David Kapp Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) All, As "The Creditor" and as the "Past Administrator" in the factual and rumored matters under discussion in this thread, I will attempt to provide some clarification. 1. This is indeed a private matter between me and the Bushwackers 2. Any implied involvement of the Windsor Regiment in this matter is total falsehood. It is inflammatory and totally uncalled for. They are not involved in any way shape or form. The Windsor Regiment will not benefit one penny from this situation. 3. There is no personal animosity involved here. This is the final phase of a business transaction. It is me trying to protect myself financially within the US legal system. 4. The terms and payment schedule for my loan to the Bushwackers were determined in order to conclude all payments this month (September 2011). At a rate that would close out the principal and all accrued interest to date. (Just under 3 years) 5. The terms and schedule were set within boundaries that I could support for that term, not longer 6. The past Bush administration, Mr. Morlot, was very good about making payments on the loan. 7. Regardless of the condition of the Bushwackers organization, they found themselves in a position making it difficult to continue payments 8. I do NOT have the flexibility to extend the loan at a minimum payment level and accrue additional interest for another 1-2 years. This information was shared with the current corps director, Mr. Gupta in 2011. By myself and by my personal lawyer. 9. If I was a financial institution I would have been forced to move into foreclosure on the loan in October 2011. 10. Payments ceased after a 1/2 payment in Sept 2011. 11. My personal lawyer attempted to move things forward, from August 2011 through early 2012, but a resolution did not occur. 12. At that point my lawyer informed Mr. Gupta that our next step would be to move into litigation. 13. A litigator was retained in early 2012 and my case was drawn up and sent to court. 14. All subsequent actions were handled by the courts or Middlesex or Mercer Counties in NJ. According to their schedules and protocols. The timing of any court actions is totally out of my control. 15. I have had to carry the balance of the loan for almost a full year, plus the additional interest on the full amount of the remaining principal 16. Even if I receive a lump sum payment, I am still on the hook for thousands of dollars of interest, because the principal amount is at the ceiling for this type of a "Special Civil Part" court case. 17. Any other past or legacy financial matters or old debts to individuals, businesses or organizations, involving the Bushwackers are not part of this court case. My previous administrative position with the Bushwackers did not include the power to resolve any matters of this nature. 18. This is not a vendetta against the Bushwackers organization, as some folks have tried to paint it on Facebook or elsewhere. This is business. 19. This is not a vendetta against any individual(s) past or present from the Bushwackers. Again, as some folks have tried to paint it on Facebook or elsewhere. This is business. Respectfully submitted, David Kapp Edited September 7, 2012 by David Kapp 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kapp Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Edits, fixed the years assigned to some of the events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishbonecav Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Dave, we probably dont deserve that information, but as bystanders and concerned drum corps family members, it is sincerely appreciated. I have a feeling that ship has already sailed on any white knight agreement. Only you can clarify that and a PM on any alternatives would be appreciated. I already reached out to the other side. Where others may have been irresponsible in their recent rhetoric, your rather complete description of the matter is cathartic to a large degree. I offer my apology on the situation..."sorry things didnt work out"...on both sides. Edited September 7, 2012 by wishbonecav 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrlandoContraAlum Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Nope; the money spent by the performers is irrelevant. The 'corps' owed debt on a loan which came due; the 'corps' had no money to pay the debt; the 'corps' equipment therefore should not have transported and used at the DCA Championships but should have either stayed packed up or sold to pay on the debt. Stu, you are moving the goalposts. You originally stated that the corps should have paid off the creditor in lieu of spending funds to travel to DCA. Once you were educated to the reality that it didn't cost the corps money to make the trip (and, in fact, is a money MAKING opportunity), you changed your tune to this (IMO silly) "they should not have taken the equipment to DCA". Sorry, but that makes no sense. For what it's worth, I agree with your INITIAL opinion, that you would be willing to donate if Bush was in trouble because of some unexpected situation, but not if their situation was brought on by poor management. Apparently it's somewhere in the middle? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Thank you Mr. Kapp for the thoughtful response. This is the risk of the creditors (investors) I was referring to, and why I will always come down on the side of a creditor unless shown otherwise. While I hate it for your loss, sir, and unless proof is shown otherwise, I will therefore not be inclined to help out the Bushwhackers 'if' your outlined items are factually correct. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrlandoContraAlum Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 And now we have the other side of the story... Best of luck to the Bushwackers AND Mr. Kapp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Stu, you are moving the goalposts. You originally stated that the corps should have paid off the creditor in lieu of spending funds to travel to DCA. Once you were educated to the reality that it didn't cost the corps money to make the trip (and, in fact, is a money MAKING opportunity), you changed your tune to this (IMO silly) "they should not have taken the equipment to DCA". Sorry, but that makes no sense. For what it's worth, I agree with your INITIAL opinion, that you would be willing to donate if Bush was in trouble because of some unexpected situation, but not if their situation was brought on by poor management. Apparently it's somewhere in the middle? My point, though probably not well thought out prior to typing, was that a corps which is in default of a loan and facing legal action should not go to any performance irrespective of who pays for the trip to that performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishbonecav Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Feelings of duty to one side can sometimes supercede the feeling of responsibility to the other. 65 people staring at you from 5 feet away versus answering one guy's phone call. Gut wrenching because either choice sucks. My point, though probably not well thought out prior to typing, was that a corps which is in default of a loan and facing legal action should not go to any performance irrespective of who pays for the trip to that performance. Edited September 7, 2012 by wishbonecav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 To get a clearer picture as to why, in my opinion, I wanted to know what happened before I would just give my money blindly over to a plea from a corps take a look at posting #1 side by side with posting #51. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrlandoContraAlum Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 My point, though probably not well thought out prior to typing, was that a corps which is in default of a loan and facing legal action should not go to any performance irrespective of who pays for the trip to that performance. Ok, I can see your point when you put it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts