decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text
Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 08:51 PM EST

You know how in the movie "Sleepless in Seattle," the heroine and her best friend are in an editors' conference, and they're talking about the odds of a woman over 35 getting married being like being hit by lightning, or worse? And the heroine says, "That's not true." And her friend says, "It's not true, but it feels true." Well, this is an affidavit that may be true. But it doesn't feel true. Not to me. Let me explain why.

It's Darla Newbold's affidavit [PDF], another in the collection of affidavits in support of the Yarro, Mott, Christensen complaint. She was the legal assistant at Canopy until Mr. Mustard's "rude" behavior made her decide that work conditions there were "intolerable" and she quit, despite her worries that the company can't make it without her. Of course, should the troika return to the helm, she would be very glad to return to her old position.

She tells the same tale they all do. That's suspicious in and of itself. Normally you find details that are slightly different, even contradictory, if you have a group of people relating the same event. Even the four gospels aren't singsong identical.

Her story is the same as the others. Mr. Mustard was hostile toward them, wanted them to sign a paper, and they all felt so intimidated by his manner, they signed without having time to really read it. I'm sorry, but that reads to me like a pile of baloney. No one is intimidated into signing anything because someone yells. Not an entire group. And not, I must say, a legal assistant. She would know not to sign anything without talking to her lawyer. That is so, so basic.

She too does not tell us what the document said. Mr. Penrose signed and was upset later, and she was distraught to learn of his suicide a couple of days later. She says she was afraid to talk to the other remaining employees at work, for fear of Mr. Mustard. Right. Like not in the lunchroom? Not in the ladies room? Come on. They'd call each other after work, for sure, let alone IM, in a situation like this, don't you think? If I were on a jury, I'd find it hard to swallow that they all sat there saying nothing about the dramatic events.

She adds a few more details about the extent of Canopy's influence and reach into the portfolio companies, but by far the most interesting details she adds are that it was while Ralph Yarro was called away to the meeting at which he was summarily terminated over the speakerphone by the Noordas, that Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen were marched out of Canopy by "a group of men". It sounds like the whole thing was planned and executed like a military operation. In fact, Ms. Newbold calls it a "takeover." Of course, to the Noordas, it would probably feel more like a hostage rescue, the company being the hostage.

And she also tells us, in paragraph 8, that a lawyer from the firm now representing the Noordas told her "that Mr. Yarro and Mr. Mott were going to be removed from the Board of Directors of all Canopy portfolio companies through consent resolutions whenever possible, and otherwise when necessary, through shareholders meetings."

I originally left off employee names from the transcript of the Noordas' complaint against Yarro, Mott and Christensen, because I thought they might be innocent bystanders, and I try always to be kind. I will now put them in, as it is apparent now, if not before, that they are choosing to make themselves participants in the lawsuit, and the amount of money/shares/options, etc. they each are alleged to have received is part of this story. The complaint lists this for Ms. Newbold:

Darla Newbold - 45 Class A - $18.00 -- 25% starting 1/16/02
Newbold 44,955 Class B - $18.00 -- 25% starting 6/02

The foregoing equity compensation was excessive, unfair to Canopy, and constituted waste of corporate assets.

And Mamma mia, what an awful story.

*********************************

STANLEY J. PRESTON (4119)
MICHAEL R. CARLSTON (0577)
MARALYN M. REGER (8468)
SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[address, phone]


IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH


RALPH J. YARRO III, an individual,
DARCY G. MOTT, an individual, and
BRENT D. CHRISTENSEN, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

VAL NOORDA KREIDEL, an individual,
TERRY PETERSON, an individual,
WILLIAM MUSTARD, an individual, THE
NOORDA FAMILY TRUST, a Trust,
RAYMOND J. NOORDA, an individual
and a trustee of the Noorda Family Trust,
LEWENA NOORDA, an individual and a
trustee of the Noorda Family Trust, and
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Defendants.

_____________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF DARLA NEWBOLD

Civil No. 050400205

Honorable Anthony W. Schofield, Div. 8

__________________________

STATE OF UTAH )
: ss.
COUNTY OF UTAH )

Darla Newbold, being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says:

1. I am over twenty-one years of age and have personal knowledge of the facts stated below.

1

2. I earned a Legal Secretary Certificate from Salt Lake Community College. I had six years experience working for law firms prior to my employment with The Canopy Group, Inc. ("Canopy").

