
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: October 1, 2013
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comThe improper use of the “I am not going to negotiate against myself” tactic I have seen employed in too many of these proceedings is now front and center in the current national debt debate.
There is nothing objectionable about that statement of position after having made a demand (seller) or offer (buyer) that is within reason, usually based upon a determinable range for market value. “Fair Market Value” has been described in law as “the price that a seller is willing to accept and a buyer is willing to pay in an arm’s-length transaction.”
I recently represented a lender in a court-ordered mediation with the borrower who acknowledged owing more than $200,000, but communicated an initial offer of only $30,000 through the mediator. The mediator (in my view correctly) confirmed that communicating that offer showed that the defendant debtor was refusing to indicate the actual range in which it was willing to negotiate settlement and that these negotiations were doomed to fail because of posturing by the debtor. Despite the patent bad faith of the debtor’s initial offer, the debtor stated it was unwilling to bid against itself by increasing its initial, clearly bad faith, offer.
I refused to make a demand until the debtor made a more indicative offer. Our client was willing to walk away from the mediation, and the mediator did not find unreasonable my refusal to make a counter demand to anything less than an offer indicating a willingness to negotiate in the six figure range. I was unwilling to have our client bid against itself. I was willing to show our demand in the $170,000 range with reasonable secured time payment terms (defendant threatened bankruptcy and drawn out litigation, and our client was cash poor and willing to discount the debt in favor of immediate cash). The mediator encouraged the debtor to up its initial offer, which the debtor, feigning reluctance, made another unworkable, albeit better, offer of $50,000.
Although the mediation did not succeed, by the end of the day, we were able to get an offer in the low six figures, which we rejected. The bad faith in the debtor’s approach to the mediation was in not signaling, even to or through the mediator, the offer it was actually willing to pay. This became evident several days later, when the debtor “blinked” and debtor’s counsel communicated a significantly higher offer.
The sad fact as to what is going on in Washington is the Democrats’ refusal to bid against themselves in the face of what even Senate Republicans publicly acknowledge to be offers by the House Republicans that are unreasonable. House Republicans are using a ploy analogous to the bad faith offers and threat of bankruptcy of my client’s debtor; this tactic is what our mediator saw as bad faith negotiating. While it is the House Republicans who claim that it is now up to the Democrats to make a counter-offer, the Senate majority voted to not engage in negotiations with what was described as this “holding the country hostage” tactic of the House Republicans.
The Democrat position, that they are unwilling to bid against themselves, seems reasonable to those, including many Republicans, who view the House Republican threat to shut down the Government as wrongheaded. Yet, it is the House Republicans who are complaining, to a mostly incredulous public, that the Democrats are not willing to negotiate.
A lesson here is that the tactic of stating a refusal to bid against oneself should only be used when one has taken a good faith position in the negotiations, or, when one is in a power position to dictate terms and there is no need for a future relationship between the parties (or, in this situation, the Parties).
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!