US Fleet Tracking: Timeline
I have said since the start of the US Fleet Tracking vs. okcCoCo dispute went public that I’m eager to share whatever I can of the story to be told by US Fleet Tracking and its CEO, Jerry Hunter. The following is a timeline and some comments released by US Fleet Tracking:
Timeline of events:
January 23, 2012 – OKCCoCo emails the tech community an Indiegogo campaign to raise $25,000. They state that “If we cannot reach our goal, the okcCoCo will close in March.”
January 24, 2012 – US Fleet Tracking steps up to the plate. We support our local community, we support entrepreneurial startups, and we support what the okcCoCo stood for. We personally visit them at their facility and offer $23,000 in exchange for sponsorship naming rights within the new facility at 220 NW 10th as was outlined as the top donor incentive on the Indiegogo campaign so that they will not be forced to close their doors. They are in need of immediate cash, so in good faith USFT agrees to write them the check on-the-spot, with the understanding that a written contract will follow which will lay out in writing the sponsorship we agreed on. (Looking back, we should have ensured the written agreement was finalized and signed by both parties.) USFT asks that the donation not be publicly listed on the Indiegogo campaign so that the OKCCoCo is allowed to raise more capital than originally stated as the need. USFT’s intent was to allow OKCCoCo to raise more than what they needed through the Indiegogo campaign.
February 1, 2012 – The OKCCoCo fundraising drive raised $29,525 from the Indiegogo campaign. This, in addition to the $23,000 provided by USFT, brings the total to $52,525 – more than double the CoCo’s stated goal of $25,000.
February 15, 2012 – Despite the portrayal that OKCCoCo is a downtown entity, representatives from OKCCoCo and USFT visit another potential OKCCoCo location on Classen Boulevard between Wilshire Boulevard and 63rd Street at the request of the OKCCoCo. They state that the deal on the building at 220 NW 10th fell through, and they are searching for another building. (The exact date of this site visit is estimated to be February 15, 2012.)
February 24, 2012 – USFT learns the Classen location between Wilshire and 63rd will not be an option due to the landlord not comfortable leasing to an organization like OKCCoCo.
March 21, 2012 – USFT learns the OKCCoCo closes its doors – despite having raised $52,525 in funds – and that the new location is being considered at 49th Street and Western Avenue.
April 20, 2012 – Since they don’t seem to be making progress in securing a new location, and concerned the CoCo may never reopen, USFT staff encourage Parkhurst to consider temporarily relocating within some of Hunter Industries’ resources while the CoCo has time to find a more suitable location. Part of the proposed arrangement for temporary relocation is for CoCo to also pay rent that is dramatically discounted below market value. USFT begins to suspect they’ve used the money for things other than the intent under which it was given.
May 15, 2012 – Giving up on Parkhurst and the OKCCoCo ever reopening its doors, US Fleet Tracking finally (regretfully and respectfully) asks for the return of its sponsorship funds within 3 business days. Parkhurst attempts to “negotiate a settlement” (wherein the CoCo still does not return the funds). We advise him to return the funds, and we’ll consider sponsoring him when he does locate a building in the future.
May 16, 2012 – Parkhurst again refuses to return the money.
May 17, 2012 – Parkhurst says he has found yet another possible location. After the response from Parkhurst and his outright refusal to return its funds on May 15 and 16, USFT isn’t interested in sponsoring them in any location at this point.
May 22, 2012 – USFT asks attorney Armando Rosell to contact Parkhurst, hoping a call from a lawyer might convince him we’re serious and motivate him to return the funds. It’s important to note that CoCo still has not reopened – they’ve been closed almost two months, and there’s no more indication they will reopen than there was on April 20.
May 28, 2012 – Derrick Parkhurst incorporates THE 404 LLC with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. On its website, visitthe404.com, the date on the Privacy Statement is January 15, 2012.
June 4, 2012 – OKCCoCo still has not reopened. Lawsuit filed demanding return of funds.
July 2, 2012 – OKCCoCo reopens on Film Row, almost a month after the lawsuit was filed.
September 26, 2012 – USFT meets with Tommy Yi and Chad Henderson at USFT offices. USFT offers a settlement wherein CoCo would repay the funds over a two-year period, and wants no sponsorship or anything else to do with CoCo. CoCo refuses the offer.
September 27, 2012 – CoCo tenders the now-publicized counter-offer (released by CoCo to the media on 09/28) to USFT in which CoCo would repay an unspecified amount occasionally over a two year period and would not hold the CoCo founders responsible. Knowing that they had already created an entirely different shell corporation – complete with web site – to replace the CoCo under a different name, USFT cannot entertain any settlement offer which does not hold the CoCo founders responsible. A failure to do so would enable them to execute the settlement, bankrupt CoCo, and have no responsibility under their settlement agreement.
September 28, 2012 – CoCo begins contacting the press with a story which falsely paints USFT as a company bent on the destruction of OKCCoCo despite their offer for repayment. They also release to the press the terms of their counter-offer provided to USFT the day prior, conveniently neglecting to mention the fact that USFT had already made a settlement offer which provided for repayment over a 24-month period (which they had refused).
October 1, 2012 – OKCCoCo begins spinning a story among the media and supporters claiming that USFT is responsible for shutting down the CoCo. In truth, CoCo founders raised more than twice the funds they were seeking, and their choices alone bear sole responsibility for shutting down the CoCo. USFT seeks gag order in order to focus Parkhurst’s public rants to the parties directly involved in the suit (and not the organizations that have no part in the issue).
October 2, 2012 – Parkhurst embarks on a deliberate twitter campaign to malign and damage USFT’s reputation in the OKC community and in the national media – the very company that stepped forward to help them when they needed it most.
Throughout the entirety of this situation, USFT has attempted to settle this matter in a respectful, swift manner in an effort to avoid driving a stake in the heart of OKC’s technology and entrepreneurial communities, which mean too much to the continued growth of our city and state and far outweigh this unfortunate situation. It is deeply unfortunate that despite our best efforts the situation is dividing the technology and entrepreneurial communities. This situation has changed our community sponsorship and engagement activities and internal processes to avoid this sort of circumstance ever recurring in the future.
We understand there has been a call for boycott and are disheartened that an event meant to bring about collaboration among the technology and entrepreneurial communities (and completely unassociated with this situation) is being targeted. What is also disheartening is an organization with the mission of collaboration and community is mobilizing forces to boycott an event intended to foster continued growth in OKC’s entrepreneurial community.
MY NOTE:
I’m intrigued by the comments and questions brought up by US Fleet Tracking about 404 LLC. I’ve been waiting two days to get my own questions answered in regard to this new entity. It’s my hope that Derrick Parkhurst or his partners Chad Henderson and Tommy Yi will answer these questions.
- Steve
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 hard to say who’s right or wrong in this situation, but clearly mistakes were made.
This reads like USFT’s recounting of events – if the sequence and circumstances listed here aren’t disputed, then it looks kinda bad for COCO.
Still, many would like to see COCO stay in business, and even though USFT may not be obligated to salvage a sponsorship deal, I think it would be to theirs (as well as the community’s) benefit to do so.
Good work, Steve. Nothing is simple, and I’m thankful you’ve found some more info for this situation that troubles many of us who have known these folks over the years.
yes, thanks Steve – hope you’ll keep asking questions and sharing your findings.
Next major legal event is 10/9/12 (Show Cause Hearing) before Judge Swinton.
I’m not going to take sides on this one. Since I wasn’t involved in the deal or negotiations, I have nothing to offer. However, here’s my take on the situation now. Even if the CoCo was at fault by not honoring the agreement, US Fleet Tracking should have just eaten the money or taken the repayment offer. That would have kept all of this quiet. Instead, they went to court. They spent thousands on legal fees, which really only bought them a battered reputation and a PR nightmare.
US Fleet Tracking didn’t need a crystal ball to see how this one was going to play out. They are the big guy. Regardless of what was said by the CoCo owners in the media, it was a no brainer that everyone would interpret US Fleet’s actions as a form of bullying.
They should have asked themselves a few questions before they went down the legal path – “What is the end game with this? Will we be better off? After all of the years of hard work building our company, is the $23,000 really worth damaging our reputation?”.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for going after money when it is legitimately owed. I just think you have to consider the price you’ll end up paying in the long run.
OKC Joe
I think it is safe to say that mistakes were made on both sides. If you read the emails that Hunter sent to the okcCoCo founders it is obvious that he did not attempt to “resolve” the matter in a respectful or kind manner and the okcCoCo and its founders remained public about the entire process of the okcCoCo moving locations, and the formation of the 404 as the okcCoCo was intent on remaining an organization but becoming a nonprofit (the 404 being a separate for-profit company) I think that Hunter and his company should have gotten everything in writing to begin with, as should have the okcCoCo. I believe that Hunter should not have requested that they remain quiet about his donation and that it should have been made known to the public. I think that it would have created a safety net for both parties. The timeline is worded in a way that makes Hunter and his associates seem as though they are some sort of innocent angels when there are plenty of examples at this point which state otherwise, and of course the okcCoCo is upset over the situation so they are not going to paint them in a much better light either. However, now the okcCoCo is banned from making comments to confirm or deny any of the information postested in US Fleet Tracking’s timeline. Which I would like to point out I find very interesting that they only released this timeline AFTER the okcCoCo was no longer allowed to speak about the situation or confirm/deny/defend themselves… The entire thing is a huge disaster and like I said, mistakes were made on both sides….. But I think it is safe to say that hunter and his company have spent much more than 23,000 on this court case at this point so my question now is-will they settle if the okcCoCo gives them their money back entirely? I guess only time will tell…. these are just my thoughts on the subject.
Is Parkhurst trying to raise defense funds on indigogo now? http://www.indiegogo.com/okccoco-tree
Funny that he named his new llc The 404. In tech terms, that basically means it’s unreachable. The irony.
No, the fundraiser is to raise money for the Tree Bank of OKC. Read the info on the page. The goal is to try to take a bad situation and use it to improve and help the downtown oklahoma city area.
Why give money to them to give to the Tree Bank Foundation, when I can simply give to the Tree Bank Foundation directly?
I’m not getting this. Don’t they have enough on their plate already?
Well if you donate through the indiegogo page it does go directly to the treebank. I’m sure they do have plenty on their plate but I would assume the point would be to help give the tree bank attention during this time and use this negative situation for good.
I’m interested in fair and right outcomes. Sometimes it’s not so clear cut as “this side’s bad, and the other side’s good” – there are usually legitimate errors or wrong assumptions / expectations from both sides that lead to these disputes – but that’s what contracts help to avoid.
Think the IDEAL outcome would be for USFT to take the high-road, drop their suit, and renegotiate a NEW sponsorship deal (if one can be reached). That would be a win-win for both sides.
BTW – I personally don’t feel like the reporting on these pages has been the slightest bit lop-sided or slanted either way.
Regardless of Mr Hunter’s ‘attitude’ toward OkcCoCo these people were given/loaned money to keep the doors open. They stated how much they needed and even raised over double the original amount! If this timeline is accurate, it appears by their refusal to accept a generous offer for repayment over a two year period, and their creation of a new business entity seem to point to something less than ethical. Bad publicity or not, how can can the lender be the bad guy in this situation? Business dealings can’t be based solely on how one ‘feels’ about someone else’s attitude. It must be based on doing what is right.
Bethany, neither side has called this payment a “loan.” That’s part of the problem here – it was seen as a “contribution” that was tied to sponsorship and naming rights (sound familiar, Garth Brooks fans?). The problem is nothing was in writing – so we don’t know whether it was for a location to be approved by US Fleet Tracking, or if it was to be for a location as determined by okcCoCo and its members.
When Parkhurst realized that I couldn’t justify the minimum cost of membership, he treated me (and a friend) with contempt when he acknowledged us at all. Now this alone doesn’t make him shady, but it says to me he’s more interested in money than the community. If he and his “CO”-horts finance a plan to return the good faith contribution from US Fleet Tracking, it might change my opinion of the organization.
One of the nagging questions I have, is why a well-established business like USFT didn’t think it prudent to put their stipulations regarding location in writing.
$23k is not a small amount – if location selection was an important condition, that should have been disclosed at the outset, and documented.
It raises the question of whether the condition of location selection came about later or existed from the beginning.
The only instance I can think of when you don’t bother with a contract, is when you are making a charitable donation – even then, a receipt should be issued.
As a donor USFT is entitled to an accounting of the funds. So are OkcCoCO clients and members. Putting yourself out there as a non-profit, and accepting donations, includes accepting a fiduciary duty. OkcCoCo requesting funds and then avoiding accountability shows irresponsibility. Maybe the wrong people are at the helm. ASSUMING, there was any malfeasance, which has not been proven, I applaud USFT for not writing this off, or letting it slide. Just because they are a large company is irrelevant to the issue, this is about betraying a trust or commitment. It need not be in writing, trust is not something that can be judged by a contract, rather, the character of a person or organization and their actions.
I have interacted with both of these guys, Parkhurst when he first opened his doors and Hunter several years ago.
While Hunter is tough to do business with, he pretty much does what he says he will.
I can not say the same about Parkhurst.
After a couple of failed attempts at doing any business with him, I decided his flippant attitude was both insurmountable and a real deal killer.
Based on your timeline above, it looks like neither man has changed.
[...] CEO, Jerry Hunter. The following is a timeline and some comments released by US Fleet Tracking: US Fleet Tracking: Timeline | OKC Central Reply With Quote « Previous Thread | Next Thread [...]