Fired CEO sues B&N: Soap Opera launched

[darryl]

All emotional language and actual guilt or innocence aside, if I was a shareholder I would be incensed at the way this was handled. B&N could and should have foreseen this as not only the possible result but the likely one. I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that a lawyer should be instructed to avoid the relevant use of "emotional language" in pleadings out of some misguided desire to take the moral high ground and appear more professional than one's opponent. Emotional language or not, it is the claim itself and the possible liability which does the real damage.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

@rcrentos: I am unimpressed by your bragging successfully defending two cases for your family. By mentioning your age at the time I have to assume you were officially unqualified as an attorney of law on top of that. Doesn't do a thing for me, sorry.

Well, since I failed to make my point (I was in a hurry and had to head out the door) I can understand why you were unimpressed. My point wasn't to impress you or to brag about my ability, it was to illustrate the fact that someone being a lawyer (and passing the bar exam) doesn't really mean diddly squat about their skills or intelligence. If some kid, who knew nothing, could research the law and write motions that got cases dismissed, that means that the charges should have never been made in the first place and that the city attorney's inability to see this means he was most likely incompetent — yet he held the job. Not impressed.

As for my being "officially unqualified" to defend my family members, you obviously don't know how the U.S. court system works. Any person can defend themselves in a court of law. You don't have to be "qualified" to write a motion. Although, when I filed the second motion (for my brother) the Country Clerk told me "the judge will just throw it out." I had to tell her to just file it, it wasn't her job to make the ruling.

I had the FACTS on my side. That's why we won. I didn't grandstand by making juvenile "emotional" accusations. And now we're back to why I wrote my original post you responded to.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by darryl

If only this was the case. Personally I would prefer a lawyer who lives in the real world. Defamation claims often incorporate fairly emotional language, particularly if malice or aggravated damages are claimed. If Mr Riggio did blaime Parneros for the sale falling through and acted as claimed, the pleading is very relevant as is. And, in the US, I expect at least the defamation part of the trial will be before a jury. So much for "emotional language" not being used. Cases indeed should be decided on their merits in a courtroom. Sadly, this is not always the case. Courts are very sensitive to publicity about cases before the Court, but they cannot control it perfectly.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think the emotional pleading should be left for the jury — not in press releases or in the motions. I'm also not convinced that "real world" lawyers need this kind of emotional, juvenile language. I think the FACTS (providing there are valid facts to bolster the case) are much more effective when presented in a cold, calculated, step-by-step manner. It makes the lawyer look competent and confident — even if he's only bluffing.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Well, since I failed to make my point (I was in a hurry and had to head out the door) I can understand why you were unimpressed. My point wasn't to impress you or to brag about my ability, it was to illustrate the fact that someone being a lawyer (and passing the bar exam) doesn't really mean diddly squat about their skills or intelligence. If some kid, who knew nothing, could research the law and write motions that got cases dismissed, that means that the charges should have never been made in the first place and that the city attorney's inability to see this means he was most likely incompetent — yet he held the job. Not impressed.

As for my being "officially unqualified" to defend my family members, you obviously don't know how the U.S. court system works. Any person can defend themselves in a court of law. You don't have to be "qualified" to write a motion. Although, when I filed the second motion (for my brother) the Country Clerk told me "the judge will just throw it out." I had to tell her to just file it, it wasn't her job to make the ruling.

I had the FACTS on my side. That's why we won. I didn't grandstand by making juvenile "emotional" accusations. And now we're back to why I wrote my original post you responded to.

I understand the right to waive a lawyer. And doing so is risky in most cases, especially when the chance of winning is unclear at best. Sure there is bad lawyers not worth their money, and some that are outright mean. That is in every profession. Like the one you were up against, and you are probably lucky it went this smooth. As with most things in life, usually a professional is better suited to give satisfactory results than a diy or layman job. They are professionals for a reason.

Why do many lawyers defend guilty people that they know are guilty with the facts clearly against them? Because the prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer is not always perfect, a mistake can dismiss the case or get an acquittal.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I understand what you're saying, but I still think the emotional pleading should be left for the jury — not in press releases or in the motions. I'm also not convinced that "real world" lawyers need this kind of emotional, juvenile language. I think the FACTS (providing there are valid facts to bolster the case) are much more effective when presented in a cold, calculated, step-by-step manner. It makes the lawyer look competent and confident — even if he's only bluffing.

Interesting. I agree with you that lawyers, like any profession or trade, run the gamut from brilliant to incompetent. Otherwise I see where you are coming from but I can't agree. The real world is a rough place, and humans are far from perfect, myself included. But if he was sacked on a pretext when the real reason was that he was blamed for the collapse of the sale I can't think of any materially different way to plead it in the proceedings. And to leave it out would prejudice the case.

I should also point out when I refer to pleadings here I am referring to the allegations of fact in the originating process. These allegations must be sufficient to justify your claim if they can be proven to be more probable than not by evidence. There are some particular matters where you must also provide detailed particulars of your claim. You can't leave part of it out and bring it up before a jury later. The legal rules applying to not only pleadings but also things like discovery, further particulars, deposing witnesses etc. are all directed at ensuring that each party is well aware of the opposing case. This has obvious benefits. Neither court rules nor judges generally condone deliberately taking ones opponent by surprise.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I understand the right to waive a lawyer. And doing so is risky in most cases, especially when the chance of winning is unclear at best. Sure there is bad lawyers not worth their money, and some that are outright mean. That is in every profession. Like the one you were up against, and you are probably lucky it went this smooth. As with most things in life, usually a professional is better suited to give satisfactory results than a diy or layman job. They are professionals for a reason.

Yes, professionals should be better, but that's not always the case. The reason some (probably many) professionals are in the profession is because Daddy wanted Jr. to follow in his footsteps. But my point is, just because someone is a professional it doesn't follow that he's competent in his profession. A lot people are intimidated by lawyers simply because they are lawyers. They shouldn't be.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Yes, professionals should be better, but that's not always the case. The reason some (probably many) professionals are in the profession is because Daddy wanted Jr. to follow in his footsteps. But my point is, just because someone is a professional it doesn't follow that he's competent in his profession. A lot people are intimidated by lawyers simply because they are lawyers. They shouldn't be.

So, coming back to the topic at hand. In your opinion the law firm representing Parneros does not have good and competent lawyers based on the usage of juvenile language? Or is using multiple lawyers a sign of weakness when one "good and competent" lawyer would suffice? How much knowledge of other defamation cases do you have that makes this one stick out as doomed to fail / unprofessional?

And here is the number one reason why B&N is scared they might actually lose: their response is equally below the waist line by downplaying it as a cheap shot to try extort money. It hit a nerve.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I understand what you're saying, but I still think the emotional pleading should be left for the jury — not in press releases or in the motions. I'm also not convinced that "real world" lawyers need this kind of emotional, juvenile language. I think the FACTS (providing there are valid facts to bolster the case) are much more effective when presented in a cold, calculated, step-by-step manner. It makes the lawyer look competent and confident — even if he's only bluffing.

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

― Carl Sandburg

That is why emotional appeals are always suspect.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I'm not a fan of "zero tolerance". That just puts all the power in an accuser's hand.

As one of the articles states, this will probably hinge on wither they did a through investigation or not.

You must be one of those "Due Process" relics.
Robespierre hates you, and the current generation hates you.

[fjtorres]

The question (most) everybody is asking: who wants to buy B&N?

https://newrepublic.com/article/1509...rnes-and-noble

(Or more precisely: who looked into buying B&N and ran for the hills?)

Who could this retailer be? It’s unlikely to be Amazon, which is forging its own path and has thus far seemed only marginally interested in physical book retail. It’s not clear that Books-a-Million and Half-Price Books, the second- and third-largest general trade book retailers, have the resources, let alone the ambition. One possible candidate, according to multiple sources in book publishing and retail, is the Canadian book seller Indigo, which has defied the bleak trends in publishing in recent years, posting profits and selling literary fiction by the crateload. (People in book publishing talk about Indigo the way liberal voters talk about moving to Canada—as an almost mythical promiseland.)

Indigo is known to be interested in entering the American market and is set to open its first American store in the fall. It has the expertise and resources to pull off such a deal.

More at the source, including a profile of Riggio that suggests he is definitely ending up as covered in muck as Parneros.

[Fbone]

The only other book retailer I know with cash is Hudson Group, now owned by Dufry AG, that has an online presence and is partnered with Kobo for ebooks. They may have wanted to expand outside transit locations.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

The only other book retailer I know with cash is Hudson Group, now owned by Dufry AG, that has an online presence and is partnered with Kobo for ebooks. They may have wanted to expand outside transit locations.

Makes sense; they're prettybig as is, but...
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to just rent space and use their airport layouts?
They already have the publisher/distributor contracts and backend infrastructure (HR, warehouses, logistics, etc) in place.

That is why everybody is screaming : Indigo!

For them buying B&N cheap and downsizing it gets them the warehouses, logistics, contracts, and storefronts in one move instead of having to do the footwork themselves.

It can be argued that if B&N has any value left it is to a foreign player looking for a foothold in the US. Indigo, Waterstones, Bertlesmann, or somebody out of China.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Makes sense; they're prettybig as is, but...
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to just rent space and use their airport layouts?
They already have the publisher/distributor contracts and backend infrastructure (HR, warehouses, logistics, etc) in place.

They ran out of airports and so can not expand in the US. And they know how to operate bookstores in smaller spaces. Plus, they can buy B&N with cash just from 2017 profits. They do have $4 billion in debt from acquisitions, though.

Indigo while it doesn't have long term debt doesn't have the cash. It would probably have to issue stock which may not go over well with B&N and Indigo shareholders. And B&N is four times larger (in sales) than Indigo and would be a heavy burden.

Either way B&N would get stripped down considerably.

It's a fun mental exercise.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

They ran out of airports and so can not expand in the US. And they know how to operate bookstores in smaller spaces. Plus, they can buy B&N with cash just from 2017 profits. They do have $4 billion in debt from acquisitions, though.

Indigo while it doesn't have long term debt doesn't have the cash. It would probably have to issue stock which may not go over well with B&N and Indigo shareholders. And B&N is four times larger (in sales) than Indigo and would be a heavy burden.

Either way B&N would get stripped down considerably.

It's a fun mental exercise.

Sorry.
When I said airport layouts, I meant reuse their existing store layouts. In non-airport settings. Like malls or downtowns. The reason they're profitable is precisely because of those smaller layouts so the bigger storefronts won't suit them. Indigo, on the other hand, wants to sell more than books. They might have some use for the excess space.

And that debt is why buying the terminal patient isn't a great idea for Hudson. Better to roll their own, like Amazon, or play vulture.

B&N is going to get stripped down massively anyway but it makes more sense to wait for the liquidation sale and only pay for the parts they want. If nothing else, picking up the storefronts they prefer will be cheaper. They might even cut a deal with Indigo so each one gets the sites they prefer.

For all we know, that is why the deal fell through: the buyer crunched the numbers and saw their days are numbered and its too late for a change in management to save them.

[fjtorres]

In today's episode of BOOKSTORES OF OUR PAST LIVES:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...s-lawsuit.html

The Establishment chips in:

The revelations disclosed in former Barnes & Noble CEO Demos Parneros’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday and charging the company with defamation and breach of contract, left publishers mystified at how the nation’s largest bookstore chain will turn around its financial fortunes.

“Indecipherable” was the one-word email response from the president of an independent publisher when asked about the recent events at B&N. “I don’t know what to make of the news,” another executive at a publisher said. “It’s still unsettled over there.”

Whatever the merits of the case, publishers said it is clear that the time has come for B&N to find new leadership, either by a sale of the company or finding a CEO with a new vision for the company. Since Parneros’s dismissal, the company has been run by the trio of Allen Lindstrom, chief financial officer; Tim Mantel, chief merchandising officer; and Carl Hauch, v-p, stores. Riggio remains executive chairman and will be involved in its management until a new CEO is found.

“B&N needs to take action and needs capital to do it,” one publishing executive told PW. “Clearly being acquired is one way to get that done. There are other ways, but something needs to happen.”

An independent publisher who viewed some of the charges in the lawsuit being made “by a guy who is really pissed off and wants his severance,” nonetheless agreed that B&N “needs to create a smooth transition for Len.”

B&N needs capital?
And if they don't get it...?

. “I think it’s time {B&N} gets a new owner,” the head of an independent publisher said. “One that’s interested in being in the book business and has a proper management team. Someone like Indigo would be great.”

Several publishers said the frustrating part of Parneros’s departure is that it finally looked like B&N had a plan in place to move forward. Parneros was “candid about the issues B&N faces,” one executive said, adding that the plan he laid out seemed workable if given some time. All publishers would like to see the next B&N CEO have book experience. And there is one other characteristic they would like to see—a CEO who is actually running the company.

Boldingb mine.

More at the source.

Second time is recent weeks the Establishment points its guns at Riggio.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/b...d-riggio.html?