Msa Resolution
Posted: 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.
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.
in other words all will be fine............