Whats going on with this lawsuit?
Pioneer submitted a motion for summary judgement that was marked fully submitted on the 11th. Courts have 60 days to decide.
Pioneer submitted evidence that there was an agreement to pay $1MM of the purchase price over 10 years via a consulting contract. Winkoff disagrees and says that he never would have paid that much for the business.
Seems to me Winkoff realized he overpaid for FLG and decided to stiff Jahelka. His defense is that he didn't understand the contract.
Didn't think ignorance was a defense. I guess we will all see. I do like what FLG is turning into. If they can present themselves the way they have recently been on the Podcast and social media, I think things are looking good.
As for the other side, are they proven cheaters, and their position tainted?
Winkoff claims that the consulting agreement (which is at the core of this legal battle) is ambiguous therefore the interpretation of the non-authoring party prevails. There is a general rule that a court will construe ambiguous contract terms against the drafter of the agreement. But this rule only applies where one contracting party is in a superior bargaining position, usually either as a result of greater experience or the assistance of counsel.
The total negotiated sale price, according to Jahelka, was $1.75MM. Winkoff paid $750K in cash but the other $1MM was to be paid over 10 years ($100K/year) via a consulting contract with Jahelka's consulting company, Pioneer. Payments were to be made regardless of whether or not services were rendered. The consulting contract and emails presented appear to show that Winkoff had an understanding of both the price and the terms and conditions of the consulting contract.
Are they proven cheaters? Well, no, not yet, anyway. Is their position tainted? If what Jahelka alleges is true, Winkoff is trying to steal $1MM from him. Does that taint FLG?
We shall see.
Reply
Quote