates for
receipt of information. We have no record of receiving information from
you during the course of that process.

That, of course, does not mean that you didn't send it-
only that the new MSA has no record of receiving it. Could you please
send a copy (not the original) of the return receipt information, and a
reiteration of the information which gave rise to your initial
correspondence, including a copy of any supporting data, to the new MSA
at:

MSA Pedal Steels Guitars LLC
PO Box 270564
Dallas, Texas 75227-0564
c/o Kyle Bennett

We would appreciate it if you would do that at your
earliest convenience.

Additionally, I understand that you also sent the new MSA
an email dated August 17, 2002, the subject of which was "option 1."
Information regarding options was coded and sent privately to process
participants prescribing a particular form of response. Sharing of that
information was expressly prohibited. And, of course, any breach of
those prohibitions would subject the offender to being removed from the
process. Inasmuch as our correspondence records do not indicate that we
had informed you of those options, and your response was not in the
prescribed form and was not sent within the prescribed time, could you
also include in the above mentioned mailing a copy of any information
you received regarding process options.

Thank you for writing. I'm sure you understand why it is
necessary for the new MSA to establish the authenticity of the standing
of all potential participants in the process.

Please understand that if your initial information was in
fact received by the prescribed time, your "claim" for restitution,
including all of the supporting data, relating to your dealings with the
MSA company which was dissolved some 20 or so years ago, will be fairly
evaluated taking into account the rules of the MSA RESOLUTION process.

Sincerely,

Dave

It was shortly before sending my 8-17-02 message to Kyle Bennett that I
became a registered member on the Forum. It was then that I began
reading all the prior posts about MSA. When done, I began making
inquiries of Forum members who had posted on topics relating to this
issue. I learned that MSA was offering a couple of options for
compensation. I was told that the first option was to receive double
the amount of my original loss. The second option was in the form of
credit, that being three times the amount of a person's loss, but toward
the purchase of one of their new MSA guitars. In my e-mail of 8-17-02,
please note that I listed the subject as “option 1.” The use of those
words appears to have triggered the inquiry from Dave Horner. I wish to
emphasize here that it was not then, nor is it now, my desire to reveal
information that would lead to the disqualification of any prior
depositors. However, I did not learn about the “options” offer from a
past depositor. The information simply came from others who told me
they knew the details of MSA's resolution offer and its procedures. I
was also not aware that the compensation options, or the details of the
resolution offer, was private information and that the claimants were
not permitted to reveal any of its details.

Although Dave Horner's message and instructions to me came from him, I
chose to reply to Kyle Bennett, since he was the one claiming to be in
charge of the resolution process. Here is the reply I sent:

quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: PAUL KING
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:20 PM
To: kyle@msapedalsteels.com
Subject: receipt reply

Kyle, I received an e-mail today from Mr. Horner. He asks that
I send copies of my claim as well as copies of my receipts from the
Postal Service. I will mail them off Monday morning 9/23/02. Thank you
for the quick response concerning this matter. I will look forward to
hearing from you in the future....Paul King

Since this message was sent to Kyle, I have heard nothing from him or
anyone at MSA regarding my claim.

My loss is surely trivial when compared to others who were stiffed for
thousands of dollars by the old MSA firm. However, it was still
$350.00: the amount Reece had agreed to send me when he sold my guitar.

I have had a long time to think about my loss and what has occurred with
my claim. Here are my feelings: Reece Anderson knew he didn't own my
guitar when I entrusted it to him. If he sold it, he should have sent
me the money as he agreed. If he didn't sell it, he should have given
the guitar back to me. He did neither, while all the time knowing my
address and having my phone number. Now, 20 years later, he has
assembled a new MSA ownership group that is nearly identical to those
who owned the old MSA firm. This group has advertised a procedure and
expressed their desire to correct the past injustices suffered by a
number of the trusting customers of their old firm. In reading the many
Forum posts, I find no evidence that they were forced to do this. I am
beginning to conclude that by ignoring my claim and responsibility for
my loss, their "resolution" offer is less than genuine. I am
particularly distressed by Mr. Horner's revelations in his inquiry to
me. Note in his message that he reveals that MSA's communications to
the victims were “coded.” He admits that such coding was done to permit
the new MSA management to identify and catch a past depositor who might
share MSA's secret compensation plan with others, thus disqualifying
them. This makes it appear that the new MSA owners are actually
“setting up” each of the claimants to be disqualified and thereby
excluding them from any compensation, rather than compensating them as
they claim their intent to be. If MSA believes their resolution plan is
truly equitable, I would think they would want everyone in the steel
guitar community to know that their motives are pure and not devious by
being secretive or delivered in “coded” correspondence. Secrets are
always destructive and give rise to suspicion, particularly under the
conditions that I experienced in my loss to Reece, and now, in my
dealings with his new ownership group.

Had it not been for the Forum's existence and a Forum member who knew of
my loss, I would have never learned of MSA's “Resolution” offer.
Without the revelations and subsequent pressure from other Forumites, I
am beginning to question if the current MSA ownership would have ever
made any kind of restitution offer to the victims of 20 years ago. In
reading all the Forum posts regarding this matter, it is interesting
that those responsible for the losses to the depositors always denied
those people's existence until Forum members who knew of their existence
chose to speak up in support of them. Had this not occurred, it looks
like a cover-up would have been the final result. In fact, it looked
like a cover-up was the intent of the "old" MSA owners ever since the
"old" MSA firm collapsed, 20 years ago. I feel the Forum posters should
receive all the credit for the “resolution” procedure, since now I
believe all the old depositors’ losses would have been left to rumor,
with efforts always being made to keep everything “secret” by those who
benefited from those depositors’ money, including my $350 loss of 20
years ago. In conclusion, I ask: Am I wrong in now viewing the current
MSA “resolution” procedure as having many elements of deceit? Am I
wrong in concluding that the “new” MSA ownership is behaving much as the
“old” MSA ownership did?

I know that I followed their advertised procedure and have thus far been
ignored. I am wondering if other Forum members have experienced the
same treatment as I have? Also, I am wondering if any of the past
victims of the old MSA firm have been compensated in any manner, or ever
will be? I have been told that payments to the victims were to have
begun in October. Have compensation payments been made, or is this a
secret too? Paul King, Gainesville, Texas

smike · From: oakland, ca

paul -

i don't know what to say in response to your extremely thorough and eloquent post.... but thank you for writing it.

apparently msa doesn't know how to respond, either.... too bad.

they may know how to make guitars, but they still (after all these years) have an awful lot to learn about customer and public relations...

bruce l.

Joey Ace · From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Dave Horner · From: Heath, Texas, USA

Paul,

You are correct in indicating that the new MSA has attempted to keep MSA RESOLUTION matters confidential among the company and the participants for a variety of reasons. No secret has been made of that from the beginning. It has been clear that the new MSA intended to deal privately with the individuals involved, sought no publicity for the remedial actions described to participants throughout the RESOLUTION process, and insisted that the participants keep details of the process confidential until its conclusion. That has been relayed to the participants in unambiguous terms. No apology is made for that. In almost every case, the participants have abided by the rules of the process and have faithfully and cordially proceeded through the steps of the process. In fact certain of the participants have, themselves, expressed a desire to keep the matter private. Those who elected to disregard the rules of the process have been dropped from participation. As evidenced by the correspondence sent to you, you were not "ignored" as you suggested you were. You were, in fact, treated respectfully even though you did not provide even one shred of supporting evidence for your "claim." Nonetheless, the new MSA was willing to fairly evaluate your situation and make some allowances for the lack of evidentiary support of your "claim." However, due to your obvious disregard for the rules of the process, I have been authorized by the new MSA to tell you that you are correct in suggesting that effective as of now, you are dropped from participation in the process.

Dave

Alan James · From: San Francisco, CA, USA

IMHO this whole settlement scheme and the responses to various postings seems "Clintonesque" to me.

Just depends on your definition of ......

Alan James

Joey Ace · From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Paul posted his side of the story.

Dave replied,

Ray Jenkins · From: Gold Canyon Az. U.S.A.

