U.S. Fleet Tracking vs. Oklahoma City Co-working Collaborative
So what in the world is going on with the closing of the Oklahoma City Co-working Collaborative, known in the local techie community as okcCoCo? I took my first shot at reporting this story for the Tuesday edition of The Oklahoman. Truth be told, it’s never been easy to tell okcCoCo’s story. When it reopened in July, I showed up for an interview and the nice lady who agreed to visit with me was so clearly unprepared to be in a news story that I scrapped the effort. But with the collaborative facing a legal onslaught by U.S. Fleet Tracking over a disputed $23,000 contribution, the gates of communication opened up – at least until U.S. Fleet Tracking sought a gag order in Oklahoma County District Court late Monday afternoon.
But my coverage isn’t over – at least not yet.
There’s only so much one can tell in a news story with limited space, time and resources. Some may ask – why is this a big story? Whether one supports or likes okcCoCo, there is no doubt that it became the epicenter of downtown’s tech community. And a lot of people are irate over it closing.
So, was there an attempt by either side to settle this dispute? I’ve been asked this by several readers. US Fleet Tracking is not talking. And they’ve obtained a gag order to prevent anyone else involved in this suit from speaking either. But I received quite a bit of material prior to the gag order.
Here is a copy of a proposed settlement that Derrick Parkhurst said was pitched – but that various settlement offers were ignored by US Fleet Tracking. I am ready and eager to hear US Fleet Tracking and Jerry Hunter’s side of the story. For now, I can just share what I’ve been provided. So here’s a copy of the settlement offer, as provided to me by Parkhurst:
This Settlement Agreement is made by and between the parties to Case No. CJ-2012- 3395, District Court of Oklahoma County, OK (the “Lawsuit”) and to this Settlement Agreement—[1] The Oklahoma City Coworking Collaborative, LLC, [2] Derrick Parkhurst, [3] Tommy Yi and [4] Chad Henderson and [5] US Fleet Tracking, LLC and [6] Jerry Hunter. The parties agree to the following terms to fully and finally resolve all issues relating to the Lawsuit and all issues arising out of or related to the Lawsuit:
The Oklahoma City Coworking Collaborative, LLC’s Obligations The okcCoCo:
1. Sponsorship. Sponsorship opportunities for a period of 24 months for USFT, at the discretion and direction of USFT including:
a. USFT company branding will be displayed as a premier sponsor on okcCoCo event communications and premier signage opportunities at okcCoCo events; b. USFT Company branding will be displayed as a supporting founding member of the okcCoCo on the okcCoCo website, and signage on the okcCoCo sponsor wall; and c. USFT will be provided with one business coworking membership at the okcCoCo, at no charge.
2. Repayment. The okcCoCo will repay the sum of $23,000.00 with interest at the current Wall Street Journal Prime Interest Rate of 3.25%, to begin January 1st,
2013 as follows:
a. The okcCoCo will pay to USFT all revenues that exceed operating costs each month will be paid to you within 15 days of the end of month; b. The okcCoCo will pay to USFT 100% of any title sponsorship for the okcCoCo will go to you (unless the donating sponsor insists on some other use of the funds or places restrictions on how the funds can be used) c. The okcCoCo will pay to 50% of any event sponsorship and 50% of any funds otherwise donated to the okcCoCo will be paid to you on a monthly basis.
3. Compensation Restriction. The okcCoCo founders, Derrick Parkhurst, Tommy Yi and Chad Henderson agree that they shall not be paid any salary or otherwise take any financial compensation until the total amount under this Settlement Agreement is paid.
4. Parkhurst Withdrawal. Within 10 days of the execution of this Settlement Agreement, Derrick Parkhurst will withdraw from majority ownership of the okcCoCo and surrender and return all of his units of ownership to the okcCoCo.
USFT will be provided with
written documentation that this provision has been complied with.
5. Non-disclosure. The okcCoCo and the founding members agree to non-disclosure of terms of this Settlement Agreement.
2
US Fleet Tracking, LLC’s Obligation
US Fleet Tracking will do the following:
1. Dismissal. Upon the signing of the Settlement Agreement, USFT will immediately dismiss with prejudice the lawsuits against the okcCoCo and Derrick Parkhurst and release all okcCoCo founders from responsibility related to this matter. USFT will provide written notice to the okcCoCo that the lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice.
2. Non-disclosure. USFT and Jerry Hunter agree to non-disclosure of terms of this Settlement Agreement.
Mutual Terms
1. Releases. The Parties hereto mutually release each other, their attorneys, directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees, and/or shareholders from any and all claims, causes of action, demands, liabilities, loss of earnings or earning capacity, expenses, damages of any kind or nature and fees and costs which either party ever had, now has or which may later appear or accrue, whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, arising out of, or connected directly or indirectly with or relating in any way to the lawsuit. This release provision covers all claims of any nature, whether legal, equitable, or statutory, whether in contract or in tort, whether matured or unmatured, and whether liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, or contingent up to and through the signing of this Agreement.
