Two in the Chest Dept: Tate wins a battle, but the war?

This is the main discussion section. Grab yer cups! All hands on deck!
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Two in the Chest Dept: Tate wins a battle, but the war?

Post by Capn Jimbo »

The Court ruled today...


...and found that the company erred in several ways, namely "...by suspending Tate, filing the lawsuit against him and in deciding the funding mechanism for the $15 million expansion.". Yet Tate still remains in contempt of the TRO and subject to punishment if the company presses for the order.

What this means is that Tate's refusal to participate in board meetings invalidated the above decisions made by the board without his presence. This is the legal equivalent of putting "two in the chest" of the company. Until the Court can resolve a method for the company to proceed, Tate doesn't have to burn the place down, but rather simply refuse to participate.

This is the legal equivalent of holding your breath. By absenting himself, Tate has accomplished a stalemate, with the objective that either the board chairman or Tate himself will have to go. Until that is decided the company is effectively frozen in place.

The most important paragraph:
"Production is set to begin by October 2015, but the dispute between Tate and the board threatens the day-to-day operations of the popular spirits manufacturer."
In recognition of this self-destructive end game the company seemed the most reasonable, stating:
“It is our hope that Mr. Tate will participate and engage with the rest of his co-owners,” Armstrong said. “He has the ability to cripple the company if he won’t.”
But it appears that Tate and his attorney may be willing to do just that:
"“My guess now, based on the ruling, is a lot of the lawsuit is going to go away because a lot of those issues will be resolved,” Clouston (Tate's atty) said. “The goal is to figure out what is left and what is the best way to get to the end game. But the parties still will have to sit down and everybody be reasonable and come up with a resolution or we will fight forever.
In the beginning Tate was accused of saying in effect "I'd rather see the place burn down if I can't run it". Which is an excellent reason why children shouldn't be allowed to play with matches...


Flat Ass Bottom Line


The end result is nothing new. Tate if nothing else has been consistent from the beginning. By forcing a virtual shutdown, he has improved his bargaining position only in the sense that time is now of the essence for both parties. The company has the investors and I suspect more than enough funds to buy him out; I'm not at all sure the reverse is true. Thus it would appear the more likely outcome will be based on whether Tate will accept a reasonable offer and his freedom, or whether his demands will be high enough to put the company out of business.

Without the ability to perform day to day operations, both are in big, big trouble. Although part of the lawsuit will disappear, unless Tate acts reasonably and soon, the litigation will center on the company seeking a Court order to force his participation (which I see as the most likely). If the Court orders him to attend his own board meetings, he will quickly lose his non-participation bargaining chip, will be outvoted, and he'll find himself back in the soup.

The company is far from helpless, and it's well to understand that winning a battle may result in losing the war.

This is NOT good news for our new members, so very sorry for you...



*******
FWIW, not a word from the STR8-boyz..
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/j ... b3b90.html
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

What we have here is a failure to communicate...


...on one side a group of investors who were solicited by Tate, and who provided him with truly serious money to dramatically grow the brand. Of course no one invests $15M without normal and customary corporate controls. Simple things like control of the computers, multiple-signatures on checks, daily reports. But what they did not expect was a wild micro-manager that seemed to have real problems working in the environment he himself had sought, achieved and agreed to.

And now that same individual seems willing to cripple the company if he doesn't get his way. The Judge: by reversing board decisions made after Tate's refusal to participate - but making no provision for required board attendance, has inadvertently created a crisis.

Now BOTH parties MUST act reasonably and quickly to either: make nice and work together (by far the best for all, but now not likely), or one must buy out the other (sounds good but such an agreement again requires both mutual good will and a spirit of fair play). Is this possible?


There's no right or wrong here

But now there is real pressure. The statements of the company indicate that they are willing to come to a compromise and continue on the journey. OTOH, the statement of Tate's attorney more than implies that Tate seems willing to go to the wall for his uncompromising demands or...

