In June, Frank Tait and Mario Aguirre filed a motion seeking to intervene on behalf of NRA members in the NRA dissolution case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Their contention, rightly in my opinion, was that no one was adequately representing the approximately five million NRA members.
As you might expect, both the Attorney General and the NRA have objected to this. A hearing is currently scheduled for September 9th to hear arguments relating to this motion.
Last year, I had some discussions with others who were interested in seeing an intervenor motion filed in the dissolution lawsuit. One of the major issues brought up was that there was some doubt that under New York that members themselves would have standing. It was thought that only a sitting director would have standing to intervene in the dissolution lawsuit.
We now know, thanks to a letter filed this afternoon with the court by Taylor Bartlett, attorney for Tait and Aguirre, that this issue will now be off the table. There will be one, if not two, sitting directors joining the motion to intervene on behalf of the members of the NRA.
William Brewer himself, the world’s most brilliant attorney according to some of the lesser minds on the NRA board, wasted no time filing a letter to the judge stating that he found the request for leave by the intervenors to file an amended motion “improper”. He then indicates in so many words that the NRA is prepared to fight this motion.
I have been told confidentially the name of one of the potential directors who will be joining in the motion to intervene. As such, I respect that trust and will hold off on announcing the name until it is announced in the court proceedings.
The National Rifle Association voluntarily dismissed its case against NY Attorney General Letitia James in US District Court for the Northern District of New York. This case was filed virtually immediately after James filed for dissolution of the NRA in state court. The suit had accused James of violating the NRA’s First and 14th Amendment rights to free speech.
“The NRA dropping its countersuit today in federal court is an implicit admission that their strategy would never prevail. The truth is that Wayne LaPierre and his lieutenants used the NRA as a breeding ground for personal gain and a lavish lifestyle. We were victorious against the organization’s attempt to declare bankruptcy, and our fight for transparency and accountability will continue because no one is above the law.”
Given that Brewer and his firm were the architects of this legal strategy which they are now abandoning, it would be nice if they returned the money spent on legal fees for this case to the NRA.
We all know that will never happen. What it does underscore is how much money the NRA has wasted on legal fees paid to Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, with nothing to show for it. Whether it was the suit against San Francisco, the bankruptcy case, and now this, the only winner was Brewer.
In general, this public response highlights that it’s time for Wayne to go, along with most of the yes men he has put into place. This is an embarrassment to the organization, especially as anyone remotely literate can read what the judge really said.
The blog NRA In Danger also provides a brutal fisking of the NRA’s public statement. They may be the new kids on the block in terms of blogging but whoever is writing the blog has a deep, insider knowledge of how things actually work at the NRA.
When a bankruptcy judge who has been on the bench many years, and “seen them all,” says conduct shocks him, you’re hearing it from an expert.
NRA CEO & EVP Wayne LaPierre said today’s decision – and the ongoing independence of the NRA – empowers the Association’s approximately 5 million members.
If the suit being dismissed empowers the members, does that mean that winning the suit would have dis-empowered them?
“We will never shrink from the tough and principled stands we take”
I’m getting too nauseous to continue. Hitler in his bunker was less delusional.
We had better enjoy the NRA annual meeting in four months, because it will probably be the last annual meeting. Anyone on, or getting elected to, the board, had best face the fact that they face lifelong dishonor as a member of the board that killed this fine organization. NRA has had men who held the Medal of Honor on its board, but they have been replaced by people who tremble at the thought just of dissenting. Let the leadership go insane and destroy the 150-year-old organization, these directors would rather not grow a spine.
“So why did you file? We can only guess that the lawyers saw the prospect of a wealthy client who wasn’t adverse to paying big fees, and thought of nothing else. Not even the most core ideas: 1. What do we want from the court? 2. is that something the court can legally give us?”
In my 40 years in business, I’ve been involved in multiple legal disputes. There is critical mindset to legal matters. THE LAWYERS WORK FOR YOU, not the other way around. The secondary mindset is risk-reward considerations, or as a former CEO liked to say “is the juice worth the squeeze.” Both of these key mindsets appear absent from the EVP and the Officers of the Board – and the remainder of the board is not asking the tough questions that are their fiduciary obligation.
The NRA’s bankruptcy petition was dismissed as filed in bad faith. I’m predicting that the court’s opinion will be in the next edition of every bankruptcy textbook as the case really is a textbook example of bad faith. The court found that there was substantial evidence in the record that the NRA filed for bankruptcy for the purpose of gaining an advantage in its litigation with the NY Attorney General, namely depriving the NY Attorney General of the remedy of dissolution, rather than for any other purpose.
He notes he’d be surprised if the NRA appeals or refiles. Moreover, he wonders if the creditors’ attorneys will file a sanctions motion against either the NRA or its attorneys for reimbursement of their litigation costs given the bad faith filing ruling.
Read all four of these blog posts. They all take a different approach but all conclude the whole bankruptcy filing was a fiasco.
The NRA has put out a much longer and complete response to the dismissal of their Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. A quick read through it shows a few thing. First, they are trying to put a positive spin on what is really not a positive for the NRA. That is to be expected.
Second, they cherry-picked the decision. When they say they have the option to file a new case, they forget to say the judge said any new case would have a trustee. That would mean Wayne and Bill Brewer would be booted. Do you really think Wayne and Brewer would file again when they know they are out?
Third, Wayne and the rest of the “Gang of Four” (as some have called them) all made statements to the effect that the NRA is strong, secure, and they will keep up the good fight. The question is are they fighting to keep their positions or actually fighting to advance the Second Amendment. As many have commented, just think what all the millions wasted on the bankruptcy’s legal fees could have done to advance the fight for the Second Amendment.
NRA Moving Forward with Legal and Business Strategy in Response to Dismissal of Bankruptcy Filing
Court Finds That NRA’s Move to Texas Could Still Be Accomplished Outside Bankruptcy
In response to today’s dismissal of a prior bankruptcy filing, the National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) announced that it will continue to fight on all fronts in the interests of its mission and its members.
The New York Attorney General and others had aligned against the NRA in opposition to the NRA’s reorganization plan announced on January 15, 2021. They sought to dismiss the NRA’s bankruptcy filing with prejudice or, in the alternative, appointment of a court-appointed trustee, to take control of the Association’s business and financial affairs. Importantly, a United States Bankruptcy Court in Dallas did not appoint a Trustee or examiner, even as it ruled the Association may not proceed with the chapter 11 case. The court dismissed the bankruptcy filing without prejudice, meaning the NRA does have the option to file a new bankruptcy case.
During a 12-day hearing that occurred over approximately four weeks, the NRA established that it had adopted new policies and accounting controls, displaced many “insiders” who had allegedly abused the Association, and accepted reparations for costs voluntarily determined to be excess benefits. The hearing proceedings focused on the NRA’s compliance efforts, and the organization’s renewed commitment to good governance.
In an opinion, dated May 11, 2021, the Hon. Harlin D. Hale, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Texas, wrote, “In short, the testimony…suggests that the NRA now understands the importance of compliance. Outside of bankruptcy, the NRA can pay its creditors, continue to fulfill its mission, continue to improve its governance and internal controls, contest dissolution in the NYAG Enforcement Action, and pursue the legal steps necessary to leave New York.”
Underscoring the importance of the proceedings, Judge Hale previously said the NYAG motion contesting the NRA’s Chapter 11 filing was “the most important motion I’ve ever heard as a judge.”
The NRA remains determined to further streamline its legal and business affairs in the best interests of its constituents and members.
NRA CEO & EVP Wayne LaPierre said today’s decision – and the ongoing independence of the NRA – empowers the Association’s approximately 5 million members.
“The NRA remains committed to its members and our plan for the future,” says NRA CEO & EVP Wayne LaPierre. “Although we are disappointed in some aspects of the decision, there is no change in the overall direction of our Association, its programs, or its Second Amendment advocacy. Today is ultimately about our members – those who stand courageously with the NRA in defense of constitutional freedom. We remain an independent organization that can chart its own course, even as we remain in New York to confront our adversaries. The NRA will keep fighting, as we’ve done for 150 years.”
The NRA remains determined to confront NYAG Letitia James in her attempt to dissolve NRA. The NYAG seeks such remedies as part of a lawsuit she filed on August 6, 2020. In summer 2018, then NYAG candidate James called the NRA a “criminal enterprise” and “terrorist organization.” Her subsequent pursuit of the NRA has been characterized by many legal experts and constitutional scholars as a gross weaponization of legal and regulatory power.
“The NRA will continue to defend the interests of the Association in New York,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “Our client has faith in its leadership, and its demonstrated commitment to good governance.”
“The record reflects the NRA undertook a ‘course correction’ with respect to its management,” says NRA President Carolyn Meadows. “The Association is strong and secure – once again moving forward above the objections of its adversaries and those who oppose Second Amendment freedoms.”
The NRA can still pursue establishing business operations in Texas, and the organization will continue to explore moving its headquarters there from Virginia. Texas is home to more than 400,000 NRA members.
The bankruptcy hearing became the nation’s highest -profile legal proceeding of its kind. The virtual proceedings, involving more than 20 witnesses, explored novel issues that define the roles and responsibilities of legal defendants subjected to the threat of dissolution. The NRA has maintained it is financially viable, following its current pathway, in part, to escape a toxic political environment in New York. The NRA was incorporated in New York in 1871.
The legal proceedings revealed the NRA’s commitment to good governance and efforts to follow the “principled path” with respect to its management practices, board oversight, and member obligations under Mr. LaPierre’s leadership. Mr. LaPierre remains at the helm of the organization, directing political affairs, grassroots activities and other functions essential to the defense of the Second Amendment.
“The record establishes that NRA members can have great confidence in this institution and its plans for the future,” says NRA First Vice President Charles Cotton. “The Association will work with members, vendors, and other constituents to continue the fight for freedom.”
“Our NRA is pressing forward with its plans, and remains determined to promote constitutional freedoms,” says NRA Second Vice President Lt. Col. Willes K. Lee, USA (Ret). “We will never shrink from the tough and principled stands we take on behalf of our law-abiding 5 million members.”
Read Judge Hale’s Order Granting Motions To Dismiss here.
A Special Meeting of the NRA Board of Directors has been scheduled for Dallas, TX for March 28th. As the Complementary Spouse pointed out to me, it is exactly 14 days after the previously scheduled meeting and is the length of time that the CDC formerly recommended for quarantine after COVID exposure. While I doubt that was the actual reason for the original cancellation, they are sticking with appearances.
March 18, 2021
OFFICIAL NOTICE: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
TO: Board of Directors and Executive Council
The NRA President has requested a special meeting of the Board of Directors to take place on Sunday, March 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in Dallas, Texas. The purpose of the meeting is to provide a legal briefing to the Board regarding the NRA’s plan of reorganization and other pending matters.
The NRA Board of Directors and Executive Council will meet at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, (214) 922-8000. The date, time and location of all meetings are on the attached schedule of meetings and meals.
The sole purpose of the meeting is to provide a briefing to the Board regarding the NRA’s reorganization plan and the legal matters overseen by the Special Litigation Committee, and to take any necessary action directly related to those matters.
Any mention of the Special Litigation Committee is deleted. Moreover, it does not have a mention of “any necessary action.”
Speculation is that an 1129 Reorganization Plan will be presented to the Board. These reorganization plans be presented by the debtor (NRA), the unsecured creditors committee, or a trustee if one is appointed. However, the bankruptcy judge, as I understand it, cannot present a reorganization plan and must only rule on the merits of those presented.
By presenting an 1129 reorganization plan, it is speculated that Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, will have their fingers all over it and will use it to keep themselves attached to the NRA like barnacles on a rock. A friend pointed out to me today that in the course of proceedings that the bankruptcy judge could not only disallow Brewer to serve as a special counsel but cut off all payments to him given his role in draining the NRA’s finances through legal billings. We can only hope!
In the last week and half there have been a number of updates in the NRA’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. I will take them in order.
First, there was a debtor’s motion (the NRA) to allow Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, to serve as special debtor’s counsel in the case. While the entire filing is 53 pages long, here are some excerpts. It should be kept in mind that the NRA has retained Patrick Neligan of Neligan LLP as its bankruptcy specialist attorney. Mr. Neligan has been practicing high-level bankruptcy law for over 35 years.
BAC and its attorneys are well-positioned to handle these matters for the Debtors because BAC has accumulated a reservoir of knowledge that could not be efficiently offloaded to, or replicated by, substitute counsel.
One way of looking at Brewer’s statement is that they know where the bodies are buried. I don’t think that is their intention but it could be read that way and they are needed to keep them buried.
In 2020 and in 2021, BAC’s standard hourly rates were as follows: Professionals 2020 Hourly Rates Founding Partner, William A. Brewer III $1,400 Partner $700-$900 Associate $275-$600 Consultant/Analyst $250-$725 Investigator $250-$350 Public Affairs $375-$800
Are their fees capped?
Did you agree to any variations, or alternatives to, your standard or customary billing arrangements for this engagement? Response: Yes. For one of the matters, BAC agreed not to seek fees for its professionals’ time inexcess of $100,000.10 In addition, BAC represents the NRA in another matter pro bono. Otherwise, BAC has not agreed to any variations or alternatives to BAC’s standard or customary billing arrangements. BAC’s engagement by the Debtors in connection with the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases is to serve as special counsel to the Debtors in the litigation that began PrePetition and other related matters BAC has been handling for the Debtors, as well as to assist Neligan LLP (lead counsel to the Debtors) during a transition period after the filing of the chapter 11 cases in order to facilitate the quick, efficient handling of matters drawing on BAC’s institutional knowledge.
In other words, with regard to one aspect of the case they will limit their fees as per agreement to $100,000 but after that the sky is the limit.
Remember that the bankruptcy filing has put many of the NRA’s other cases on hold so Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors has got to make their money somehow.
The Special Litigation Committee of Carolyn Meadows, Charles Cotton, and Willes Lee think having Bill Brewer involved is just dandy and they are all for it. Then again, they pretty much do as they are told by Wayne LaPierre.
Moving on, a mailing list of all additional creditors of the NRA was filed with the court on Monday, February 1st. Included in that 247-page list was the NRA Foundation. It should be remembered that most of the firearms in the National Firearms Museum and the National Sporting Arms Museum are not property of the NRA. Rather, they are on loan from primarily the NRA Foundation as that was to whom they were gifted by donors.
In a February 2nd report by Reuters on the latest hearing in the case before Bankruptcy Judge Harlin D. Hale, attorney Patrick Neligan denied the Chapter 11 filing was in bad faith.
“This is not a bad faith filing and we look forward to using Chapter 11 to resolve litigation and to move forward to emerge out of this bankruptcy as a company domiciled here in Texas,” Neligan said during Wednesday’s hearing.
The question of whether the NRA filed the bankruptcy in good faith could arise if the judge is asked to dismiss the case.
Judge Hale did ask both the NRA and the NY Attorney General’s Office to scale back the rhetoric and treat this as “a regular bankruptcy case.”
The US Trustee in the case appointed an Official Unsecured Creditors Committee consisting of five members. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. was appointed the interim chair of the committee. As seen in the screen shot below, two of the committee appointees will probably cause a bit of consternation in Fairfax as well as in the offices of Bill Brewer.
I sincerely doubt that either AckMac or David Dell’Aquila are going to roll over and play dead for Wayne and the NRA.
“We’re going to definitely do a motion for a trustee,” Dell’Aquila said. “I would not be surprised if the majority of the other creditors don’t join or do a similar thing.”
The article goes on to note that the court could appoint a trustee and that such a trustee would have broad powers. That trustee could “displace” the current leadership and the board. Moreover, the trustee would have the fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the creditors and could go after Wayne and others for misuse of the NRA’s money for personal expenses.
“It’s in everybody’s best interest to get a trustee in there, certainly from the creditors’ point of view, and, I would argue, even for the five million members because every dime that they waste in frivolous litigation is a dime less that could go to the core mission,” Dell’Aquila said.
As might be expected, attorney Bill Brewer who had previously dismissed the idea of a trustee back in January expressed his disappointment that Dell’Aquila was on the committee.
“The NRA is disappointed that a disgruntled individual who has filed frivolous claims against the Association is appointed to the committee,” Brewer told the Free Beacon.
Dell’Aquila’s attorney Elliott Schuchardt said that even with some of the defendants dismissed in Dell’Aquila’s class-action suit, the remaining claim against the NRA is worth $64 million potentially making it the largest creditor.
“We think there’s enough evidence of fraud here that we can make a good faith argument to the bankruptcy court judge that somebody else should be running the NRA,” Schuchardt said.
I have always held that this bankruptcy filing was a gamble. Wayne and Brewer are too clever by half and I think the result will not be to their liking.
There is another hearing scheduled in the case for Wednesday, February 10th by WebEx. I’m sure we will hear something more then.
Attorney Sarah Rogers of Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, filed a “Notice of Suggestion” before the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation yesterday. It was in regard to the NRA and Sea Girt LLC’s filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Section 362(a) (Automatic Stay) of the Bankruptcy Code automatically prohibits, inter alia, the following: * the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title; * the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title; * any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.
I think that tells you exactly what the legal strategy formulated by William Brewer III is for the NRA. It is to use bankruptcy as a means to stop or put a hold on the cases involving Ackerman McQueen, David Dell’Aquila, and the State of New York. That is, at least in Federal court.
Federal law allows the removal of civil actions from state court to federal district court if jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1334 (the federal jurisdictional provision that creates a bankruptcy case). The petition for removal must be filed in the district court to which the matter is removed. Removal is to the federal district court for the jurisdiction in which the state court matter is pending, not to the district in which the bankruptcy case is pending. Consequently, if the bankruptcy case is in a different federal district, a motion for change of venue to that district may be filed after the matter is removed.
The book goes on to say that this applies to all courts, state and Federal. However, if you examine the case against the NRA by the Attorney General of New York Letitia James, it probably is might be stayed against the NRA but not against Wayne LaPierre, Woody Phillips, John Frazer, or Josh Powell. That is because a §362 stay applies to the property of the estate, property of the debtor, and the debtor. The individuals named by James in the dissolution lawsuit are not debtors in a bankruptcy filing.
However, there is an exception to a §362 that I’m sure the State of New York will seek to use:
The commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory power. Examples would be prosecution under a rubbish ordinance, an action to close a restaurant for health code violations, or litigation to determine the debtor’s liability for consumer protection violations and liquidation of the amounts owed for those violations. The exception extends to enforcement of a judgment, other than a money judgment, obtained by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory power. Section 362(b)(4)
The regulatory power involving the NRA would be that of New York’s ability to regulate charities which is the basis of the dissolution suit. It will be up to the judge hearing the dissolution lawsuit to decide whether the stay resulting from the bankruptcy filings apply. I’m sure that New York will argue that it doesn’t just as the NRA’s lawyers will argue that it does.
I should remind the reader that I’m not a lawyer and that case law usually is of greater importance than the how the law is written. In other words, how a law is interpreted by the courts trumps how the legislature wrote the law.
Rule 9(b) states: In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.
In his ruling yesterday, Judge Campbell found that this standard had not been met with regard to both the NRA Foundation and Wayne LaPierre. However, it had been met with regard to the NRA itself.
David Dell’Aquila and the other plaintiffs had alleged that monies that they had donated to advance the mission of the NRA had been used for, among other things, to buy suits for Wayne LaPierre, to pay for private travel for LaPierre and his family, to pay for a luxury apartment for intern Megan Allen, and to pay for makeup and hairstyling for Susan LaPierre.
Judge Campbell wrote, with regard to the NRA,
The NRA next argues that Plaintiffs did not allege “in more than a passing conclusory assertion that the NRA knew of and intended the falsity of its statements.” (Id. at 12). The NRA argues that because the statements regarding the use of funds relate to the promise of some future action, Plaintiffs must allege that the NRA had no present intent to carry out the promise. The NRA further argues that Plaintiffs cannot plead the element of intent for “any future expenditures that were not in contemplation at the time of the Solicitation.” In other words, the NRA argues that if, at the time of the solicitation, it did not specifically plan to spend money on, for example personal expenses of Wayne LaPierre, there can be no plausible allegation of intent with regard to that expenditure.
The Court declines to read the intent requirement so narrowly. First, Plaintiffs allege that the funds were spent on things that were not in furtherance of the mission of the NRA. It was not necessary that the NRA know at the time what the extraneous expenditures would be, only that they knew that money would be spent outside the mission.Moreover, Rule 9(b) allows the element of intent to be alleged generally. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Given the extent of the alleged misspent funds – in both duration and volume – the Court finds Plaintiffs’ allegation that the NRA knew donated funds would not be used to advance the mission of the NRA sufficiently plausible to state a claim.
He goes on to say:
At this juncture in the litigation, making all inferences in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for fraud against the NRA. Although the Court will not engage in a statement by statement review of the allegations, it bears noting that many of the statements cited by Plaintiffs do not make any representations regarding the use of donor funds. However, because some of them do, and Plaintiffs have alleged the remaining elements of the claim, the Court will deny the NRA’s motion to dismiss the claim for fraud.
Judge Campbell goes on to dismiss the RICO claims against the NRA noting that it cannot be both an enterprise and a person for purposes of the RICO statute. He also dismissed the RICO claims against the NRA Foundation and LaPierre as the plaintiffs didn’t adequately argue claims of fraud against them.
The bottom line is that the Foundation and LaPierre are both off the hook and the lawsuit against the NRA itself has enough standing to proceed. In retrospect, I’m sure the NRA will eventually find that it would have been cheaper to give the plaintiffs their money back with a non-disclosure settlement than to keep using the services of William Brewer. Indeed, Brewer’s fees were part of the argument that donor money had been misused.
All the filings for the lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of New York seeking dissolution of the NRA are online. You can see when the individual defendants were served and in what manner.
Both Josh Powell and Wilson “Woody” Phillips had their attorneys file a “stipulation of service” which also granted them time to respond. This was done two weeks ago. Interestingly, they each have hired attorneys with big name firms. Powell’s attorney is Mark MacDougall who is a partner with Akin Gump in DC and was formerly a Federal prosecutor. Likewise, Phillips’ attorney Seth Farber, a partner with Winston Strawn in New York, was also a former Federal prosecutor.
John Frazer was personally served at home in Virginia two weeks ago. The description of the person accepting the service fits that of John Frazer himself.
Here is where it gets interesting. It seems Wayne LaPierre and/or his security guards not only refused service at both the office and his home in Great Falls, Virginia, but is not being represented by Bill Brewer.
Stephen Gutowski of the Free Beacon noticed that in this filing that was done this past Saturday. He posted about it on Twitter earlier this evening. If you double-click on the embedded tweet you can see the filing. Look at paragraph 2.
This filing from the New York AG says Bill Brewer is still representing the NRA but not Wayne LaPierre which is interesting. https://t.co/dxEcsXfltd
Regardless of who is or will be Wayne’s attorney, I really don’t think the judge presiding over the case will look too kindly on the petulant manner in which Wayne and his henchmen treated the process server. The other three individual defendants accepted service politely or had their attorneys reach out to accept it.
I could almost hear Wayne LaPierre saying, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome president.” To which, William Brewer III replied, “I will, my liege!”
The complaint, much of which is redacted, seeks to have Oliver North removed from the NRA Board of Directors. According to a footnote, they redacted much of the complaint because it might contain information that Col. North might argue should be kept under seal.
The complaint alleges that Col. North has an “irreconcilable conflict” due to his employment with Ackerman McQueen and his membership on the Board of Directors. The Audit Committee, which had approved the arrangement, later rescinded their approval in May 2019 after the conflict between Wayne LaPierre and Col. North had come to a head.
The attorneys bringing he lawsuit on behalf are Svetlana Eisenberg and William Brewer III of Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors.
When Pete Brownell resigned as President of the NRA in 2018, a great effort was made to get Col. North to be President. At the time, he was under contract to Fox News and would have to resign that in order to become NRA President. I have been told by multiple insiders as well as have seen in court filings that Wayne LaPierre actually negotiated Col. North’s contract with Ackerman McQueen. The whole “they won’t give us the contract” so we can know what conflicts Ollie has is a charade as is the declaration by the Audit Committee.
In reality, the conflict is between Wayne LaPierre, his cronies on the Board, and his attorney who is sucking the NRA dry and those who wanted to return the NRA to effectiveness and to see Brewer gone.