3. In January 2001, I was hired as a Legal Assistant at Canopy. I worked closely with Canopy's corporate counsel, Brent Christensen ("Mr. Christensen") and certain Canopy portfolio companies' legal departments. My duties at Canopy were varied, but included, among other things, the following: maintaining the corporate books of Canopy, working on consent resolutions, keeping track of calendars and schedules regarding pending transactions, assisting with due diligence reviews, and assisting certain portfolio companies maintain their corporate books.

4. I became acquainted with Raymond J. Noorda ("Mr. Noorda") and Lewena Noorda ("Mrs. Noorda") when I started working at Canopy. I have never heard Mr. or Mrs. Noorda criticize Ralph J. Yarro, III ("Mr. Yarro"), Canopy's President and Chief Executive Officer, Darcy Mott ("Mr. Mott"), Canopy's Vice President, Corporate Counsel and Assistant Secretary.

5. I have known Mr. Yarro for approximately four years. Mr. Yarro has treated me with respect as an employee of Canopy. I consider Mr. Yarro to be a skilled businessman. He has provided a tremendous amount of support and advice to the Canopy employees and the Canopy portfolio companies.

6. I was aware that on December 17, 2004, Mr. Yarro was attending a meeting of Canopy's Board of Directors at Scenic View Center. While Mr. Yarro was gone to attend the

2

meeting, I saw a group of men enter the Canopy offices. These men escorted Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen to a conference room and then out of the building. The remaining Canopy employees were then directed to report to a conference room for a meeting.

7. At the meeting on December 17, 2004, a man I had never seen before, William Mustard ("Mr. Mustard") informed Canopy employees that as a result of an action of Canopy's Board of Directors, he was now the President and Chief Executive Officer of Canopy. He told us that Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen were no longer employees of Canopy. David Watkiss, as attorney with the Law Firm of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP ("Ballard Spahr") was at the meeting. Val Noorda Kreidel came into the meeting after it had started. I was upset by what occurred during that meeting.

8. After the takeover of Canopy by Mr. Mustard, I tried to perform my work duties and assist with the transition. Mr. Mustard rarely spoke with me. In fact, he appeared suspicious of and hostile to me and other of the Canopy employees. Mr. Mustard instructed me to assist Brandon Tidwell, a Ballard Spahr attorney. I assisted Mr. Tidwell in reviewing the corporate records. I explained the corporate books to him and advised him of matters currently of concern with the Canopy portfolio companies. He stated that Mr. Yarro and Mr. Mott were going to be removed from the Board of Directors of all Canopy portfolio companies through consent resolutions whenever possible, and otherwise when necessary, through shareholders meetings.

9. After the takeover of Canopy, the atmosphere at work was tense. I was upset and would like to have spoken to other employees about what was occurring, but was concerned of the suspicions Mr. Mustard would have if I were seen talking to other employees at work.

10. On December 22, 2004, I was told that Mr. Mustard wanted to convene a meeting

3

with all Canopy employees. At that meeting, Mr. Mustard gave each Canopy employee a document, and told us to read and sign the document. When Dan Baker ("Mr. Baker"), a Canopy employee, stood up to get a pen to sign the document, Mr. Mustard told him in a raised voice to "SIT DOWN." The document I was given to sign was dated December 17, 2004. While I was carefully reading the document, Mr. Mustard asked me in a stern voice if I had a problem with the document. I told him I was just trying to read it carefully. I felt intimidated by his attitude and coerced to sign the document. Mr. Mustard then became angry with Mr. Baker, asking him why he had crossed off the date of December 17, 2004. Mr. Baker started to explain, but Mr. Mustard interrupted him. Mr. Mustard repeatedly asked Mr. Baker, in an angry voice, whether Mr. Baker had spoken to others about what had occurred on December 17, 2004. When Mr. Baker tried to answer, Mr. Mustard interrupted him and repeatedly told him, with a raised voice, that he wanted a "yes" or "no" answer. Mr. Baker finally replied "no." I was upset by Mr. Mustard's hostile and threatening conduct. Other employees were also visibly upset by Mr. Mustard's conduct. The employees did not say anything to Mr. Mustard after that heated exchange. After the meeting, I cleaned off my desk, as Mr. Mustard had demanded that all employees do, and then left for the Canopy Christmas luncheon.