Or else. This does not bode well at all. Caught in the crossfire are all the faithful Balcones' employees who worked so hard and faithfully both before and after Tate's recusal from participation. The reality is that compromise is the right thing to do for all concerned, but that requires two sides willing to do so in good faith. The staying power and unequal finances of both parties will have to figure in at some point.

Only one seems to be so willing. Expect a flurry of activity both in and out of Court.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

An open messege to a twerp...


Turns out a number of posters over at the STR8-boyz actually missed my alternative and more balanced opinions, and wondered why I hadn't posted them. It appears these folks didn't know I'd been "liberated" by management for my horribly disrespectful habit of disagreeing with the dominant "boy genius can do no wrong" mantra over there. Unlike the Preacher, who at least has the courtesy to label ex-posters as "Liberated". No cajones, I guess. Finally, none other than Winston did the courtesy of letting them know I'd been "banned" but that "Conversation continues on Rum Project". Much appreciated, thank you, but back to it...

One poster who took Winston up on it said:
jvd:

"Figured as much, however, I did peruse his blog for the first time (yes I fell into the trap of giving him a click) only out of morbid curiosity of discovering his reaction to the latest news. I have to say there's not much discussion going on over there on this topic, mostly the Cap talking to himself with post after post. Interestingly, he essentially described the latest development as "two shots in the chest" to his prognostications, which, as we know, were vociferously predicted to all come true. Crystal balls really don't exist then I guess. Best to sit back and let it play out, especially now that Chip has been somewhat validated and in a better bargaining position. "
It sure would have easier, more accurate and honest for him to simply quote me (which management doesn't allow), or to simply publish a link so the peeps could make up their own mind. But I guess that didn't serve his purpose.

Let's be absolutely clear. Jvd is so, so wrong.

The matter has not been resolved, and Tate has continued to act in a manner some would consider self-destructive. His first alleged threats were to put "two in the chest" of the chairman, et al (for which he earned a Temporary Restraining Order) are still being expressed, but now in legal fashion. He then defied the Court order which earned him a Citation of Contempt, punishment still pending. He still seems willing to cripple the company by refusing to participate in the board meetings. He is still under violation of the Court's orders, still faces the threat of a punishment hearing, still may be made to attend the board meetings, to vote and yes, he may still yet fail in his own terms.

His only accomplishment: to once again extend litigation, which may again buy time, but perhaps not very much. That's hardly vindication or validation of much of anything. Tate will soon run out of delays.


As to my new friend "jvd"

This gentleman seems to have engaged in typical misrepresentation, or has understandable difficulties with his second language of English. In sum:

1. He failed to link any of the multiple articles and posts here on this amazing affair; nor did he have the journalistic integrity to publish even partial quotes. He'd rather misrepresent from his own safe perch, and for the seeming purpose of publishing cheap shots without fear of contradiction.

2. He is either not aware that both Winston and Jared have gladly joined the Project, or purposely omitted that information.

3. My original prediction - made long ago and well before anything happened - was true then and remains true now:
Moi:

"Clearly our boy realizes not only the risks, but the confounding needs and expressions of investor partner pressure. He's convinced he's got a bunch of deep pockets that will be happy to just sit back in their Barcaloungers, light a long cigar, pour a dram of fig distillate and relax, relax, relax while leaving him to run the business with his former iron hand, and to chase his dream.

Do you believe that? It doesn't work that way. This move portends a huge increase in capacity and business. While Tate has been reported to run a tight business, he's used to being in control, and is rumoured to be a bit thin skinned. That will all change as more rapidly than he may expect, as the investor partners will begin to express their own goals, methods and demands. Big money comes with big strings."
The truth: predictions are like arseholes, right jvd? We all have them, but only Compleat Idiots tend to publish them. Believe me, I was more than surprised when mine actually came true, and less than two weeks later. As for you my dear "jvd", why haven't you joined here? Get your your flippin, flappin jaws and red arse over here, and let's have a real and polite difference of opinion.

