EMAIL DETAILS
SUBJECT:
Burnham Asset Management: Talking Points
PRI: HIGH
FROM:
G
george.mesires@faegrebd.com
DATE:
2016-08-24 03:34:21
MSG_ID:
<42083C1EC3CF1741BA2902F1A0AB5EF9194EA1F3@S01P-EXCHDAG4.intfirm.com>
RECIPIENTS:
TO:
E
eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com
H
hbiden@rosemontseneca.com
CONTENT:
TEXT: YES |
HTML: YES
PROCESSED
Termination Agreement - Burnham Asset Management & Rosemont Seneca Partners * No doubt, an unfortunate and disappointing situation. When news first broke earlier this Spring, it was our hope that we could separate our businesses amicably and swiftly. * To that end, in May 2016 - over three months ago - our lawyers sent BAM's counsel (Nick Hoffman) and Andrew a draft Termination Agreement to (i) terminate the Asset Assignment Agreement, and (ii) terminate Hunter / Eric / Joan's employment agreements. * Unfortunately, it is the end of August, and there has been little progress, if not regression. * To be clear, we don't view this as negotiable - neither the provisions of our draft Termination Agreement - nor your request for Hunter to compensate BAM in a compromised amount of $104,000 (BAM contends it is owed $208,000). * Our original draft of the Termination Agreement is the document that we are requiring you to sign. * BAM sought to make certain revisions to the Termination Agreement, which we view as inappropriate considering the commercial realities of this situation and the culpable parties. o So we reject those changes, and we are reverting to our original draft. We previously explained this to your counsel (Nick Hoffman) o First, Hunter's resignation as a board member should be effective when you were first advised - May 2016 [Eric - do you know if BAM accepted Hunter's resignation in May?] . o Second, we are not agreeable to a mutual release. At this juncture, we are evaluating claims that would dwarf the amounts that you contend are owed BAM. [Consider granting a mutual release if BAM drops demand for $104,000] o Third, we are not agreeable to a mutual indemnification. We had no involvement, let alone any knowledge of what was happening within BAM and its affiliates. o Fourth, with respect to confidentiality, we can agree to a reasonable confidentiality provision, but we must be able to respond to press inquiries, and to government inquiries. * Lastly, it is really inappropriate that BAM would seek to collect $100K from Hunter for this divorce, which is BAM's fault, not ours. o And while we did not parse through your math closely, rest assured, we brought value to this relationship well in excess of the $100K you seek (e.g., Harvest's investment), and our potential damages from this catastrophe would well eclipse any amounts owed. o [Consider agreement to release claims against BAM if BAM agrees to drop its demand for compensation]. * In short, we think it's best if we resolve this quickly and amicably, as originally anticipated. George R. Mesires Partner george.mesires@FaegreBD.com<mailto:george.mesires@FaegreBD.com> Download vCard<http://www.faegrebd.com/vcard/george.mesires.vcf> D: +1 312 356 5101 | M: +1 312 972 4151 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP<http://www.FaegreBD.com> 311 S. Wacker Drive | Suite 4300 | Chicago, IL 60606, USA
METADATA:
THREAD:
TOPIC:
Burnham Asset Management: Talking Points
INDEX:
AdH9uGZU0MqZhYqxTCKWHWERPUVgTw==