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.

Reply via email to