11. Mr. Mustard did not attend the Canopy Christmas luncheon. At the Canopy Christmas luncheon, the employees discussed how upset they were with the recent events and what had occurred during the meeting. Rob Penrose was very distraught. He kept repeating that he shouldn't have signed the paper. We tried to reassure Rob Penrose that we all knew that we had been coerced and intimidated, and that we had not been give an option to not sign the document.

4

12. After the Christmas luncheon, Canopy's offices were scheduled to be closed until January 3, 2005.

13. Two days after the Christmas luncheon, I was told that Rob Penrose had committed suicide. I was very distraught to learn this.

14. On Monday, January 3, 2005, the first day Canopy's offices were open after the Christmas break, Mr. Mustard did not speak to Canopy's employees about the death of Rob Penrose.

15. Throughout the next few weeks, Mr. Mustard continued to treat me and other Canopy employees in a rude, untrusting and intimidating manner. For example, on one occasion I was startled when I heard Mr. Mustard yell "NO" in an angry voice. I heard him loudly even though I was on the other side of the office complex at the time. I later learned that he was yelling at Mr. Baker, a Canopy employee.

16. Mr. Mustard did not appear to have a plan as to how to manage the affairs of Canopy and the Canopy portfolio companies. Under Mr. Yarro's direction I clearly understood that two of the purposes of Canopy was to provide good quality jobs and to build businesses. Mr. Mustard's vision seemed to be the opposite. Furthermore, Mr. Mustard was reluctant and very slow to make decisions, even urgent decisions. I considered the working conditions at Canopy to be intolerable.

17. I resigned my employment with Canopy on January 18, 2005.

18. I have not obtained other employment. To my knowledge, Canopy has not hired someone to fill my position. If Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen are permitted to continue as officers of Canopy, and if I have not found other employment, I would like to resume

5

my employment with Canopy.

19. I am concerned that my resignation from Canopy will adversely affect Canopy and Canopy portfolio companies. No one has specific knowledge of the corporate books to the extent Mr. Christensen and I do. Also, no one, other than the attorneys at Ballard Spahr (which some of the portfolio companies will not be able to afford) are available to assist the portfolio companies with, among other things, maintaining their corporate books, preparing proper notices, doing due diligence, keeping track of options and assisting with the legal papers involving business transactions.

20. I also believe that Canopy and the portfolio companies have been adversely affected by the actions purportedly taken on December 17, 2004. The portfolio companies relied upon Mr. Yarro for business advice, support, and guidance. Mr. Yarro knew everyone in management of the portfolio companies and whether the portfolio companies were making reasonable progress in implementing their business plans. Also, I know that Mr. Mott prepared and maintained capitalization tables that were relied upon by Canopy and the portfolio companies. No one remaining at Canopy knows, to the extent Mr. Mott knows, the historical background of the portfolio companies and the financial documents.

21. I have exercised my options for Class A Voting stocks in Canopy, to the extent they have vested. To my knowledge there have been no Canopy shareholders meetings or shareholder consent resolutions since February 2004. I am not aware of any Canopy shareholder meetings set to be held in 2005.

6

___[signature]___
DARLA NEWBOLD

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th day of January, 2005.

___[signature]___
Notary Public
Residing in Salt Lake County, Utah

My Commission Expires:

[Notary Public Seal]


  


Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text | 187 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text
Authored by: entre on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 08:57 PM EST
Corrections here, please

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mean Mr. Mustard
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 09:12 PM EST
somebody had to say it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections?
Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 09:18 PM EST
In paragraph 20:

advie --> advise

---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

[ Reply to This | # ]

John Does?
Authored by: stevem on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 09:29 PM EST
I may have missed this earlier, but who are the types of personas nominated as
"JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10" in the header of the complaint?

Would this be the group of "men" who marched folk off premises and
such?


- SteveM

[ Reply to This | # ]

What next?
Authored by: Night Flyer on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 09:43 PM EST
I am curious about how this change (Yarro et al) might affect SCO's various
lawsuites.

I am guessing that the Noordas have received opinions that SCO won't win in
court, and that a major amount of money is leaking out in a way that is out of
their control.

If I was an owner, this would cause me to be somewhat irate. In fact, I might
want to clear out the people who I believed had contributed to this disaster.

I speculate that, if SCO were to try to withdraw its lawsuit(s), that IBM would
ask for quite specific appologies and substantial reimbursements for its costs
and attacks on IBM's corporate integrity (and don't forget to add Novell,
AutoZone and Daimler-Chrysler into this.)

(In other words, I speculate that SCO is in for a terminal financial bath
whether it withdraws its lawsuits or not.)

Frankly, I am glad I am not an SCO manager, or any part of the organization. I
don't see any way out for them.

---------------------------

Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers

[ Reply to This | # ]

Following the same script
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 09:59 PM EST
She tells the same tale they all do. That's suspicious in and of itself. Normally you find details that are slightly different, even contradictory, if you have a group of people relating the same event. Even the four gospels aren't singsong identical.

This statement and that of Joyce Wiley are so similar that they must have been prepared from a common template. The structure is identical. The peculiar pattern of cited events is identical. Many of the sentences are even identical word for word. Clearly these are not independant accounts.

I conjecture that after initial discussion the attorneys in this case prepared a template setting out the story that they would like told and the various complainants then modified and edited this template to form their individual statements.

How common is this kind of practice? I can see where it would certainly help an attorney to be sure that all of their clients were saying consistent things as they would all be literally reading from the same script (as it were). It might also help an attorney minimise costs. However I personally would place more credence on the statements of complainants if it was clear that each complainant had prepared their own. If the judge feels the same way this apparently clever strategy may backfire.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darla's a newbie to corporate intrigue
Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 10:02 PM EST
Para (6):
While Mr. Yarro was gone to attend the meeting, I saw a group of men enter the Canopy offices. These men escorted Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen to a conference room and then out of the building.

This is SOP whenever an employee is terminated, even if it's an "amicable" resignation. To protect its interests, the corporation ensures that the ex-employee does not take confidential material, customer lists, proposals in progress with her, nor can the employee log in to the corporate computer and type "rm *.

Para (7):
At the meeting on December 17, 2004, a man I had never seen before, William Mustard ("Mr. Mustard")...

Let's see, Mr. Mustard was Outside Counsel for Canopy, wasn't he? If Darla didn't recognize him, maybe she wasn't as into the inner-loop as she would like to think.

Para (8):
After the takeover of Canopy by Mr. Mustard, I tried to perform my work duties and assist with the transition. Mr. Mustard rarely spoke with me. In fact, he appeared suspicious of and hostile to me and other of the Canopy employees.

And why should he not be suspicious? Mr. Mustard reports to Mr. Noorda, who suspects that Yarro et al are taking him for a ride. Anyone associated with the previous management is going to be viewed with suspicion (rightly or wrongly).

Para (16):
Mr. Mustard did not appear to have a plan as to how to manage the affairs of Canopy and the Canopy portfolio companies. Under Mr. Yarro's direction I clearly understood that two of the purposes of Canopy was to provide good quality jobs and to build businesses. Mr. Mustard's vision seemed to be the opposite.

Darla seems to be saying that Mr. Mustard's vision was to provide poor quality jobs and destroy businesses. Unfortunately, she seems to lack any detail to support this claim.

Para (19):
No one has specific knowledge of the corporate books to the extent Mr. Christensen and I do.

Provided the accounting practices of Canopy follow GAAP, it should be possible for anyone reasonably skilled in the accounting arts to develop a clear picture of the books. Of course, if some entries are a bit fudged...

If someone hasn't already done it by then, tomorrow I'll comment on the subtle choice of words in the affadavit.

---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ms. Newbold's Qualifications
Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 10:46 PM EST
I feel a little bad, picking on Ms. Newbold this evening. She probably took this job four years ago with what seemed a well-established family holding company. I'm sure the Noorda family is well-respected locally (as, for example, the Rooneys or the Hardys are in Western Pennsylvania), so going to work for the family holding company would be an attractive opportunity.

But in evaluating her affadavit, let's not forget that her background is as a Legal Secretary, not Accounting. She earned a Legal Assisting Certificate from Salt Lake City Community College (Para 8).

According to the SLCCC web site, this is a two course, 4 credit hour, continuing education program. In my opinion, that's a bit "light" to be called a Community College Certificate. For example, the CC where I teach requires a minimum of 15 credit hours for a certificate in any field.

---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

[ Reply to This | # ]

The "paper" that they signed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 11:06 PM EST

All of the things that she says seem like standard corp. practices. So what?... There's no law against being gruff or rude. She never once says "Mr. Mustard grabbed my ass," so as far as I see, she's got no claim.

Why does she seem to be so evasive about the nature of this "paper" that she signed? She seems to know EXACTLY what date was on it, and that it had been pre-dated (From Dec 17 to the 22nd or whatever), and that she was trying to read it cafefully, and that someone else scratched out the date, etc.... but exactly NOTHING about what it said or even a rough guess about what it might have been about.

What does this paper say, or are they not saying for the purpose of later pleading ignorance? I can hear her now....

" I was reading very carefully, so I didn't get past the first sentence, I have no idea at all what it was about. I only signed it because that evil Mr. Mustard had a pipewrench in the meeting room, and that's not how this murder is supposed to happen.... It's supposed to be Mrs. Peacock in the copy room"

Just as unbelievable as all of the stuff coming from these guys....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not a "Find and Replace" job, but close...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 11:07 PM EST
Darla Newbold:

"5. I have known Mr. Yarro for approximately four years. Mr. Yarro has
treated me with respect as an employee of Canopy. I consider Mr. Yarro to be a
skilled businessman. He has provided a tremendous amount of support and advice
to the Canopy employees and the Canopy portfolio companies."

Compare to Joyce Wiley:

"7. I have known Mr. Yarro for approximately nine years. Mr. Yarro has
treated me with respect as an employee of Canopy. Mr. Yarro is a skilled
businessman and has provided a tremendous amount of support and advice to Canopy
employees and to the Canopy portfolio companies."

Wonder how many other affidavits this will appear in. I half expected to see
the same paragraph in Ralph Yarro's affidavit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whoa! I'm in the wrong line of work
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 11:30 PM EST
What the heck am I wasting time as a programmer for? Here's a *SECRETARY* with
an *8 credit hour community school class*, and after just FOUR years in the job
market she has stock and options worth:

NEARLY 1 MILLION DOLLARS !?!

No wonder the Noorda's are upset! HOLY MACKEREL! (aka "Something smells
fishy, very, very fishy!"). This bullet just blasted a hole in Yarro's
foot. If that isn't excessive, I don't know what the heck is!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 11:40 PM EST
"No one is intimidated into signing anything because someone yells. Not an
entire group."

It depends upon the circumstances and the power dynamics between the person
doing the yelling and the group being yelled at. I mean, if you were part of a
group of Rumanian peasants and prince Vlad Dracula was yelling at you, would you
want to boldly stride to the head of the group and give him some lip?


"And not, I must say, a legal assistant. She would know not to sign
anything without talking to her lawyer. That is so, so basic. She too does not
tell us what the document said. Mr. Penrose signed and was upset later, and she
was distraught to learn of his suicide a couple of days later."

This behavior begs the question: where was Christensen and what was he doing
while all this was going on?


"She says she was afraid to talk to the other remaining employees at work,
for fear of Mr. Mustard ..."

I used to work for an outfit whose CEO used terror and exploitation tactics on
his staff. His effectiveness was always circumscribed by the fact that we had
and used cell phones and would take weekly lunch breaks away from his micrphone
studded mini cafeteria - He knew it and he was irritated about it.

I surmise that Ralph Yarro has no real skills to offer anyone, except as a
graphic artist. If he doesn't get his job back, then he is in serious trouble as
the individual who is the driving force behind SCOG's behavior - I doubt that
this conduct would pass muster with any potential employer. And Ralph Yarro just
raised the stakes by suing his ex-employer - All I can say is that for his sake,
his ex-employer had better not establish in court that Ralph Yarro had taken
advantage of his ex-employer and unjustly enriched himself.

I'd say if Ralph Yarro doesn't get his job back, then I see either of two
futures for him: (1) flipping burgers at the local greasy spoon; or (2) dancing
on tables wearing a thong in Vegas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

De-ja vu
Authored by: jim Reiter on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 11:45 PM EST


Darla Newbold

11. Mr. Mustard did not attend the Canopy Christmas luncheon. At the Canopy
Christmas luncheon, the employees discussed how upset they were with the recent
events and what had occurred during the meeting. Rob Penrose was very
distraught. He kept repeating that he shouldn't have signed the paper. We tried
to reassure Rob Penrose that we all knew that we had been coerced and
intimidated, and that we had not been give an option to not sign the document.

Joyce Wiley

12. Mr. Mustard did not attend the Canopy Christmas luncheon. At the Canopy
Christmas luncheon, the employees discussed how upset they were with the recent
events and by what had occurred during the meeting with Mr. Mustard. Rob
Penrose, in particular, was very distraught. He kept repeating that he should
not have signed the document. We tried to reassure Rob Penrose that we all knew
that each of us had felt coerced into signing the document.

How original.


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • De-ja vu - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 12:17 AM EST
  • De-ja vu - Authored by: odysseus on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:28 AM EST
The "Rashomon effect" NOT in effect here...
Authored by: AHGrayLensman on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 12:25 AM EST
It's hilarious to see all these virtually identical affidavits go by just after
watching Kurosawa's classic 1950 film <i>Rashomon</i> with some
friends last night. It's more or less accepted among experts that even
well-meaning witnesses will give slightly differing accounts of the same events.
For so many of these affidavits to recount the exact same sequence of events
(down to having the same wording in places) requires a certain amount of, shall
we say, coordination.

To put this in perspective, let me tell you very briefly about a civil trial I
sat in while I as on jury duty in December. A guy and his girlfriend had their
car rear-ended by a guy in another car -- that much everybody agreed on.
However, there wasn't much agreement on the details: what the road conditions
were like, how fast the cars were going, how long it took the cops to show up,
etc. Even the guy and his girlfriend disagreed on what happened in places,
though it was in their best interests not to.

I find it *very* hard to believe that the Canopy employees could have filed
affidavits so close to identical without all those documents having a common
documentary source...

--Troy

---
"You are finite, Zathras is finite, this... is wrong tool. No, not good, never
use this!" --Zathras, "War Without End (pt. 2)", Babylon 5

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who is Mr. Baker?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 12:31 AM EST
The remarkable similarity between the statements thus far is pretty amazing. It
seems intended to communicate to someone (Mean Mister Mustard?) that every
former employee is in this together and will fight to get their jobs back.
Most(all?) of them resigned, taking wrongful firing off the table. I wonder if
Yarro is paying them out of his pocket?

I'm kind of amazed that Mr. Baker, whatever his job is/was seems to be the only
person at Canopy with enough strength to challenge Mean Mister Mustard. So far
no statement from him has surfaced. I find that very interesting.

Does anyone have anything on him? I looked but the name is so common I couldn't
be sure.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speculation about Lightning Strikes
Authored by: dodger on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 02:58 AM EST
Employees sometimes have restrictions on the sale of stock and options. If a
person is key or important in a company or have access to confidential company
information (such as the health of a company) then they have certain
restrictions on when and how they dispose of their own options and stock.
Insider Trading is the crime. And so of course, if insider rules apply to Darla,
then she needs to 'walk on egg shells' not to cross into territory that might
get her in trouble. Sales of stock and options by insiders have to be registered
in a 'special' way. So the story about how intolerable Mr. Mustard is may just
be camouflage and it perhaps doesn't cut the mustard!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text
Authored by: Greebo on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 03:43 AM EST
The similarities between the Joyce Wiley and Darla Newbold statements are too many to be accidental.

Someone earlier speculated that they have filled in a standard form, and it does look like this at first glance, but the numbering is wrong for that.

What it does remind me of is giving a Statement to the Police, something i've only ever had to do as a Witness thank god. I would tell my story to the police man, and he would then write it down in Offical Police Language. What you end up with is something that is very different in structure to what i said, but has the same facts.

Is it possible that that has happened here? These people have given their own stories, in their own words, but then the lawyers have structured those stories into this?

IANAL, but i do not see any other way that these two statements can be so similar.

Greebo.

---
PJ has permission to use my posts for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Uncanny...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 04:10 AM EST
Darla: The employees did not say anything to Mr. Mustard after that heated
exchange. After the meeting, I cleaned off my desk, as Mr. Mustard had demanded
that all employees do, and then left for the Canopy Christmas luncheon.

11. Mr. Mustard did not attend the Canopy Christmas luncheon. At the Canopy
Christmas luncheon, the employees discussed how upset they were with the recent
events and what had occurred during the meeting.

Joyce: The employees did not say anything to Mr. Mustard after that heated
exchange. After the meeting, I cleaned off my desk, as Mr. Mustard had
instructed, and left for the Canopy Christmas luncheon.

12. Mr. Mustard did not attend the Canopy Christmas luncheon. At the Canopy
Christmas luncheon, the employees discussed how upset they were with the recent
events and by what had occurred during the meeting with Mr. Mustard.