If you've been cheated,you've been cheated,been lied too,you've been lied too.

2+2=4,any way you look at it.

------------------
Steeling is still legal in Arizona

smike · From: oakland, ca

message to dave horner:

dave -

responding to paul king's request for:

1. a polite response,
2. acknowledgement of receipt of mail where he has a receipt that you guys signed for it,
3. and the fact that reece... great player though he may be... still has a karmic credibility issue

by putting the word "claim" in double quotes is both needlessly sarcastic, and counter-productive.

he DOES have a legitimate claim.... not a "claim".

i have to confess that i am still amazed at the price tag you continue to put on 'msa pride'... surely having reece pick up the phone and call mr. king directly (even if only to say "sorry that happend... please forgive me?") would be a much more cost effective marketing strategy.

but... i will do my best to open my mind to just how well msa is communicating their messaging:

"we have, by far, the most expensive guitar out there, in an ecomony that is softening, targeted at a shrinking demographic... who already have guitars and don't really need new ones... and our company leaders continue to show contempt for anyone foolish enough to put their trust in us back then, or now"

it's an interesting approach... but i don't think i'll be hiring you guys to represent me any time soon.

bruce l

Danny Naccarato · From: Burleson, Texas

I have been biting my tongue for a while here. I am part of the "Resolution Process". I spoke to Kyle and told him I'd like to make a short comment without jeopardizing my participation in the "process".

I am about to receive a Black U-12 serial #4 complete with ATA case, etc. I've been to the shop twice, and have been treated over and above my expectation. They are in the process of fine tuning and tweaking the Single 12's. They have been focused on the D-10's first and foremost and began the work on mine recently.

Many people are jumping to conclusions without knowing the full details. Without going into all of the details yet, I can assure you that many of the unfortunate comments will become irrelevant. Trust me folks, I am looking forward to posting my story on how this guitar came to be.

Danny

smike · From: oakland, ca

dave horner wrote:

In almost every case, the participants have abided by the rules of the process and have faithfully and cordially proceeded through the steps of the process. In fact certain of the participants have, themselves, expressed a desire to keep the matter private.

dave -

the whole point is that nobody really believes that msa is going to compensate anybody. NOWHERE do you guys guarantee you're going to do so, NOWHERE do you promise to do so, and, frankly, i'm betting you won't.

HERE'S THE QUESTION:
has msa made ANY payments to ANYBODY with regards to the resolution process?

surely a simple yes or no would not compromise anybody's confidentiality.

so?

thanks,
bruce

[This message was edited by smike on 06 November 2002 at 02:17 PM.]

smike · From: oakland, ca

danny -

thanks for your post...

did your original loss cover the cost of the new guitar? or did you have to chip in some?

also, how did you hear about the resolution process? from this forum? or bradshaw's mass emailing?

thanks,
bruce l.

Joey Ace · From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

I wonder why MSA is pubicly telling Paul he's no longer has a chance of being dealt with fairly. Could it be a warning to others to keep quiet?

If not, a private email or letter should have been used.

It's also interesting that owners of MSA, who post here regularly, decide to respond thru a third party.

Danny Naccarato · From: Burleson, Texas

SMIKE and others,

I have a personal story about how this all came about, and if y'all will be patient with me, I will share it as soon as I pick up my new axe. I asked Kyle a month or so ago if I would be able to tell my story, with details once I received my axe. He told me I was under no obligation afterwards. I've elected not to yet, as I don't want there to be comments made such as "you'll never get it", etc etc. I've bit my tongue for a while as I wanted people to know there is another side to what they are hearing.

I also told him I would send him and Maurice a copy before posting to be sure there was nothing objectionable, out of courtesy. He told me that was not necessary, and to be honest, I may not now, so that I can attest to the fact I was not under any type of restriction as to what I could or could not say, after completion.

Again, please be a bit patient. It may be a couple of weeks before it's ready, and I have to leave town for a few weeks on the 20th, so I may not be able to get it until Dec. Then I will be glad to answer any questions y'all have.

