100xOdds
100xOdds
  • Threads: 644
  • Posts: 4329
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
April 21st, 2015 at 3:15:47 AM permalink
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2015/03/06/federal-judge-rules-against-truland-group-ceo.html

Truland Inc was a multi-million dollar company.

Mr Truland (CEO) personally backed the surety bonds.

"XL Specialty (surety company) claimed Robert Truland and his wife, Mary, were financially responsible because the couple signed a July 2011 agreement indemnifying them against financial harm if it had to pay out claims on Trulands' behalf."

Claims exceed $35M.


Why would a CEO sign such a thing?!
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
98Clubs
98Clubs
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1728
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
April 21st, 2015 at 3:25:32 AM permalink
A c-level employee would not do such a thing 'intentionally' or 'without option'. The Trulands failed to disclose certain prior-existing covenants. THAT is the Judge's reasoning to barring the countersuit. But the Trulands argued unsuccessfully that over $40 millioin could be gathered from the existing covenants. Naturally, such collection would exclude the Trulands from 'personal' financial responsibility.

So there we are, right where we're at.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
  • Threads: 326
  • Posts: 9596
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
April 21st, 2015 at 3:30:33 AM permalink
It's easy to imagine, considering the name of the company, that the Trulands considered themselves the owners of the company, and he wound up as "CEO" in some incorporating move. Not your usual CEO.

Once somebody starts and builds a business, it becomes his "baby" and more often than not will be willing to experience financial ruin to try to keep if from going out of business.

Quote:

XL Specialty (surety company) claimed Robert Truland and his wife, Mary, were financially responsible because the couple signed a July 2011 agreement indemnifying them against financial harm if it had to pay out claims on Trulands' behalf.



This is the part I don't quite get. Should the sentence be changed like this?

"XL Specialty (surety company) claimed Robert Truland and his wife, Mary, were financially responsible because in spite of the fact that the couple signed a July 2011 agreement indemnifying them against financial harm if it had to pay out claims on Trulands' behalf."
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Area51
Area51
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Mar 12, 2015
April 21st, 2015 at 6:07:24 AM permalink
From that article it's hard to discern facts but I think it's an aggressive judge who, for what ever reason, wants this to go to trial. And it's going with that kind of money at stake. Meanwhile, the bond holders will sit for years waiting for some sort of payout.
teddys
teddys
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5528
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
April 29th, 2015 at 11:54:15 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

This is the part I don't quite get. Should the sentence be changed like this?

"XL Specialty (surety company) claimed Robert Truland and his wife, Mary, were financially responsible because in spite of the fact that the couple signed a July 2011 agreement indemnifying them against financial harm if it had to pay out claims on Trulands' behalf."

No. They are saying that the Trulands signed an agreement indemnifying the surety company, which means that the Trulands would take personal financial responsibility for any claims paid.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
petroglyph
petroglyph
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 3360
Joined: Jan 3, 2013
April 29th, 2015 at 12:04:56 PM permalink
Quote: teddys

Quote: odiousgambit

This is the part I don't quite get. Should the sentence be changed like this?

"XL Specialty (surety company) claimed Robert Truland and his wife, Mary, were financially responsible because in spite of the fact that the couple signed a July 2011 agreement indemnifying them against financial harm if it had to pay out claims on Trulands' behalf."

No. They are saying that the Trulands signed an agreement indemnifying the surety company, which means that the Trulands would take personal financial responsibility for any claims paid.



That was common back in my construction company days. In order to get the highest bonding ability [therefore the ability to bid larger projects] all partners put up all the collateral they had?

I was a pretty young fellow with guts and about 80k in [embellished] equity with a million dollar bonding ability. If a project had to be finished on the surety company's dime, they wanted everything they could get. I fully expected to lose my home if I failed.
  • Jump to: