IGX

I'd Hit It wrote:Glassman's new $350,000 car, paid for our Dear Leader by Crossfit:

A friend of mine was one of the main techs on this project and he said it's nearly undriveable for lack of traction. That's a lot of money for a car that won't corner and doesn't hook up! Looks bitchen though

protobuilder wrote:Like Crossfit, it looks good, but is otherwise useless.

Lauren Glassman's Motion to Allow Sale of [her] Fifty Percent Share of CrossFit Inc. and sell to Anthos is GRANTED as of November 16th, 2012. Greg Glassman has until November 15th to tender $16,092,000.00 to her "as and for her community share of the stock of CrossFit".
...the Court, in equity, hereby Orders that [Greg Glassman] has until November 15, 2012, to pay[Lauren] $16,092,000.00; that sum constituting the full net amount [Lauren] would receive after taxes upon the sale of her stock to Anthos ...as and for her community share of the stock of CrossFit. If [Greg] does not tender certified funds of $16,092,000.00 to [Lauren] by November 15, 2012, then Petitioner's Motion is GRANTED, and [Lauren] is authorized and has Court approval to sell her FIFTY PERCENT (50%) stockholder's interest in CrossFit, Inc.; that interest comprised of 30,000 of the 60,000 shares of stock held by the Parties in that corporation, to Anthos effective November 16, 2012.

hroughout these proceedings and contrary to such assertion, while the Parties to this dissolution action equally possess the entirety of the corporate stock; Petitioner seeking to sell the stock she owns to third party buyers, Respondent has not only managed to continue to operate the business, but has, somehow, and in the apparent absence of majority Support, authorized legal action by the corporation against Petitioner. Effectively, legal action by the corporation has somehow been approved by one 50% stockholder against the other 50% stockholder while a 50/50 stock ownership deadlock exists and Petitioner has clearly not acceded to the Corporation’s engaging in such legal action. Clearly, if Respondent has acted and continues to act under color of corporate authority in regard to the business of the corporation to this point in time, seemingly nothing would change with the sale of Petitioner's stock.

Respondent also argues that Arizona law is clear that when a family business is a marital asset, Husband should either purchase or redeem the Wife’s stock interest‚ citing various case authorities. In review of that case authority it does not appear to be on point with the factual circumstances of this case. That having been said, the Court is supportive of the general concept that, at dissolution, the retention of family control over what has, to that point, been a family business is certainly to be considered toward a determination of what is equitable. What has not been provided the Court, is any authority for the concept that a fifty percent (50%) shareholder in a family business is obligated to take a multi-million dollar loss, at dissolution, through the requisite consolidating of stock holdings in a family owned business solely for the purpose of allowing the remaining shareholder spouse the unimpeded control and uninhibited growth of a family business toward his continued and personal financial betterment.

That is not the law and would not be fair or equitable.

Finally, Respondent states that it would be, “totally inequitable”, for the court to break up the business by allowing Petitioner to sell 50% of the stock of the corporation to a third party venture capitalist, and thereby force Respondent to be in business with an entity with which he has no desire to be in business. Petitioner has not “forced” that outcome. As best the Court understands‚ Petitioner is attempting to maximize the value of her undisputed portion of the marital estate at its dissolution and until recently Respondent has not seriously addressed the fair market value purchase of Petitioner's interest. One who seeks equity must do equity.

I'd Hit It wrote:"Crossfitters Against Anthos Capital" Facebook group looks like it's deleted.
No update from the Russes on the court decision. Normally we'd see them making noise, no?

AnthosandCrossfit.Blogspot.com now made private, a few hours after the legal news posted.

A clean-up in preparation of the impending merger, perhaps?

Cave Canem wrote:Maybe he'll have to sell the car and the plane or maybe (gasp!) find a venture capital firm.........

Cave Canem wrote:I believe I read in one of the documents before they shut the blog site down that one of the judges, I believe in Delaware, told them to knock off the internet bull shit. Hence the disappearance of "@fitters against Anthos" on FB, the silence of the Russells, the fade from the CF message board, etc.

CrossFit, Inc. and CrossFit community safe.

Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit
As of yesterday morning I own 100% of CrossFit Inc. stock.

I want to thank my staff, our lawyers, the affiliates, and the entire CF community for rallying to our common defense.

This was a harrowing experience that pulled critical staff from their normal duties for six months and cost millions of dollars in legal fees.

Staffers not enjoined directly in the battle kept at the helm and grew the company to absorb all of our legal fees and we paid cash for the airplane. Today we stand in the best financial shape in company history.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Its not a jet, it's a prop plane, isn't it?