Danny

Paul King · From: Gainesville, Texas, USA

In my posting I noted that my brother was with me when I went to the old MSA. He saw and heard everything that was done in the deal with Reece. Reece had even hand written me a letter showing MSA had the guitar in their posession. I kept it for years and eventually discarded it. It would have been absolute proof I left the guitar with them. I have a good friend in Texas who is a member of the forum who also knows. I would not use his name without permission. He can post if he so desires. I am not surprised that I have been disqualified srom the Resolution Process. My claim was small compared to the others who left deposits. I was fortunate in that I did receive my new guitar. I hope MSA will go ahead and compensate those individuals.

Kevin Hatton · From: Buffalo, N.Y.

This must be the "NEW Standard" that we all have been hearing about. Mr. King, you sound arrogant. This doesn't smell, it stinks!

Ron Randall · From: Dallas, Texas, USA

Paul,

This is between you and MSA. period.

Get this off the forum.

Kevin Hatton · From: Buffalo, N.Y.

Hey Ron,this isn't Nazi Germany pal. You have no right saying that to a fellow forumite with a legitimate argument. Who are you?

Joey Ace · From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Thank you, Kevin.

Richard Gonzales · From: Davidson, NC USA

Paul- Please explain, if Reece told you that MSA did not take trades. Then by leaving the guitar with Reece, you knew this was personal
between you and Reece and not an MSA issue.
Being within driving distance to Reece's house,why did you not go back and ask for your money or guitar ?? Also there is a small claims process in Texas.

Erv Niehaus · From: Litchfield, MN, USA

I think we should take up a collection for Mr. King. I'd be willing to kick in 50¢.

Ron Randall · From: Dallas, Texas, USA

Kevin,

Have you read the rules for posting on this forum? This topic is clearly in violation.

Who am I?
Ron Randall from Dallas, Texas. Just another member.

Joey Ace · From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Here's the Forum Rules.

I don't see a "clear violation".

Kevin Hatton · From: Buffalo, N.Y.

Ron, specifically what rule does this violate? Maurice, I know you are watching this. Where is this man's money? Kyle?

Richard Gonzales · From: Davidson, NC USA

Reading the Forum rules, this post is defamatory against Reece without any proof!!
This post is in violation of Forum Rules.
b0b should lock it up now!

smike · From: oakland, ca

guys -

each of mr. king's posts have been articulate, and calm. i think there's plenty of room for everybody's opinions, without letting contempt or attitude creep in.

mr. king entrusted his guitar to maurice. maurice took it in. maurice represented (and represents) msa. therefore, msa took in mr. king's guitar, and was responsible for it.

it has been explained many times that folks thought msa had declared bankruptcy, and didn't pursue claims (at that time) that they might have had.

mr. king explains that he didn't find out there was even the slightest chance of getting reimbursed until he read the forum resolution process thread(s). when he attempted to contact msa, they played games with him (what else would you call it when he has a registered mail receipt with kyle bennett's signature on it, and someone else from msa says they have no record of his claim?)

i don't know what maurice and mr. king's relationship was, or has been over the last twenty years... but all mr. king did was try to follow msa's rules for the resolution process. msa gave him NO indication they were even considering his claim, and dave horner's forum response, though quite lawerly, was not at all nice or well-considered.

msa's biggest issue is not price, but how the company is perceived. even if they DO (finally) reimburse the victims, they have no one but themselves to blame for the graceless bungling of potential marketing moments.

they could have come out of all of this as heroes, as the nicest steel guitar company in the world, smelling like a rose, doing right by those who had inadvertantly done wrong.

instead, reece's continued denials of what happened kept him out of the hall of fame, and he and the rest of the (new) msa leadership get to share the responsibility for how the company is perceived.

clearlyÊthe public relations stink was the predominant motivating factor in the 'resolution process'... too bad it wasn't "doing right by your customers and community"... and too bad it tarnished reputations, involved a lawsuit, and divided the community.

not exactly a stellar example of christian ethics in motion...

bruce l.

[This message was edited by smike on 07 November 2002 at 11:42 AM.]

Forum Index > Upcoming Event Announcements	Goto page 1, 2 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic