This feels like an article lamenting a missed opportunity to access the "high-life" (as if cocktail parties and shallow friendships based on how much you can raise are the high-life) when the reality was The Switch was a company whose revenues hadn't achieved the meteoric success that the founders/author believed all while taking a horrible toll on the family of the CEO and others.
The author writes:
>he recommended that the judge take the other bid, saying Bill's was too late, too complex, and not presented on the official forms.
Are you kidding me? These people wanted to bid on a company that was currently bankrupt but couldn't be bothered to even present the bid in the appropriate format?
The author paints the CEO/her husband as someone who never takes no for an answer as if that is a great personality trait.
>Earlier, Bill had taken the stand to testify that LKCM's bid severely undervalued the company, and argued, as others had, that LKCM had planned the bankruptcy all along. "What evidence do you have?" countered LKCM's attorney. "Well," Bill said with a laugh, "all the testimony we've heard here in court."
Given the outcome of the judge's decision I get the feeling that "silly things" like filling in the appropriate documents or presenting sound evidence for your arguments aren't really the style of someone who doesn't take no for an answer.
This whole article reads like the lamentation of a bicycle rider who celebrated the victory too early only to find themselves well down the order.
2 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 17.7 ms ] threadThe author writes:
>he recommended that the judge take the other bid, saying Bill's was too late, too complex, and not presented on the official forms.
Are you kidding me? These people wanted to bid on a company that was currently bankrupt but couldn't be bothered to even present the bid in the appropriate format?
The author paints the CEO/her husband as someone who never takes no for an answer as if that is a great personality trait.
>Earlier, Bill had taken the stand to testify that LKCM's bid severely undervalued the company, and argued, as others had, that LKCM had planned the bankruptcy all along. "What evidence do you have?" countered LKCM's attorney. "Well," Bill said with a laugh, "all the testimony we've heard here in court."
Given the outcome of the judge's decision I get the feeling that "silly things" like filling in the appropriate documents or presenting sound evidence for your arguments aren't really the style of someone who doesn't take no for an answer.
This whole article reads like the lamentation of a bicycle rider who celebrated the victory too early only to find themselves well down the order.