They must be employing some super efficient screening program at Canopy to make
sure that all their employees are identical... er.... I mean compatible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Uncanny... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:08 AM EST
  • Uncanny... - Authored by: bstone on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:21 AM EST
Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text
Authored by: Fourmyle on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 04:54 AM EST
I still believe that malice doesn't need to be attributed when simple stupidity
will do. That said, I'm leaning toward malice at this point. Unless these people
are verifiably telepathic and channeling each other, there is no way they could
produce independent accounts that match that well. I'd expect larger differences
if they were reciting scripts from memory.
It probably does show what points they intend to expound though.
1 happy business disrupted maliciously
2 new directors lacking any business ability
3 key personel forced out to the detriment of all
4 good people destroyed.

Now the question in my mind is were these accounts of what has occured to them ,
or thier own original business plan ?
( ok that may be a bit snippy on my part, I feel a bit suckered by the earlier
statements ). I can see one person recalling events in a black and white manner
with themselves being the good guys ( of course ) but two, and in idential
phrases, that stretches credibility.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Threads here
Authored by: Naich on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:16 AM EST
Thought I'd put an OT thread in here, seeing as there isn't one yet.

Do this:
<a href="http://www.example.com">Link</a>
to your links and the world can click.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text
Authored by: odysseus on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:40 AM EST
"16. Mr. Mustard did not appear to have a plan as to how
to manage the affairs of Canopy and the Canopy portfolio
companies. "

Well, duh. He's only just worked in the front door and is
trying to work out the mess, it's not likely that he'd
have a cohesive strategic plan just yet.

John.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The secret document.
Authored by: urzumph on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 07:34 AM EST
Note for americans : In this post, assume dd/mm/yy date format

I have been trying to figgure out what the document is. It's obviously
important.

So far, we know :
Mr Mustard tried to get some canopy employees to sign a document, and the
employees are trying to state that they were coerced into doing so.

The document was dated 17/12/04, and the date of signing was 22/12/04

The date is important, as Mr Mustard became upset when a 'Dan Baker' attempted
to change it.

The document (or signing it) is in some way ethically questionable.
"Rob Penrose was very distraught. He kept repeating that he shouldn't have
signed the paper."
(Whereas, signing most other papers which you later regret usually don't lead to
you being distraught, simply unhappy. This is my only basis for this contention,
which I admit is somewhat less defensible than the others)

The document in some way related to the events of December 17
"Mr. Mustard repeatedly asked Mr. Baker, in an angry voice, whether Mr.
Baker had spoken to others about what had occurred on December 17, 2004."

And lastly, the fact that neither of them actually stated what the document was.
I realise that the documents are boilerplate, but for neither of the witnesses
to change what seems like a glaring hole, seems suspicious. (Although, it may be
to shore up the 'coerced' claim, because they 'didn't know what they were
signing'

Now, previous posts have suggested that the document may be an NDA, about what
happened on the 17th. This however, fails on several counts. AFAIK, courts trump
an NDA any day, and since courts are public, the information will most likely
get out (unless they file the whole lot under seal).

Next, if you knew you needed to keep what was happening quiet, you would not
wait 5 days to get an NDA out, without a letter of intent, or the like. 5 days
is plenty to blab to the media or the internet.

Lastly, even if Mr Penrose had signed an backdated NDA, which he had violated,
"Rob Penrose was very distraught. He kept repeating that he shouldn't have
signed the paper." seems somewhat excessive, even if it is blown up by the
re-telling. If it was coerced, a lawyer could overturn it in a jiffy,
especcially considering it was back-dated, and they have a room full of
witnesses to prove it.

So, here's my thoughts.
The Noordas knew they were going to fire and sue Yarro, et al. That requires
justification. The Noordas knew he was self-serving, but their evidence wasn't
enough / not reliable / would not stand up to scruitiny. (perhaps they only
realized this AFTER 17/12) Thus, they created a blanket statement - Yarro was
self-serving, etc, etc, and tried to get the employees to sign it, back-dated to
the 17th. Thus, they have their justification. It explains why the back-dating
is important (you can't fire someone on the 17th for something someone signed on
the 22nd), it's ethically questionable (if you believed the statement was a
lie), it explains why the employees were trying to say it was coerced (to get
the document deemed void) and it explains why Mr Mustard wanted to know if Mr
Baker had talked to anyone about it (If he had, he may have meantioned they had
no justification)

Still, there are undoubtably many possible conclusions from such a slim set of
facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perks
Authored by: jim Reiter on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 07:56 AM EST

There must be a great shortage of Legal Secretaries in
Utah that they start getting stock options after just one
year of employment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Perks - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 01:38 PM EST
Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text
Authored by: The Cornishman on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 08:29 AM EST
Me too! I am sure that two people cannot come up with two such similar
statements independently, as has been discussed by previous posters. I suspect
that verbal evidence has been gathered, a composite affidavit has been drafted,
and then adjusted for each of the parties.

