I got it too-and I don't mind, but it does seem he's trying to use the court of public opinion to win his case, and I'd prefer to see it happen behind closed doors. It also seems he's got a real thing going about Reece and his associates. For all I know he may be right, but he does sound a little vicious. but if he's been wronged, he probably has good reason....I don't know. Haven't been around long enough to have an opinion either way, and don't think I'm entitled to one. I've met Reece once for maybe 10 minutes-but a civil war sure sems to be shaping up.
I DO know a thing or two about business disputes though-and how they get settled, particularly when a debt, or perceived debt is involved. And from the tone of Mr Molberg's letter, I'd say there is no settlement that will make him happy. Because even under the best of circumstances, it would be VERY unsual for anyone to get "made whole". Ain't gonna happen, get over that idea right now. (A lawyer will tell you the same thing.) Your disoute is with a corporation, not an individual. The corporation is gone, the individual has NO responsibility for it's mess, at least legally. There are no assets. You may have tons of documentation, but if you go to a lawyer, that's the ONLY guy who will get any money, even on a contingency, after the expenses.
The way this usually works is there's some kind of offer for a percentage of the perceived debt. In banking, where there is a signed note and an agreement that money is actually owed, when someone defaults and then calls after we take a loss to see if we'll settle, we take 50 cents on the dollar any day of the week as fast as the guy can get there. I mean it's a no brainer. Sure we're mad that we got stiffed, and we don't like the leftover loss, and the guy went back on his word and all that, but hey, what we got is better than nothing. Happens all the time. And this is where there is NO dispute about the debt and a certain court victory for us if we go there.
This is not so clean cut, and my guess is that any settlement offer won't be that high. Now maybe I'm wrong, but that's my guess. say the offer is for 1/3rd of the balances, there's no lawyer in the world who wouldn't advise you to jump on that with all 4 feet-and get over it-because the odds are if theres a lawsuit you wouldn't wind up with even that much, if anything. And I may be way optimistic about the amount here-I don't know all the details-we have settled for less than that on clear cut cases in the past, so you see my point-even when the water is crystal clear, 33-50% of the balance is considered good fortune.
From Mr Molberg's letter, I can tell that will not come close to being satisfactory. Unfortunately the issue has gotten personal, and that's always a bad thing. Now I'm sure he feels that that's all Reece's doing, but that's not the point. The point is to get what you can while the climate is right for a deal. I'm afraid however, that there may be no "reasonable" settlement offer that will not be seen as an insult by some. It won't be helped by those who feel a court fight would be profitable-which it most surely will not. To that end, I will be surprised if anything gets done at all.
Just my opinion on the only part of this I'm educated enough to have an opinion on...
Good Luck to all involved. I hope I'm wrong.
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
