On 08/26/2016 09:40 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com
<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Being a bit naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences
when you want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed working.
Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that should
be apparent to anyone who has had a chance to read all of the
documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero effort to involve IH in the
planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there
an effort to persuade them of its validity. We are even given to
understand that IH had objected to the Doral business being construed
as the GPT. This should put anyone on notice that *the territory
we're in here is not normal territory but instead **Alice in
Wonderland territory*.
That says it well. I've been involved in a lot of contract R&D over the
last few decades, and that's basically what this is, so I have some idea
of what kind of behavior one might expect to see from both sides of the
table. On the other hand, I've /never/ worked on a deal for $100
million -- it was always much smaller amounts. The idea that someone
could behave the way Rossi did, on a deal this size, and still have any
chance of satisfying the customer and collecting on the contract is
beyond bizarre; it's totally hallucinogenic.
It's no surprise at all that it ended with a lawsuit. The only
surprise, really, is that IH waited until the end of the "test" and
didn't initiate a suit a whole lot sooner than they did, since they
already had $11 million in the kitty, dumped down a hole for nothing in
return.