My real question is this: what is the employment law in the State of Utah? If
Mr. Mustard had behaved in this way in the UK, Darla, Joyce et al. would be
scorching a path to an Employment Tribunal, which would probably find
"constructive dismissal" and award compensation and/or re-employment.
I am not, needless to say, any sort of a lawyer...

Jonathan

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meeting Details
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 08:30 AM EST
Apologies if this has been asked / answered already:

Has anyone else noticed that these documents state that the
speaker was upset by what happened at the meeting without
giving any outline of the meeting and its events? Bits and
pieces exist, but the first mention in each document merely
records the speaker's reaction to the meeting sans specifics.

Or have I overlooked obvious details elsewhere?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes, but...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 10:20 AM EST
.. it isn't illegal, is it? I mean, there can be no doubt that these are almost
verbatim copies of the same hymn sheet, but isn't that what they are all
supposed to be singing?

I would, I think, question the efficiency of using up so many affidavits to
hammer home the party line, but then I suppose the lawyers don't want anyone to
be distracted by their own grievances when it is the Big One that is paying the
bills.

[ Reply to This | # ]

As fun as is to gossip at the sorrows of others
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 11:20 AM EST
I find your editorial distasteful. You are engaging in speculation to the point
of tittle tattle. This is not what I understood Groklaw to be about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Embeddix, EBIZ
Authored by: _Arthur on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 12:49 PM EST
In Allan Smart affidavit, we learn of (recent?) lawsuits involving Embedix, and

a separate one involving EBIZ.

I thought Embedix was sold to Metrowerks in early 2003 ?

Any information on these lawsuits ?

_Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Embeddix, EBIZ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 02:22 PM EST
Affidavit of Darla Newbold (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST
A lot of people seem to be questioning the similarities in the affidavits. I
grew up around lawyers & courts (my father is an attorney), and I have seen
plenty of affidavits (I typed a few up when my mom was away) to know that they
are basically just a summary of events. They are in no way representative of an
individuals unique perspective of events, that is usualy brought out in
deposition or in court.

When you have several witnesses to a single event, you get as much detail as
possible, and have all of the witnesses review & sign (if they are willing).
All this is saying is:

1. These events took place as described.
2. The stack of affidavits related to this event represent witnesses to this
event.

Not trying to flame here, but Pamela should know this as well.

As to the date of the document everyone signed, it is highly possible that
Mustard screwed up in that the document discussed events of 12/17, and that date
was also inadvertently put on the signature line. Without seeing the document,
or at least the employee signature section, everything here is pure
speculation.

It is highly possible that the document revoked all employee bonuses &
recent stock options. This could explain the suicide of Penrose (again, pure
speculation). I personally new a couple of people that attempted suicide when
they were fired, or their bonuses were far less than they had expected (and they
had already spent the money).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Group intimidation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 09:35 AM EST
No one is intimidated into signing anything because someone yells. Not an entire group.
I've seen it happen multiple times. Employees were bullied into signing a new contract after a change of corporate ownership with sometimes pretty far- reaching implications (e.g. way different pension plans) with thinly veiled threats about repercussions for your employment if you don't sign right away.

(this in the Netherlands by the way)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too many secrets
Authored by: vortex on Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 03:48 PM EST

It's disconcertingly noticeable that each of these ex-employees is stressing how there's nobody left behind who can deal with the things they were looking after. Of course, if there's really been a mass exodus, that could happen: everyone with relevant knowledge left. None the less, it strikes me as a bad way to run a business if you don't routinely write stuff down and leave a record of what you're doing - if only because some ugly accident could make you unavailable for work at no notice. It seems culpably negligent to have critical parts of the function of a business so poorly documented that the person responsible for those functions, upon leaving, should doubt the business can survive without them.

Is that another grounds for their dismissal - neglect of an integral part of their duties ?

---
The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being. -- Theodore Roosevelt.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )