[darryl]

I think they left Parneros in a situation where he had little choice but to sue them. I think it is very personal. B&N set out to ruin his reputation in an attack seldom seen in this type of case. I would describe the way B&N handled it as not only unusual but irrational. Although we don't know the facts and may never know them, I can't come up with a scenario where B&N's behaviour would be rational in the circumstances described. Perhaps this is a simple failure of imagination on my part.

Parneros of course has not exactly held back in his suit. His theory of the case seems to be that Riggio blamed him for the loss of the sale and acted deliberately and vindictively to "set him up". This is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility given the way he was treated and its seeming irrationality. B&N acted to destroy his career and make him effectively unemployable in the future. He has now returned the favour by making the already remote prospect of a sale or substantial investment now virtually impossible, not to mention scaring off any potentially reasonable CEO who may have been prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on the way he was sacked. This was all eminently foreseeable. A rational company would have foreseen it and acted accordingly. Yet more appalling decision-making from B&N. Surely they can't last much longer?