IGX

Secondly, of ALL the things that were said in the video, you have decided to address Lauren's claims to have helped found Crossfit and to be co-owner of Crossfit? Are you trying to settle, on a message board, an issue that can only be settled in court? Are you trying to convince the internet that Lauren didn't help found Crossfit? Even if Lauren actually had nothing to do founding Crossfit, anyone with access to the internet can find tons of references, by Crossfit Inc, to Lauren as a "Co-founder". Here are 4 quick ones (which took me approximately 30 seconds on Google to find):

1. http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf...sFit091016.pdf (page 2) (SFW)
2. http://journal.crossfit.com/2007/11/...rt-2-optim.tpl --see last paragraph
3. On the Crossfit Radio episode you posted, the hosts closed by saying "what an absolutely awesome experience to be able to talk to one of the founders of something that's this big", referring to Crossfit.
4. http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/06/...ing-my-way.tpl (00:10 sec) (SFW)

If you include statements by HQ staff on their own affiliate or personal blogs calling Lauren a Co-founder, the number goes up nearly exponentially.

The more I see this issue addressed via an internet message board, the more I think it wouldn't be horrible for CrossFit to have some stakeholders with a more well versed professional background. I'm sorry, but this is starting to look like amateur hour.

The directors are responsible for the functioning of the corporation, and here we have a purchase approaching a million dollars for a company that had net income in 2011 of under 300,000.

Counsel, I appreciate the argument. As you're well aware, there are three factors that go into the analysis of a temporary restraining order request, and the first is the likelihood of success on the merits. That is the least important at this stage because the record is so scant that it's difficult to make a determination.

For purposes of a temporary restraining order, I think there is a colorable claim here that the actions of the executives were ultra vires. I say that because there is such a low standard at this point. So what's left of a temporary restraining order request is whether irreparable harm is threatened and whether the balance of the equities weighs in favor of the entry of a temporary restraining order.

In this particular matter, even setting aside Mr. DiCamillo's point that this is really a money damages case, and it's not appropriate for a temporary restraining order in a money damages case, I am at a quandary -- assuming that the loss here does represent irreparable harm, if there is an ultra vires action -- I am at a loss here to say that it's greater if I direct a certain action than if I don't.

The unfortunate fact is when this came to me for the first hearing on a temporary restraining order a commitment had already been made, a very significant deposit had already been made. My understanding is $276,000. So I don't know what action would preserve the assets of the corporation best, even assuming that the actions of the executives were ultra vires and even assuming that the amount of loss that is faced by the corporation is not remediable by money damages. So I am going to deny the temporary restraining order request on that basis.

Let me say two other things. I am leaving the 48-hour notice in place. And what I mean by the 48-hour notice is two business days before any action is taken that will effect substantively this contract, it needs to be disclosed to the Court and to the other side. That's number one.

Number two, Mr. DiCamillo, your clients are skating, it seems to me, on rather thin ice. If they do anything to further commit the corporation, they may eventually be responsible for it if it's found they are acting beyond their authority. I have no idea what the reaction of the seller wou be if they don't get the assurance they are asking for. I don't see how in good faith your clients can represent that -- they can represent that they as individuals intend, to the extent they have the power to go forward. But I don't know how they could in good faith, at this point in the midst of litigation, further bind the corporation. But since I have denied the TRO, that's up to your clients, but there are consequences to their actions.

And the third thing is if I were going to grant a TRO, it seems to me I would have to require a bond in the amount of the deposit. So having said all of that, I am denying the TRO, leaving the 48-hour notice requirement in place, and let's move toward a resolution of this as quickly as possible.

Ultra vires is a Latin term meaning "beyond powers". The term is usually used to refer to acts taken by a corporation or officers of a corporation that are taken outside of the powers or authority granted to them by law or under the corporate charter. Some states have enacted laws to prevent the use of the defense of ultra vires action to unfairly avoid obligations under otherwise valid contracts.

THE COURT:.....I understand that there are the family dynamics here. As you are aware, I spent 12 years trying will contests and guardianship cases. So it's not new to me, but in this context, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. I know you will make that clear to your client on both sides.

What a duck says wrote:http://anthosandcrossfit.blogspot.com/2 ... ining.html

Actual court doc here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12483097/TRO%20telephone.pdf

A Plaintiff statement that was not denied by Defendant's council:

The directors are responsible for the functioning of the corporation, and here we have a purchase approaching a million dollars for a company that had net income in 2011 of under 300,000.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

...He shits in the hat of discretion.

This Answer is made subject to, and without waiver of, Plaintiff's right to contest the procedural impropriety of Defendants bringing this Counterclaim without having answered Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff further reserves her right to contest Defendant's improper joining of Counterclaims related to a potential sale of Plaintiff's interest in the Company with Plaintiff's claims related to Defendant Greg Glassman's breach of fiduciary duty for failure to obtain Board of Director approval for an entirely separate corporate transaction.

ButterCupPowerRanch wrote:Quack, my man, you've got to let it go...
Just step away.

When Coach Glassman created this little gem called CrossFit, he made it so that CrossFit affiliate owners everywhere could be cool all on their own. CrossFit’s are like local police stations, some rules ya just gotta follow or go to the big house. Other rules like; what we wear, what supplements we offer or don’t offer, how we program, what we post, are up to us. Coach gave us his kid to raise, and we have done a pretty good job.

From what I gather so far, Anthos Capital wants to be a fitness pimp. Which of course means making CrossFits, and CrossFitters, Anthos whores. But, I think they have underestimated us. Maybe, some of us don’t like to be pimped out, exploited, and screwed by everyone looking to make a dollar off our passion. I did that in a big box for years, and I won’t do it again, and if you want to CrossFit the same way you have been up until now, then pay attention because this concerns you. If your ass ain’t for sale, speak up, hang an exit only sign on your back and fight companies that have no clue what CrossFit is all about.

tough old man wrote:What would an affiliate owner really loose by Anthos Capital buying half of @fit?

Jay wrote:

tough old man wrote:What would an affiliate owner really loose by Anthos Capital buying half of @fit?

Freeeeeeeeedom against corporate oppression and fascist rule.

Freedom against the tyrannical capitalists.

Fucking freedom

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: They lose control of how HQ spends affiliate and cert fees?
Lose the money they paid toward the RRG?
And lose any input toward quality control and sensible running of the business?
'Cause they already have all that, right?