2. Governing Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma. In the event litigation is instituted between the parties in connection with any controversy or dispute arising from, under or related to this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees from the other.
3. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. A facsimile or digital copy of this Agreement or signature page shall be the same as an original.
4. Attorney Fees. Each party shall pay his or its own attorney fees and costs associated with the lawsuit and this Settlement Agreement.
The parties to this Settlement Agreement agree to all of the terms listed above and agree that this Settlement Agreement is a binding and enforceable document.
Dated this _______ day of September, 2012.
3
US Fleet Tracking, LLC
By:__________________ _________________________ Jerry Hunter, CEO Jerry Hunter, individually The Oklahoma City Coworking Collaborative, LLC By:_______________________________ ______________________________ Its:_____________________________ Tommy Yi, Member and Co-Founder __________________________________ ___________________________________
Chad Henderson, Member and Co-Founder Derrick Parkhurst, Member and Co-Founder
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
It’s a shame American Fleet Tracking, such a strong company of which our community is proud, refuses to engage us in any meaningful manner regarding this dispute. It leaves the casual observer, such as myself, the inclination to assume USFT is being malicious.
I have never heard of USFT but I have been involved with the OKCcoco since the beginning. The CoCo has been a positive force in the lives and economy of Oklahoma City and Oklahoma. For them to close is a devastating blow to the OK tech community. And to be bullied by a local business to boot… Instead of having a meeting place that specifically meets the need of the tech freelancers and small business we will now be forced to meet awkwardly in coffee shops. Great for selling coffee, not so good for moving business forward. The next time you visit a web site or use technology in a local business you are participating in the vibrant (now hamstrung) tech community in Oklahoma City.
Aw Steve, you dropped into The 404 unexpectedly! The information you needed for your story just wasn’t given to me, and the founders weren’t interested in interviews, so I wasn’t able to answer your questions. You’re still a great guy though, with a sweet kid, so I’ll let you slide this time. 
still not clear on what USFT is suing for (i.e, what breach of contract they’re alleging, and what remuneration they seek), or why settlement offers which included full repayment plus interest, were rejected.
Is the settlement offer new? It seems to admit “we’ll give you the money when we can get it together”, plus you can have all of the sponsorship material, plus Derrick gets the boot.
The plot thickens.
That settlement offer looks like they offered everything they ever could to USFT. This is obviously not about the money. USFT is deliberately trying to close the okcCoCo.
Having looked at the lawsuit, available online at OSCN and linked below, the only real point that USFT has to say that the okcCoCo failed on is that the CoCo didn’t rent the specific property they wanted them to rent at 68th & Classen.
Bad days for the OKC tech community.
I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but it smells of personal vendetta to me. (Derrick falling on his sword in the settlement offer and the amount in dispute.)
This is a very small amount to such a large company. Twenty three thousand is not worth the hassle and grief of depositions and court appearances for a busy CEO and his team.
Add in the attorney’s fees to their lost time and they lose money regardless of the outcome. It’s an ugly situation.
So I read both the complaint and answer/counter-claim that is filed with the Court and something certainly seems missing here…from both sides. They both state there is a written contract for the donation/sponsorship that details the agreement and okcCoCo says it was only for USFT to put there name on certain items, not to locate in a specific location or put USFT’s name on the outside, yet USFT states otherwise. So is that the case or not? If that contract isn’t filed with the court already, it should be shortly. Can we take a look at that and judge for ourselves whether that was a breach by okcCoCo? It seems odd that USFT seems to seek the money back and okcCoCo offered it and the money was declined (admittedly at a probably longer time frame and without attorney fees that USFT wants). Yet, this relatively small amount of money would immediately cause them to close their doors…before they even pay it? Something is off.
From my understanding, having officed in the coco for a while, they never ran with much of a cushion. Memberships were the business model but it didn’t fund like it should have. The rates were not as high as they should have been so the community came first. Last summer in the heat wave we ran at reduced hours so the power bill could be reduced and not strain the budget.
I, like Brent, agree this all hinges on the agreement between the 2 parties – which is currently in question. Seeing the “sponsorship” contract (if there is one) would answer a great deal.
It’s pretty easy to see what happened. USFT gave 23K to help coco move to a new building. It was to be a sponsorship fee for the new building. That building deal fell through. So, USFT asked for it’s money back and said “find another building and there is no reason we won’t give again”.
coco says no.
usft gets pissed.
coco says “why can’t we settle this?”
usft says “we can settle it by you giving back the money”
then coco produces the document here where they in fact agree to give back the money, just over two years.
The logical inference is that they won’t give the money back because they already spent it.
this isn’t about beating up on the little guy, it’s about honor. Don’t take money for one thing and then spend it on another.
OK Joe. But if it’s that simple, why won’t US Fleet Tracking simply tell that story instead of saying “no comment” and obtaining a gag order to prevent others from speaking as well?
And this ignores one inconvenient fact: okcCoCo did find another building. So what’s up with that? I’d love to better understand US Fleet Tracking’s point of view here…but for some reason, they don’t want to answer questions.
@Steve,
Because that is who they are. It’s (offensive word deleted) but it’s well-known that one makes contracts VERY clear with them. When he gets into a disagreement with you, it’s straight to the lawyers.
That being said, when they didn’t get the first building and USFT asked for the money back, why not given it back?
You’re being used as a pawn, Steve.
Dig a little deeper. Find out when the CoCo shut its doors. Find out when “The 404 LLC” was incorporated. Find out when USFT asked for its money back. Find out when the lawsuit was filed. Find out when CoCo reopened in their new building.
Put the timeline together. Do some research.
Then take a look at http://visitthe404.com.
Look at the settlement offer Derrick made to USFT again. Read it carefully, especially the part about not having any recourse against the officers of CoCo, when CoCo already had a new company set up and ready to go. If I were USFT, I wouldn’t have taken their settlement offer with the soon-to-be-defunct CoCo either.
They planned to shut down CoCo anyway. But it doesn’t go away. It just reopens under a different name, screwing the sponsor (and everyone else who contributed to their fundraiser).
Bobby, this is all conjecture unless US Fleet Tracking lifts the gag order, which is being used by Parkhurst to decline to answer any more questions. You and others aligned with US Fleet Tracking keep talking about this 404 operation, and want me to take your word that the Henderson, Parkhurst and Yi had this plan to shut down CoCo and replace it with 404.
Again, all this is very interesting. But with US Fleet Tracking preventing Parkhurst, Henderon and Yi from answering my questions, I can only put out information I delved into with CoCo prior to the gag order.
I am not being used. I am also not letting any one use a gag order to stop me doing my job.
I can’t do anything about USFT not talking. I don’t have any influence over there, and they’re dumb for not talking. All I can do is tell you what I learned through my own research.
This link isn’t conjecture.
https://www.sos.ok.gov/corp/corpInformation.aspx?id=3512360013
I agree. Don’t let the gag order stop you doing your job. Do your job in spite of it. Thats what reporting is about.
@Steve I just looked at your gag order. It doesn’t prevent them from talking about the case, it just prevents them from making derogatory and damaging statements about the company and people. Thats different from talking about the facts.
In fact from what I can tell in the first paragraph, the request was to stop Derrick from making statement about parties that weren’t named in the suit. But it doesn’t say he can’t discuss the case, and it certainly hasn’t stopped him from doing it on twitter.
Bobby, I only have a copy of the request made from the attorney – I’ve not been able to obtain the actual gag order yet. So if you have a copy of the judge’s order, I’m eager to see it.
I just saw what you had posted on your site. I thought that was it, but at least it shows what they requested. I would doubt the order would go past what they requested, right?
I wish I knew Bobby. US Fleet Tracking’s lawyer did not return my calls yesterday, and then only called me back this morning at 7:20 a.m. when I was not near my phone. Further attempts to reach him today were unsuccessful. The court ruling has yet to be posted.
And this, my friends, is why trying to use the courts to squash free speech can have unintended consequences….
there are always two sides of the story. parkhurst has always had good intentions, but is known for not keeping with his original word when it comes to signing documents. just ask most of the original tenants of the coco. he had a full house but then after a few weeks when some “changes” were made to the tenant agreements, 90% of the tenants moved out.
>>>I showed up for an interview and the nice lady who agreed to visit with me was so clearly unprepared to be in a news story that I scrapped the effort.<<<
You owe Miss Hardeman an apology. You failed to mention you showed up unexpectedly. Not having the information does not equal "so clearly unprepared". It's not all about you, Steve.
Fletch, she and I had actually talked multiple times about doing the interview prior to what I’ve already acknowledged was an unscheduled stop. I’ve already given my mea culpa. It does not reflect badly on Amanda, in my opinion, nor was it my intent to reflect badly on Amanda. The majority of folks who don’t do media on a regular basis are not great at communicating with reporters. And that was my intent with what I said in this post. If it was poorly stated, Amanda, if you’re truly hurt by this (your comment did not indicate that), I sincerely apologize.
Fletch – nice attempt at a snark. But it’s not all about you either.
What I really would like to know is whether the written agreement between the 2 parties actually reflects as condition for payment, that OkcCoCo locate to the Rockwell facility?
Sorry if I’m asking for something that’s already been revealed, but I don’t recall seeing this anywhere.
Seeing the agreement signed by both parties is necessary before anyone can decide there was a breach of contract.
Fletch, that was nice of you! Steve is a great guy, and a great journalist, who surely didn’t intend anything negative. I was hoping the emoticon in my comment to him would reflect light-heartedness and humor. Thanks for your comment, I appreciate the both of you!
I have gone to many of the events that the CoCo put on – I was never a member of that space but greatly appreciated all of their efforts. It is my understanding that the principals behind it never took a salary. They seem to care about building a great community, helping startups and giving a back to OKC techies. The settlement goes above and beyond, why not accept it unless you are trying to crush the little guy and have your thing the only one left?