AHRMA Dissolution?

Only my humble opinion, but now is the time for ALL members to formally and without delay to request a written explanation by AHRMA 'officials': reasons, rationale for continuing, and legal expenses/source of funding for same.
Anything preventing members from hiring legal counsel of their own to obtain tthose answers?

 

That is answered in part, in Janiec's letter:

"AHRMA has a counterclaim pending against Mr. Iannucci and the other plaintiffs based on the rulebook, which provides for AHRMA to recover its attorney fees. "

 

So now the rationale for continuing is based on a counterclaim based on the rulebook...well, i'm certain that the AHRMA rulebook will make those judges
stand on end, fer sure!!! Yep, AHRMA may certainly stake a claim to recover
its legal expenses if it prevails in litigation, provided the court and or jury agrees and to what degree no one knows. Anyway, Carl, I still do not think this is the same as all members (or a bona fide representative of all members)
asking for a written explanation. How can you consent to be governed if you do not have an informed consent?

 

put bleachers out in the sun-have it on highway 61

rob and jeff settle it out on vintage race bikes--that's the most intelligent comment yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

 

No doubt about the outcome of the RR shootout. Rob's been a great supporter of Vintage RR, but he's no racer.

 

lets end the lawsuits and get back to the track...

Hi All,

I'm glad to see someone finally questioned the 16 year line... Sixteen years ago is 1990. As I understand it, Mr. I was using the Bears name when AHRMA held the trademark. There was a long long court battle & appeal which resulted in AHRMA prevailing.
*****I do not know if AHRMA re-couped any of the money or if there was a cash penalty******
Then AHRMA Trustees voted to "Un-invite" Mr. I from the club. He appealed but lost. Then he sued.... That would be the 68 page complaint that Dave Janiec speaks of on the What's new part of AHRMA's website. (about 2001)
Since AHRMA felt this was BS, they counter-sued Mr. I to try to recoup the attorney fees...
Listen, did you hear that.... It's the sucking sound of Depositions.. Lawyers doing research... Like a scientist... It's called... Discovery! That is the cash cow of all parts of a suit.....

Unfortunately, All of this CRAP has gone on too long!
If the story Stu told about a mailing going out... Who ever did it should high side in an off-camber curve! :down: (That idiot deserves it...)

But the group as it is today, does not deserve to waste it's time with legal proceedings... It needs to worry about building the grids up and getting more street riders involved in our sport.

If Jeff Smith & some other old farts have a beef with Mr. I, they should settle it between themselves. AHRMA's future should not be jeopardized...

Lets drop all this crap on both sides and go to the track...
How about 2 track-dogs & a Chip?

Sparksfarmer

 

Well, three days and as many emails to the email address listed on the AHRMA site for Dave Janiec, Chairman of the AHRMA Board of Trustees, and no response, despite a request that at least he acknowledge my emails and tell me he does not wish to communicate with me. Hmmmm, I guess the next attempt will be the resigning Director, Dave Lambreth. More to follow.

 

And they have prevailed in the previous judgements. Have a look at the rulings that have been passed down so far.

 

As simply an interested bystander, I woud like to think I could add something here that helps understanding (nothing seems to help get my fat ass around the track faster!) about this situation: for all interested, take some time to research "nonprofit corporations"-the benefits, the drawbacks, the limited liability aspects and the exceptions to that limited liability...I was drawn to the aspect of liability in a nonprofit corporation and found that there has
definitely been an increase in legal actions taken against the directors of
nonprofit corporations in the last five years or so...directors, trustees, etc., are being held to account and it certainly can cause some concern if there are insurance problems; any 'gap' or decrease in that liability coverage by itself can cause grave concern among those directors, trustees, etc. about personal liability...I think I'd resign also if that were the case, and I think so would you...so, yes, it's a bit complicated and definitely very legal, to be fair to both sides in this AMHRA-Ianucci situation.

