3 ms·

Seems like an expensive lawsuit was an issue: June 2015: "If you add another $18,000 a month in legal fees ... we just can't absorb it on our own." October 20

by crdb 11y ago

Seems like an expensive lawsuit was an issue: June 2015: "If you add another $18,000 a month in legal fees ... we just can't absorb it on our own." October 2015: "We're still working with the other party to wrap up the lawsuit. But to maintain the restaurant at this point it would just continue to put us in a substantial amount of debt. [...] as small business owners, we won't be able to afford a trial, and we really can’t even afford to go through the proceedings leading up to a trail. The realization was that the only way to bring this all to a close is to dissolve the business and move on" http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/10/alma-closing-interview.html http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/10/alma-closing-interview.htm..., http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/06/alma-crowd-funding.html http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/06/alma-crowd-funding.html

dmatthewson 11y ago
Thanks, those articles are helpful in understanding the real issues. This next article gives the other side of the story regarding the lawsuit. http://www.buzzfeed.com/arianelange/alma-lawsuit http://www.buzzfeed.com/arianelange/alma-lawsuit http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/Almacomplaint.pdf http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/...
- crdb 11y ago
  Thanks for these! Very interesting: "... they offered to set up a payment plan to reimburse the money he had spent on the restaurant." Which goes to show - it's a bad idea to do anything before terms have been put down on paper! It is quite amazing when you first start doing business by yourself (as a contractor, entrepreneur, or even chef it seems) how often people "go back on their word". What happens is that both sides have a different idea of the deal, probably picking on whatever hints were in the conversation to interpret them in the most favorable light possible; and in some cases, it's just a case of one side last-minute-changing the deal because they feel the situation has progressed to give them more leverage. In this case, the disagreement could easily have been avoided if they had typed up a term sheet and preferably some kind of legally enforceable shareholder's agreement BEFORE the payments were made. Now begins the PR battle as both sides will try and influence public opinion to protect their reputation.

by crdb 11y ago

dmatthewson 11y ago

Thanks, those articles are helpful in understanding the real issues. This next article gives the other side of the story regarding the lawsuit. http://www.buzzfeed.com/arianelange/alma-lawsuit http://www.buzzfeed.com/arianelange/alma-lawsuit http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/Almacomplaint.pdf http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/...

crdb 11y ago
Thanks for these! Very interesting: "... they offered to set up a payment plan to reimburse the money he had spent on the restaurant." Which goes to show - it's a bad idea to do anything before terms have been put down on paper! It is quite amazing when you first start doing business by yourself (as a contractor, entrepreneur, or even chef it seems) how often people "go back on their word". What happens is that both sides have a different idea of the deal, probably picking on whatever hints were in the conversation to interpret them in the most favorable light possible; and in some cases, it's just a case of one side last-minute-changing the deal because they feel the situation has progressed to give them more leverage. In this case, the disagreement could easily have been avoided if they had typed up a term sheet and preferably some kind of legally enforceable shareholder's agreement BEFORE the payments were made. Now begins the PR battle as both sides will try and influence public opinion to protect their reputation.