Msa Resolution

Dave Horner · Post by **Dave Horner** » 30 Mar 2002 7:12 am

MSA RESOLUTION

As many of you may have read, there have been discussions about whether the MSA Corporation that discontinued business approximately 19 years ago is obligated to return certain deposits received during the period immediately prior to its demise. Conversation about the subject seems to have generated more heat than light. One “side” holds the position that nothing unjust occurred and that good faith attempts at restitution were undertaken even after legal obligations terminated with the dissolution of the Corporation. The “other side” contends that recompense is owed at least as a matter of principle, if not a matter of law. The subject has drawn additional recent attention, apparently due in no small measure to the in-process formation of a totally new “MSA” corporation two decades after the original corporation suffered involuntary liquidation. The fact that the new corporation involves some individuals and vendors formerly associated with and attempts to serve the same market as, the failed MSA has fueled this discussion.

This post is not about embarrassing anyone (on either “side”), name-calling, favorable or unfavorable publicity, litigation or about any other such purpose. I had no investment in the old MSA Corporation and have no investment in the new “MSA” Corporation. Neither was I nor am I an employee or hireling of either.

I am, however, a friend of some of the persons involved with the old MSA Corporation including Reece Anderson, and some of the persons involved with the new MSA Corporation. Further, the principals of MSA have asked me, as a friend but otherwise unattached to the controversy, to help them attempt to identify those individuals who previously paid MSA for products they did not receive.
This attempt should not be construed as the acknowledgment of any liability on behalf of the new MSA Corporation. This is about people who believe that resolving these matters transcends all legal issues, regardless of which side of the matter one may embrace.

I have agreed to help assemble data by means of this request to (1) determine the names and (hopefully email) addresses of and (2) obtain succinct information regarding the basis and amount of their un-refunded payments. I suggested that Reece not rely solely on whatever records he may have since as this juncture they are unlikely to be complete. And, further, whether or not Reece or anyone else regards them as complete, they may not be so regarded by others, or may thought to be self-serving.

The process of gathering data will extend until June 1, 2002, and that date will mark the conclusion of the data collection process. I will provide the information to the principals of MSA. As an important aside, the principals of MSA have informed me that the fact that a person received or did not receive shares of stock in the Comstock Company (if that’s the correct name) will not impact that person’s status in this process.

Therefore, I request that individuals who believe they are entitled to recompense from the old MSA email me (1) your name and email address, and (2) a succinct statement of the basis for your claim, and a description of any information you possess which is supportive of your position (not a copy at this time – merely a description).
Further, if you know of others similarly situated who may not be aware of this request, I would appreciate it if you would alert him or her and provide me a way to contact each one (preferably an email address), and/or ask that they contact me. From this point forward, should any person choose not to participate, or prefer to air complaints through some other means, or have them so aired, the principals of MSA have informed me that he or she will not be included in this process.

In summary, the principals of MSA have asked me, as a friend, to assist them in attempting to locate and obtain relevant information from those persons who prior to 1984 paid the old MSA for products they did not receive. Despite their belief that neither they nor any MSA Corporation has any legal liability derived from the 1980 era company and, furthermore, have no intention of creating any such liability by inference or otherwise, those principals of MSA have nonetheless conveyed to me that they have a desire to equitably address this issue. I request that the principals of MSA legitimize this post by their indication that they are supportive of the process outlined above.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter,

Dave Horner

P.S. Jim Molberg posted “Responses to the MSA Responses” yesterday on March 29, 2002. Please do not suppose that my post above is in any way a result of or an answer to that post. It is not. I have been drafting my post during the past few days as time has allowed and have frequently conferred with the MSA principals about the process set forth above since they sought my assistance some few weeks ago. Beginning on 3/19/2002, and extending for a week or so thereafter, I exchanged emails with Tom Bradshaw and previewed for him the intentions of the MSA principals as are incorporated in this post and asked for his inputs and support. Our last contact was a phone call that I made to him last weekend, again requesting his assistance in finding the information referred to above. Similarly, on 3/23/2002, I sent the first of several emails to Jim Molberg asking for his support and requesting information of the type requested in this post, also previewing for him the desires and intentions of the MSA principals as expressed above. Jim provided some information to me a couple of days ago. I wish them both well, and again invite them both to be part of the process of developing information in an effort to resolve the matters. I disclosed to both Tom and Jim my friendship with the MSA principals. Further, I told them both that I have not lived these matters and do not pretend to be an expert on the years of fact and folklore about them. In fairness, to the best of my knowledge, Bobbe Seymour was not aware of the MSA principals’ plan when he posted a web address about “MSA deposits” on the “Pedal Steel” in the Forum, and that post was merely informational. The respective positions of the parties have been well chronicled. My opinion is that a rehash of the history of this debate is unlikely to change any positions or promote conciliatory dialogue. In that sense, to me, the facts and folklore become less relevant and, in fact, pale in importance in comparison with an attempt at resolution - an attempt the MSA principals desire to make. Peace to everyone.

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 30 Mar 2002 7:14 am

My brother and I as MSA principals fully endorse this post and the process it describes.

Kyle Bennett · Post by **Kyle Bennett** » 30 Mar 2002 7:14 am

I am a principal in the new MSA Company and I fully endorse this post and the process it describes.

Kyle Bennett

Bobbe Seymour · Post by **Bobbe Seymour** » 30 Mar 2002 12:45 pm

First of all, I think this is a great start to a happy ending. Dave Horner should be commended for his work and caring on this. I feel a few questions could be addressed to help this outcome, such as: A list of the wronged from the past is being compiled? Then what happens to or for the people on this list? Is Kyle Bennett and Co. going to build this guitar again only with carbon fibre and foam? Who is going to handel the sales/dealmaking in the future? Bookwork? Telephones etc? All the same people as before? Is Peavey going to distribute this product as this was in the process of being previously?
These are all questions that I am hearing from most everyone and feel it would be nice to hear these simple answers addressed soon so all this can be put aside forever and life can go on.
These were all questions that others have asked, now I have some of my own.
Is the new organization going to be a "Direct" to user company or will it be selling to a distrubuter? It seems to me that with a dealer network, and a distributer,no one would have any concerns with the past repeating it's self(good or bad, I'm not infering anything here).
In my personal opinion,being involved in the sales of musical products for a whole lifetime, with sucess, the correct way to do this is to do it the "professional way, the way every other company does it. This way, NO ONE will have any worrys about anything going wrong and no one has a chance of losing money, ever!
The manufacturer builds the goods on a production line to keep cost down and quility up, sends the goods to a distrubutor who pays the bills in 30 days,who sends the goods to a dealer, who pays in 30 days, the dealer sells to the user. This is the way all other goods are manufactured are gotten to the user. It is the cheapest , fastest,safest way to do good business. This would just about garrentee the sucess of any future steel company now as the market for our product has never been better.
I wish the BEST to MSA in the future and will be behind any good clean business venture. With the internet today and comunication the way it is, it would pretty hard to be anything but.
I can see this coming to an end soon and there is a chance all will be happy.
Bobbe
[This message was edited by BobbeSeymour on 30 March 2002 at 12:55 PM.][This message was edited by BobbeSeymour on 30 March 2002 at 12:56 PM.]

David Wright · Post by **David Wright** » 30 Mar 2002 2:02 pm

I think if you go to the web sight most all can be explained, as far as who is going to answere phones, bookwork,ect,

As far as materials use well it just isn't what we have sceen in the past 50 + years of the building of steel guitar, It's new and fresh, and it's being done by nothing less than a first class company, don't take my word go look for yourself.
Kyle Bennett
I'm sure that Kyle would be more that happy to answere all and any questions brough up by Seymour, One more thing befor I close , Bobby, why do you fell it nesserary to stir the shit, I think when all of this is done,you will have a very short stick to stir with

in other words all will be fine............
As I always say and believe,
If you don't start no shit, There won't be no shit..... Austin 3:16

------------------
[url=http://david_wright1.tripod.com/]My Web Page[/url]
Sierra Guitars
Sierra S-12 9&7
Peavey-2000-PX-300
S.L.T.

JB Arnold · Post by **JB Arnold** » 30 Mar 2002 2:25 pm

It seems to me that as smart businessmen, the MSA folks already knew they would have to address this issue whether they believed the claims had any merit or not-the perception is that there's a mess out there, and it was going to have to be looked at.

I just hope everyone realizes this is a business situation-and the emotions are going to have to go on the back burner. In fact, they will probably have to go out the window altogether. The bargaining table is no place for egos or closed minds. This isn't about emotional closure-it's about cutting a deal. A little too cold, blunt, and to the point perhaps, but true.

And to that end I suspect that the rest of this should get left to the parties involved. The deal making process works best without an audience.

My only thoughts on the subject....and I'm not sure I'm even entitled to those!

John

------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Mullen Royal Precision D-10 8 & 5
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net

[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 30 March 2002 at 02:26 PM.][This message was edited by JB Arnold on 30 March 2002 at 02:27 PM.]

Bobbe Seymour · Post by **Bobbe Seymour** » 30 Mar 2002 2:47 pm

J.B.,nice post, you are correct, As I stated before, this could be the positive start of a new direction in steel guitar.
I have stated everything I want to on this subject, I will post no more, my intention was never to stir up anything but to get this out in the open and get it all over quickly so we can get on with new ventures and life it's self. I feel this is done and I'm getting ready to be "outta' here". As a player, dealer I have interest in a happy outcome to this situation. Lets see what the future brings.
bobbe

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 30 Mar 2002 2:53 pm

Due to some vagueness in the starting post of this thread, I think the questions raised are legit; especially, what exactly will the remedy be?

I am not too impressed with the leg humpers and that includes the poor attempt at humor by making fun of scripture references.

Instead I prefer: Confusion say, "He who indiscriminately humpeth leg of friend, is as loyal as a dog, but not as wise..."

Post by **b0b** » 30 Mar 2002 7:43 pm

I have stated everything I want to on this subject, I will post no more...

I'm going to hold you to that, Bobbe.

Since the topic isn't about "Instruments, mechanical issues, tunings, techniques, etc.", I'm moving it to "Events and Announcements".

------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/coolb0b2.gif" border="0"> Bobby Lee
-b0b- quasar@b0b.com 
-System Administrator