August 15, 2104 (Sent via email)
Dear Mr. Walter,
I understand you had a discussion today with Mr. Harder about the impossibility of further discussions about ways of settling our dispute out of court. I also understand that you articulated a threshold agreement that should further negotiations take place they occur under a cloak of confidentiality.
First I want to make clear that Mr. Harder and I are working very closely together and I support any dialogue that could de-escalate or end our controversy. I and the rest of my family will entertain any offer of settlement you might make and, if and when conditions seem right to enter into direct negotiations where there is a reasonable chance of success, we will engage in such discussions in good faith.
As long as the parameters of a confidentiality agreement regarding those discussions are clearly articulated prior to discussions, we are willing treat such discussions the same way we agreed to treat the discussions during our mediation. Absent any explicit agreement we believe in complete transparency and reserve the right to openly discuss all matters relating to this lawsuit and our grievances against your clients. (Emphasis added)
I hope that additional negotiations will not be necessary and that your clients will accept our very generous offer that will expire at noon on Monday August 18, 2104.
This offer, very likely the last that will not require Archer to compensate the Josephson family for the costs and damages incurred, would result in cessation of the ongoing expense and stress and further negative consequences on all parties of continued and escalating focus on our claims. In this offer we ask nothing for ourselves. We ask only an independent objective investigation of our allegations, modification of the Archer mandatory arbitration clause to make it more fair and balanced and the adoption of guidelines and internal controls concerning the use of discretion.
We hope that after consideration and discussion the board concludes it is in Archer’s best interests to end the matter now by accepting this proposal.
As I’m sure you know, we consider this offer, and Archer’s response to it, critical information demonstrating how far we have been willing to go to resolve this matter without causing any further damage to Archer or your other clients.
The offer expires at noon on August 18, 2014. If your clients choose to reject it, either expressly or by allowing the offer to expire without your response, we believe the Archer community has a right to know this and we will use our various communication channels to provide this update. (emphasis added).
As we have offered before, if you would like to assure that your explanation for rejecting this offer is available to all those who visit our website and read our other communications, we commit to posting it as written (and linking to it in all pertinent contexts).
Mr. Harder was under the impression that you said this offer was the same as one made either before or during the mediation and that your board had already rejected it. Please review this conclusion as it is not correct.
The written offer we made immediately before the mediation required termination of Ms. English and the resignation of specific board members (as well as the provisions regarding alteration of your arbitration clause and adopting oversight guidelines). We made no offer other than this during the mediation, though the mediator explored various options which included a substantial cash payment to the plaintiffs.
To be certain there is no ambiguity, the written offer submitted to you by Mr. Harder earlier this week stands as is and we hope it will be (or has been) presented to the entire board so they consider it as an alternative to protracted controversy.
If they decide to prolong this case and reject our proposal we hope you will offer a counter proposal. We are always open to good faith negotiations. (emphasis added)
I think the landscape of our controversy will change in the next several weeks and discussions may be fruitful thereafter.
It may be to no avail, but I want you to know that I was disappointed that our efforts to mediate our dispute were unsuccessful and sorry that we did not have a chance to meet face-to-face. Though we met in passing on the morning of your ex parte hearing concerning our website, we have never truly met nor have I ever met the board members who attended the mediation. I understand that was the mediators “call” (and we accepted his suggestion) but I think the inability of the parties to put a more human face on each other and make our own assessment of credibility, sincerity and motives continues to exacerbate an increasingly acrimonious conflict.
In Pro Per