Great point. Alternative Dispute Resolution is a mainstay of the federal court system. In fact, in some district courts all new civil cases are sent to ADR as the very first step in the process. The parties select from a panel of trained and approved mediators, typically the most respected lawyers in the district. (As there's an exception to every rule, I was one for many years.) State courts are more hit and miss but all judges would be happy to reduce their dockets via mediation done by others. Since hearing of the lawsuit, I have dug in and read a bunch of stuff online. The SaveACA group has published a super-detailed plan and I commend them for that. I don't doubt their sincerity but despite its detail, it sounds, shall we say, aspirational. It suggests a lot of changes, except for the sale of the building. Old boomers (I'm a boomer, too) who have put their hearts and souls into building something as remarkable as ACA, should be listened to. They are smart, experienced and tough. With the drafting of their detailed plan and the filing of the lawsuit, they are clearly signaling that they won't be folding up their tents and going home. I have seen cases settled in mediation which I believed to be intractable. But I have seen far more that could and should have been settled fail to be, as the parties dug in and slugged it out. These latter cases often involve founders because they are so emotionally tied to what they created in their youth. I bet that's what we'll see here. So, your suggestion is great. I hope the judge assigned forces some quick settlement talks and cracks some heads, as we say. Assuming those talks fail, i hope the judge puts it on a fast track toward resolution. I don't think the causes of action are strong and boards of directors are generally given a fair amount of deference in their decisions. Was the second vote necessary? Probably. Will this thing end soon? Probably not. I share your concerns.
