Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

[Devin Elliot]

Originally Posted by Lynne Pitts

Joey, et. al

This is an extremely hot subject with a lot at stake for all of us, but that doesn't change the board rules. Personal attacks are as inappropriate as ever. Please keep to the topic and keep the personal venom to yourselves.

Am I missing something ironic in this statement? These entire proceedings are about venom and personal attack. I would say that given the circumstances Joseph's detailed account of an incident involving your ridiculously quoted "Non managing equity partner" are extremely relevant to the situation. And for godsakes can someone from HQ please clear up the repeatedly asked question HTF can a 50% non managing partner become a managing partner with sudden super powers to destroy the affiliate HQ relationship?

Dale if you respond please try and do it with facts this time rather than your previous ambiguous comments. This is a legit question and it would seem reasonable to answer it with at least 50 words.

[Michael Petersen]

Out of curiousity, did Lauren enter in to this agreement prior to filing for divorce? I'm not an attorney (didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night)...but this seems to only cover what happens after you file for divorce.

[Lynne Pitts]

Originally Posted by Devin Elliot

Am I missing something ironic in this statement?

Nothing ironic at all. It's simple. There is a line between discussing a situation and name-calling hostility, and Joey crossed it, as did a few other folks, although less blatantly.

It is not an illegal agreement, as it is expressly premised on court approval. To call this an illegal agreement is, at best, misleading.

There will probably be a hearing before the divorce judge to determine whether this sale should be permitted. The judge can't very well force Mrs. Glassman to hold on to her shares indefinitely, so I'm not sure what grounds would exist to block the sale. Any judge would probably allow Mr. Glassman to match a third party offer. Unfortunately, the VC has probably made a cash offer while Mr. Glassman would probably need to pay out the purchase price over time. That is why HQ has indicated Mr. Glassman has offered more for the shares, while omitting any description of the actual terms of the offer.

[Michael Petersen]

Originally Posted by Devin Elliot

Am I missing something ironic in this statement? These entire proceedings are about venom and personal attack. I would say that given the circumstances Joseph's detailed account of an incident involving your ridiculously quoted "Non managing equity partner" are extremely relevant to the situation. And for godsakes can someone from HQ please clear up the repeatedly asked question HTF can a 50% non managing partner become a managing partner with sudden super powers to destroy the affiliate HQ relationship?

Dale if you respond please try and do it with facts this time rather than your previous ambiguous comments. This is a legit question and it would seem reasonable to answer it with at least 50 words.

Devin, I could shed some light on that. If anyone becomes an owner of any part of CrossFit Inc the officers of the corporation would then have a fiduciary responsibility to act in all shareholders best interests. If they fail to do so, they can be sued by the shareholders. If Anthos owned 1% of CrossFit and Glassman wasnt doing everything he could to maximize that value, Anthos could sue. Right now Glassman can choose to run the company any way he wants. If he wants to intentionally lose money on the Games (which he does), he is not forced to justify this position to anyone. If Anthos (or anyone else) acquires any kind of ownership position, CrossFit Inc will be forced to operate in a very different way than they do currently.

[Katherine Derbyshire]

Originally Posted by Michael Petersen

Devin, I could shed some light on that. If anyone becomes an owner of any part of CrossFit Inc the officers of the corporation would then have a fiduciary responsibility to act in all shareholders best interests. If they fail to do so, they can be sued by the shareholders. If Anthos owned 1% of CrossFit and Glassman wasnt doing everything he could to maximize that value, Anthos could sue. Right now Glassman can choose to run the company any way he wants. If he wants to intentionally lose money on the Games (which he does), he is not forced to justify this position to anyone. If Anthos (or anyone else) acquires any kind of ownership position, CrossFit Inc will be forced to operate in a very different way than they do currently.

Note also that this would be true with *any* divided ownership, including the current structure. So if Mrs. Glassman retained her stake, but didn't like the way CF Inc. was being run, she would also have a right to sue.

Katherine

Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire

Note also that this would be true with *any* divided ownership, including the current structure. So if Mrs. Glassman retained her stake, but didn't like the way CF Inc. was being run, she would also have a right to sue.

Katherine

True, but possibly much more difficult, having apparently cooperated in the business decisions in the past. A new shareholder wouldn't have that history.

[Katherine Derbyshire]

Originally Posted by Thomas Davenport

True, but possibly much more difficult, having apparently cooperated in the business decisions in the past. A new shareholder wouldn't have that history.

On the other hand, the relationship between the current owners has clearly soured somewhat. A new shareholder wouldn't have *that* history, either.

Katherine

[Michael Petersen]

Hence this is the holdup in their divorce. Obviously attorneys on both sides are well versed in this kind of stuff...lot's of angles in play here.

[Devin Elliot]

Originally Posted by Michael Petersen

Devin, I could shed some light on that. If anyone becomes an owner of any part of CrossFit Inc the officers of the corporation would then have a fiduciary responsibility to act in all shareholders best interests. If they fail to do so, they can be sued by the shareholders. If Anthos owned 1% of CrossFit and Glassman wasnt doing everything he could to maximize that value, Anthos could sue. Right now Glassman can choose to run the company any way he wants. If he wants to intentionally lose money on the Games (which he does), he is not forced to justify this position to anyone. If Anthos (or anyone else) acquires any kind of ownership position, CrossFit Inc will be forced to operate in a very different way than they do currently.

Great point.