My interpretation from the story:
(Author's not easy following, I'm dusty and rusty and laws change.)
NRA's board finally agreed to it's president, LaPierre's filing bankruptcy,
after the fact of NRA having already filed for bankruptcy protection, likely by just it's president. Sort of backasswards of average business plans and my best case business understanding?
For best case scenario, decision should've been approved by both board AND it's president 1st prior to filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. But, there are different sorts of business plans too. Some where president has final say so and some where board has final say so. And, some not always best for it's members. Depends on all people involved and their powers. Basically, sounds like NRA didn't have their ducks in a row prior to filing for Chapter 11 in some ways?
Are arguments about possible present and excessive legal fees and possibly changing legal representatives if Bankruptcy is dismissed and refiled.
As well as arguments saying NRA possibly only filing Bankruptcy to avoid legal challenges and possible dissolution from NY's AG, that NRA's still financially *viable or *solvent. (*They have enough money, don't need to file for financial protection.) - My opinion is that's B.S. if NY AG office has it's way NRA would likely be ruined. NRA's attempting to ward off financial ruin and that's basically what bankruptcy protection is for. Bankruptcy protection isn't necessary if there's nothing initially there to protect in the 1st place. Financially ruined 1st then file? A bit ignorant on someone's thoughts?
"From the
Washington Free Beacon story…
Rocky Marshall, another NRA board member present at the meeting, called the resolution an “awkward attempt to ratify the Chapter 11 bankruptcy.” He said he believed the bankruptcy was “financially unnecessary” and questioned the millions of dollars spent on the Brewer firm.
“This entire episode appears to be an elaborate snipe hunt and the NRA is left holding an empty bag,” Marshall said. “The bankruptcy appears to be an attempt to find a safe harbor from the NYAG suit and a vehicle for the Brewer law firm to continue extracting assets from the NRA. The Brewer law firm claims to fight to protect the NRA, but I wonder who is protecting the NRA from the Brewer law firm? ”
I'd Argue that point because the NY AG is attempting to essentially and financially dissolve NRA and NRA's trying to preserve itself and it's members from structural and financial ruin. So, in that case, NRA likely does in fact need financial protection to survive.
Is my best understanding of article. Hope it helps.
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