I promise you the respect you deserve...




*******
BTW, I give any straightbourbon poster my permission to republish any of my individual posts, as long as they are reproduced in their entirety.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Silence rules...


...no one is talking and that I believe is significant. First a brief update:

1. In the most recent court appearance (Nov. 10), the Judge was reported by the Waco Tribune "...to have ruled in the founder's favor". The STR8-boyz took this to mean a vindication and stunning victory for their "boy genius who can do now wrong" hero. This is like calling a horserace at the first turn.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/j ... b3b90.html

2. For those who are interested, Tate and his second attorney seems to have filed perhaps the most grandiose, emotional and overargued briefs I've ever seen. This is delicious reading for those who'd like a detailed summary of the whole sordid affair (try starting at page 5, "Chip's Story")

This 96-page document:
http://freepdfhosting.com/4e9f367ae0.pdf

FWIW, most of this filing is unnecessary and publicity related fill material. The defendant seems aware that this filing is in the public domain; thus it goes far beyond the legal issues into near unending self-aggrandizement that - legally speaking - is unproductive. In this filing, he asks for all manner of damages, etc., no surprises here. SOP.

Despite this huge filing, and multiple requests for relief, the Judge was reported to have issued a very limited ruling regarding the issue of whether a quorum was necessary for board issues resolved without a meeting. He so ruled, ie that the founder/manager (Tate) had to be present and/or to vote on all board issues. Thus the Judge found that all the decisions made without Tate present were null and void.

Groundhog Day all over again.


So was this a vindicating, huge win or what?

Not really. Does this support the STR8 view that the company was acting illegally in an attempt to "steal" the company away from Tate? No again.

The operating agreement specifies that the board can decide things in two ways: in part 5.1(g) by giving notice and holding a meeting, at which a "quorum" must be present and vote, majority rule. Or per 5.1(h) - without a meeting wherein written votes are made by enough members that would have also been sufficient had there been a meeting. See page 69 and 70.

Here's the real fackup. What happens if a necessary quorum member - properly notified (time, place, subject) - refuses to attend? This would mean that any one board member (of five, I believe) could literally shut things down by simply not attending. No operating agreement intends for any one member to have such control.

But Tate thought so, and at a point simply stopped attending. What to do? The company - possessing enough votes (4 out of 5), believed (not without justification) that really didn't need his vote, and took actions based on same. Even if Tate had attended and voted "no", the other members retained the majority. Although the agreement did not specifically address the issue of a willfully non-participating member, it seems altogether reasonable that necessary actions could still be taken on the basis that all necessary members had been properly noticed, and the required majority of votes achieved.

If anyone abused the operating agreement it would seem to be Tate, not the company.


So what happens now?

I believe the Judge's order - even if correct - was incomplete, but so be it. He could have and should have also ordered Tate to attend meetings, but may have not done so as he was not petitioned to do so. What this means is that now Tate MUST be present for any actions to be voted and taken. If Tate or any of his STR8 supporters think this is a victory - that Tate now has the power to bring down the company, and thus cause the company to cave (a win) - I believe they are wrong.

The company now has two clear alternatives and should really use both of them. They will continue to negotiate a buy-out, and second, I believe they will petition the Court to now order Tate to attend properly noticed meetings. If petitioned I believe the Court is likely to issue such an order, Tate will be forced to attend, the same votes will be taken, and again, the majority rules, as it did before.

What he has gained though is a bit of time, but not much. As for this silence (Winston and Jared seemingly offline everywhere) you can bet the negotiations continue but perhaps more seriously.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Once again (jvd, take note)...
Moi: last night:

"What he has gained though is a bit of time, but not much. As for this silence (Winston and Jared seemingly offline everywhere) you can bet the negotiations continue but perhaps more seriously."
And tonight I just learned the following:

1. As a result of the recent order, the TRO was cancelled on the basis that Tate stay out of the facility until December 5th.