 

Mongo - point about further patience well taken. After all, this has been pending for YEARS.

Charles - point about increased scrutiney and liability on officers and directors well made. It's a new world since Sarbanes Oxley and the corporate scandals that rocked Enron, Global Crossing, etc. I suspect AHRMA's trustees received some less than prudent advice from their counsel. Settling a matter, also known as buying a certain result, while often unpalatable to those who demand "justice" and "being vindicated in court" or who insist upon "standing on principle", simply makes good economic business sense, provided a reasonable settlement can be achieved. My sense (again I don't know the facts because those who do won't divulge them) is that AHRMA refused to pay anything in settlement, while committing to pay hundreds of thousands in defense, with the hope (an uncertain outcome for sure as I do not know the basis of the counterclaim for attorneys fees, i.e., whether it is contractual or stautory) of recovering some or all of those fees. The facts today - a financially depleted AHRMA - indicate that such a decision was unwise. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but that is the perspective a jury always has.

 

Again, as an interested observer- I would suspect that an insurance carrier, especially a carrier replacing a previous carrier, woud take a long hard look at the prospects of liability before issuing a policy to provide D&O coverage, and
would be looking at any current or prospective litigation, but perhaps i'm wrong about that...in any case, considering this latest post from 83BSA, I am still struck by the notion that a nonprofit corporation owes it members certain
explanations, especially if there is voting and member meetings, etc. I would also wonder if a dissolution, if that is in the cards, must be voted upon by the members prior to mandatory filing with the state?

 

Just a few words about "nonprofit corporations"- like AHRMA...main reasons for setting up a nonprofit is (1) tax exempt status upon proper filings and approval as per Interanal Revenue Code Sec 501(c)(3); and (2) limited liability protection for directors, trustees, and officers...typically, for example, these administrators can not be held personally liable for the debts of the nonprofit...there are exceptions to this limited liability, of course, pursuant to law, for example, tax obligations and personal guarantee for obtaining credit...
in addition, and this struck me as a main 'tenet' of nonprofits, there are standards of conduct for these adminstrators- good faith, ordinary care, and
reasonableness (not perfection, okay?)...nonprofits can not be used to generate profits or 'unjust enrichment' for these adminstrators, who can be held personally accountable for violation of statutory duties, for breach of duty of loyalty to the corp or its members; for acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or knowing violation of law; and forany transaction from which directors receive an improper personal benefit.
Hope this adds some clarity and understanding.

 

So, to sum it up, Ianucci is just being an ass now and the AHRMA board members are dropping like flies to avoid the clubs pending money problems?

Great.

Ah, who cares. They don't have a good class for my to race the TZ350 and I don't like racing at Daytona.

 

It took alittle while of digging but lookie what I found.

http://www.nonprofitissues.com/public/features/leadfree/2006aug1-IS.html

 

Here's one of the sources of the current concern: AHRMA's soon-to-be-former attorneys' motion to withdraw being filed UNDER SEAL. When a client stpos paying his counsel, and that counsel wants out because he's not being paid, everyone in the case knows it. That is not filed under seal. Usually things filed under seal deal with ethical issues, protections or privileges (such as the attorney client privilege or work product protection). Given this particular motion was made in the midst of on going depositions of both sides, one might suspect that facts came to light which may implicate the propriety of actions taken or not taken, information disclosed or not disclosed, etc. Who knows? And who is representing AHRMA's (the members') interests vis-a-vis their soon-to-be-former attorneys?

That is not muck raking or rabble rousing folks. That is simply good old fashioned prudent, responsible concern. I'm interested in what Rodger Doyle's experience in this regard is and what his thoughts on the motion-to-withdraw-under-seal may mean. It is unusual and concerning.

 

Its all very interesting, sad, but interesting.

But my only real question is am I throwing my money away when I send in my $$ to renew my ahrma licence?

Is there really any chance ahrma is going to go under in the next year?