2. A board meeting was called for last week, and once again, Tate decided to no show, thus making any company decisions impossible, in a continuation of his self-destructive, scorched earth tactic.

This makes clear that as predicted, very little time is now left to negotiate. Since my hunches seem to come true, I think I'll spin the wheel once again and rest on what is actually an older prediction. I don't see any agreement, and here's why. Tate is so taken with himself, and so dedicated to a burn-it-down, scorched earth, no show tactic - not to mention the improbability of new partners to fund a buyout and a now $15M project, not to mention his own, less than conservative demands and likely overevaluation of the worth of his 27%...

No agreement. Tate seems committed to non-participation so that leaves litigation, but not by Balcones (since Tate has made sure they can't vote). Tate's ponytailed replacement counsel predicts an Allen (Chairman, PE) vs Tate confrontation.

I agree. With Tate telegraphing that it's his way, or the highway, here's the answer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg2EbJy-9dc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ1k4d02KA

Maybe he'll get discovered in LA...




*******
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/b ... cc9de.html
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

The plot is thickening...


The latest is this:

1. Right now, the distillery is shuttered, and no whiskey is being made.

Correction (see Winston, below): Tate was the news source that the distillery was "shuttered" as he stated during the Whiskycast interview. Per Winston, the distillery was closed only for a week.

2. Tate plans to return on December 5th, and plans to "...make things right". And what does that mean?

3. Tate strongly implies that a couple of long time, key employees - probably Himstedt (the distiller) and Winston (the ambassador) - are in deep shit because as Tate puts it "...none of this could have happened without the cooperation of key employees". Doesn't look good for them.

4. Tate believes that the product made in his absence (in the last four months) has been substandard without him, and thus a waste of time, money and whiskey. This is clearly aimed at Himstedt, even though a Himstedt-made product won yet another award.

5. Tate seems completely unwilling to accept any offer, but insists that PE accept his offer instead. Although he claims to have investors waiting in the wings, they are apparently not available now.

6. Tate seems incredulous that the company was willing to shutter the company, even though he himself stated he'd rather see the company self-destruct if he wasn't in control, not to mention that Tate's refusal to attend his own board meetings made operations impossible. Some would call this hypocritical.


Bottom line

Make of this what you will. If you go to the link below (Whiskycast interview and article), you can hear Tate in his own words. It's clear that the clock is ticking - quite loudly now - with less than a week until his return. It's clear that the Mexican standoff continues, and that no one is budging. How he intends to actually make whiskey now is a mystery, what with the facility being shuttered and neither side budging.

Tate's only solution seems to be that the company or the PE group accept his offer for what he considers a "fair profit". Is it? The question Whiskycast should have asked should have been "Are you willing to accept the equivalent of your own offer?", on the assumption that a fair offer goes both ways.

Readers will note that the sudden absence of Winston and Himstedt here has continued. Poor guys, they see the train coming...




*******
http://whiskycast.com/balcones-tate-agr ... ing-order/
(Whiskycast Tate interview and article)
and also: http://whiskycast.com/balcones-tate-agr ... ing-order/
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Further observations...


In the last post, Tate's singular position seems clear: he seems completely unwilling to sell his interest, but expects PE to sell their interest - based on Tate's offer of what he considers a "fair profit". Whatever, that offer seems to have been rejected.

In the Whiskycast interview, it seems that Tate has filed what is called a "derivative" action. As defined a "derivative" action is:
"...a lawsuit brought by a corporation shareholder against the directors, management and/or other shareholders of the corporation, for a failure by management. In effect, the suing shareholder claims to be acting on behalf of the corporation, because the directors and management are failing to exercise their authority for the benefit of the company."
Such lawsuits are often brought on the basis of fraud or mismanagement, and portends to be on the behalf of the company. In the interview Tate mentions that he's seen the "financials". He states that "these guys (PE?) have been much less than forthright". Regarding the "financials" he observes that "there are some extremely suspicious question marks". He claims that "there are a couple hundred thousand worth of stock that they took from me, and refused to pay me for".

Not a happy camper. My impression is that Tate realizes that his derivative claim, however true or not, is functioning primarily as a negotiation tool. The problem with using such tools is that the other party - believing that the claim is weak - may call you on it. My reading of the interview is that whatever Tate's position, PE is not biting and that doesn't bode well. Tate's hands are not clean if the reports of his threats are true, and in light of his blatant refusal to participate and to attend meetings.

It's hard to claim that PE is not acting in the best interest of the company when Tate's refusal to participate and attend board meetings has had the effect of crippling the company. It is worth noting that any litigation can take years, not to mention Tate's three year no-compete. Another curious note is when Tate expresses puzzlement insofar as PE demanding that any deal requires that he stay away during the transition to any possible new partners. Tate also expresses concern that they have shuttered the company, perhaps as a prelude to liquidation of the assets.

No one is budging. The next important date is December 5th when Tate returns to - what? And does - what? And to whom? If he returns, he will be obliged to make whisky, but how and for whom?

After all this, it is entirely possible that Tate may be forced to be a good boy, settle down and make whisky for investors he can't stand. Upon his arrival it appears he'll be cleaning house, perhaps putting Winston and Jared at risk. Tate simply can't perceive that PE will be willing to litigate and/or allow the company to close, but both of those are quite possible under the circumstances.



*******
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... ive+Action
http://whiskycast.com/balcones-tate-agr ... ing-order/
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Since the STR8boyz remain clueless...


It's time to cover what I believe will prove to be a key issue, namely Tate's refusal to participate and to attend the board meetings. His refusal caused the board to act without his presence, based on their reading of the operating agreement. OTOH, Tate believed his presence was necessary for a quorum and that without him, nothing could be done. At the last hearing the Judge agreed with Tate's position, that a quorum was necessary; thus, all actions taken by the board without Tate were null and void.


Was this an error? Yes, and here's why...

1. First of all, the operating agreement created a board consising of five "managers": Tate (1 vote), early investor Rockafellow (1 vote) and the latest, PE Investors (3 votes).

2. All decisions of the board are by majority vote, ie 3 votes is a majority.

3. The Judge relied on Section 5.1(g) entitled "Quorum, Voting". This section defines a quorum as "a majority of managers, including a majority (two) of the PE Investors, and including the Founder/Manager Tate. Tate claimed that his absence meant there was no quorum, ergo the board could not act without him. The Judge mistakenly agreed. A meeting requires notification of the date, time and subject.

4. There are two sections that contradict the judge. The very next paragraph, Section 5.2(h), entitled "Action without Meeting", allow the board to act "without a meeting, without prior notice and without a vote" - as long as the action is agreed to in writing by "the number of members that would be necessary under 5.1(g) as if all members entitled to vote were present and had done so".


Let's try to interpret that.


At an actual meeting where all managers/members attend, that would appear to be 3 votes, a majority of the 5 possible votes, to take an action. Had Tate attended meetings, no doubt the actions taken by the Board would have been presented and would have passed even if Tate voted "No".

The magic number of votes is three. What paragraph 5.2(h) appears to be saying is that if 3 members agree in writing to an action, that action is valid since it would have passed anyway at a meeting in which all members voted. It is clear that PE Investors and Rockafellow (4 votes) have more than sufficient votes to carry actions taken without a meeting.

This course is still available to them.


Another course...

5. Another course is to call a meeting to take necessary actions and if Tate doesn't attend to then compel his presence. This would seem possible under Section 5.2(b) which states:
"Each member agrees to vote...and to attend meetings in person or by proxy for purposes of obtaining a quorum and to execute written consents in lieu of meetings..."
Tate's decision to neither attend nor vote seems to contradict a duty to do so. It's my opinion that the company may compel him to do so by petitioning the Court for an Order.


Flat Ass Bottom Line

I believe the Judge erred by focusing on 5.1(g)'s definition of a quorum, while ignoring 5.1(h)'s ability of a majority of members (3) to act without a meeting. It is still not clear whether or not the Judge also ordered that Tate now must attend meetings as per 5.2(b).

In any case, Tate doesn't control a majority and surely knows it. He signed away his control, and once having lost it seems to have suffered a bad case of seller's remorse. He wanted expansion, but when the controlling members actually found the $15M to proceed (which required issuing more units) he protested on the basis that his shares would be diluted from his current 27%. The truth is that ALL the members shares would be diluted. According to the agreement, all members have the same right to purchase the additional units if they so wish to maintain their original share.

It would that Tate didn't have the funds to do so. Too bad. Expansion costs money and Tate's original estimate of $10M apparently wasn't enough. That would appear to be his fail, and thus the proximate cause for the company to find more money. Fortunately the other partners were able to find the additional $5M to carry out Tate's grandiose plans, but that additional funding wasn't free, ergo the plan to issue more units as permitted by the agreement. Tate's claim that he was being run out never did seem credible, and in light of the above, even less so. All in all:

1. Tate wanted his cake and to eat it too.

2. Tate apparently could not deal with the loss of control, and seems to have turned to the scorched earth tactic of refusing to attend meetings and perhaps to cripple the company.

Still, all is not yet clear. It seems that both parties are making a final attempt to negotiate a buyout to avoid litigation. At this moment though and likely emboldened by the Judge's order, it would appear Tate is both unwilling to sell his own interest, and instead, expects PE Investors to sell their interest for an offer that so far has not been accepted. Ouch!

This does not bode well for either. Unless Tate has a real case for fraud beyond implication, his position does not appear favorable.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Winston
Bo'sun's Mate
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:27 pm

Post by Winston »

The distillery isn't shuttered. We closed last week for the holiday. Due to the way our process works it's much easier to closer for the entire week rather than for a couple of days. Back at work today!




*******
Capn's Log: Winston, thanks for the clarification. The news source that the distillery was "shuttered" was Tate himself - in his own words - during his Whiskycast interview (linked above).
Winston
Bo'sun's Mate
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:27 pm

Post by Winston »

What, you haven't seen the news yet?

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/b ... l?mode=jqm
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

I won't say I told em so, but...

Winston, thank for the link..

Amazing. Despite all his bluster, not only did Balcones buy out his 27%, but he was "fired" from his job as head distiller, lost his $175,000 annual salary, and get this: a no-compete (until March, 2016) is being enforced! This is as close to a total loss as seems possible.

Tate's only attempt at saving face was to insist he "resigned" ("You can't fire me, I quit!"). He refuses to discuss any details, but says he's going to use the no-compete to plan a new model for a new distillery. Good luck on that.

Some exerpts:
"In a resolution issued Wednesday, the four-member board said it fired Tate after buying out his share of the company and claimed he committed a variety of misdeeds, including conspiring with “outside individuals” to start a competing distillery and threatening the lives of board president Greg Allen and board member Noell Michaels."

“What is important now is that this is a great company with great people running it,” Allen said. “Jared (Himstedt) and Keith (Bellinger) are the leadership, and right now they are representative of a group of 13 people who get in there every morning and slug it out. The bottom line is what is important are the company and the people.”

"Allen said that while Tate had the talent and creative vision to start the company, he needed help from investors to fund the expansion. Allen said Tate lacked the business acumen and people skills to help the business grow and flourish and drove away good employees instead of nurturing them.

Himstedt, who learned the art of whiskey-making at Tate’s side and who, with Bellinger, is dedicated to maintaining Balcones’ quality, said Tate created a “toxic environment” in the workplace. He said most employees breathed a sigh of relief when they learned Tate would not be coming back."
It turns out that my prediction that Tate's self-serving offer would not be accepted, and that additionally, he lacked the funding to buy out PE - were both correct. In toto, this has been an amazing series of events and really quite a sad one. The real truth is that this promising young man misread and projected his own early successes onto a path he was either unwilling or unable to follow.

If he ever returns to this business - and that seems questionable - it will have to be as a craft distiller in complete control of his product and of his destiny.



*******
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/b ... l?mode=jqm
(A must read)...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Winston
Bo'sun's Mate
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:27 pm

Post by Winston »

According to his tweets, his new distillery is "breaking ground" December 2014
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

You just barely beat me to that...


The actual tweet from Tate:
"@MasterOfMalt Funny you should ask ...
Reports of my non-compete have been greatly exaggerated. Tate & Co Distillery breaks ground Dec 2014"
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/s ... 51407346f5

This would seem to be at odds with the Waco Tribune who was quite clear that a no-compete through March of 2016 had been agreed. My guess is that Balcones' accusation that Tate "...committed a variety of misdeeds, including conspiring with “outside individuals” to start a competing distillery and threatening the lives of board president Greg Allen and board member Noell Michaels" had some truth to it.

The fact that Tate alleges to be "breaking ground" in a matter of weeks supports Balcone's claim. My guess: it was Tate - suffering from seller's remorse - that was trying to ruin Balcones and not the reverse. I tend to believe the Tribune's report that a no-compete is in place - it's my guess that Tate is indeed "breaking ground" but that he will not release any product until after March of 2016.

In the meanwhile I will assume that the next six months or more will be spent building the distillery, with the remaining months devoted to new make and aging, but no sales.


Last a big thanks to Winston...


...for standing up for the Project at the STR8boyz with this post:
"It's a shame you guys banned Jimbo. His dissertations were the most accurate of any speculation I read anywhere. "
I couldn't have said it better myself, lol... it isn't easy being green!
User avatar
bearmark
Beermeister
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: Near Dallas Texas
Contact:

Post by bearmark »

Well, I'm glad that's over, but I have a somewhat different take as a numb-skulled "tater-tot" (forgive my stupidity). For me, the genius behind the offerings from Balcones was Chip Tate. I've enjoyed their past products and there are some that I'll even treasure (e.g. Brimstone Resurrection), but Balcones is at square one again. They'll have to re-prove their products because they're simply not the same anymore, much to their insistence otherwise. I won't rule out that they'll successfully maintain what Chip created, but I don't believe that this is a given.

On the other hand, I'll be closely following Chip's next endeavor and can't wait to taste his new product in March 2016 because he's the proven quantity with regard to whiskey.
Mark Hébert
Rum References: Flor de Caña 18 (Demeraran), The Scarlet Ibis (Trinidadian), R.L. Seale 10 (Barbadian), Appleton Extra (Jamaican), Ron Abuelo 12 (Cuban), Barbancourt 5-Star (Agricole)
Winston
Bo'sun's Mate
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:27 pm

Post by Winston »

bearmark wrote:For me, the genius behind the offerings from Balcones was Chip Tate. Balcones is at square one again. They'll have to re-prove their products because they're simply not the same anymore, much to their insistence otherwise.
Well, Mark, I would say that's an insult to everyone else who helped build this company and its products. Jared was every bit as instrumental to the distillery's success as Chip. He worked on every single blend ever released, he managed the production for years, he built out the distillery when it was just an old welding shop, he collaborated on product development, he ran the stills, etc.

Whether or not the whisky is exactly the same is fairly irrelevant. It's still fucking delicious :) Yes, Jared and I have different taste than Chip, but we have very well developed palates and we know our products inside and out. What I can guarantee you is that the quality is just as good or even better, judging by the response we've gotten from folks around Texas. So far, the only person who has complained about the quality of the whisky today was Chip, which anyone could have predicted he would do.
Post Reply