Article about in-fighting amongst Holiday World's Koch family

[BoddaH1994]

I guess no family is perfect...

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130324/NEWS02/303240105/1025/rsslink?gcheck=1

[TombRaiderFTW]

Certainly an interesting take on it. Both sides certainly come across far friendlier than earlier reports made it sound, but I still find it upsetting that things devolved to lawsuits within the family. I also find Dan's intent to have his kids succeed him a little odd. If he wanted his part of the family to be involved at that level, why become a lawyer 1,000 miles away from the park? And why can't both Will's and Dan's kids play parts in future park management the way Will, Dan, and Natalie did?

I wonder if we'll see Pat Koch at the park at all this year--if it were me, I'd sure feel like the family dream's getting ruined by the power struggle.

[The Interpreter]

Add to this the additional distraction of trying to run Bluegrass Boardwalk. That would have seriously hurt the Santa Claus park, at best....

I also like how both sides say this is really about whose kids will inherit the park. It's always about....the children.

[TheCrypt]

Not to mention, Lori's children are far more capable of running the park than Dan's children.

[malem]

It's interesting to read some in-depth, outside examination of this story. Previous reports essentially rehashed Lori's (successful) trial court brief, leaving many questions unanswered. It's still not clear how exactly the share price dispute lead to the nullification of the sale agreement.

I also like how both sides say this is really about whose kids will inherit the park. It's always about....the children.

Not to mention, Lori's children are far more capable of running the park than Dan's children.

Indeed, the question of inheritance is arguably the most significant aspect of the entire dispute. And not just who inherits the park, but how the park is inherited. (See Knott's Berry Farm.) At their current ages, I don't think it's possible to say which of them will be capable of running the park. I do think it's odd that Dan would make a quip about the age of Will's children.

It's definitely tragic that a dispute over share prices caused such a deep schism in the family. Carrying on the dispute in public court is definitely harming the reputation of both the family and the park.

I'm still not sure how I feel about this case, but $27M (2010) seems very low for 60% of a park with 1.1M (2010) annual attendance and low debt obligations. Regardless of what formula was included in an agreement. (Under the law, contracts are supposed to be equitable.)

Previous discussion of the topic: http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?/topic/26939-hw-matt-eckert-named-new-president-and-ceo

[coasterfanatic83]

I just hate seeing a family argue over stuff. I understand that it is a big deal, with a lot of an impact on the future of the park, children, and financial stability, etc... but at what point do you just set aside differences? I mean, they all have the same blood in their veins! i just don't like seeing such a seemingly happy family come to this point.

[The Interpreter]

Well, the kids do. The plaintiff married in.

[malem]

The Indy Star published an expanded version of this article: http://www.indystar.com/article/20130323/BUSINESS/303230063/Holiday-World-family-feud-leaves-control-amusement-park-uncertain

Some highlights:

Lori on behalf of her husbands estate said her brother-in-law, and the family company he and Natalie controlled, breached the stock sale agreement by short-changing her on the price for the shares; not tendering the full amount for the shares by the sale deadline; and insisting that part of the purchase price be offset with a $2.7 million debt that Will owed the company.

Dan counterclaimed, saying that the price for Wills shares had to be set using the formula spelled out in the agreement and that his sister-in-law was out to wreck the family business.

The lawsuit was never about money. Its about making sure her kids get the business, Dan said. Its really a fight about transition how it moves to the fourth generation.

In December, a judge in the case ruled in favor of Lori and the estate, voiding the agreement that Wills shares be sold at the lower price or at any price.

The ruling was a clear victory for Lori and the estate, which revealed in a court filing that the estates legal fees had topped $681,000. Lori acted quickly, replacing Dan as president with Eckert the first person who is not a Koch to run Holiday World and putting her three children on the board of Koch Development. All are college students, though two graduate this year.

A fourth person also was put on the board: Chip Cleary, a veteran amusement park operator from Long Island, N.Y., who was a friend of Will.

Cleary, 62, a former chairman of the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, said his role on the board is to act as a sounding board and adviser for the Kochs, including Dan.

[rotag]

same article, different paper?

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303230063&nclick_check=1

[malem]

same article, different paper?

Both papers are owned by Gannett, so articles (and portions of them) may be shared. The Indy Star article includes details that the Courier-Journal article didn't.

[rotag]

that's what i thought. but i was uncertain. thanks for the double check.

[Shaggy]

It will be most telling if Pat doesn't appear in HW commercials this year. She's been mum on all of this... completely. I cannot imagine how broken her heart must be... losing her son, then losing the park she's known her whole life. IMO, Pat IS Holiday World.

I gather than Lori didn't seem concerned about the legacy of having her kids run the park when she thought she was being bought out at the higher rate. It appears to me that for her, it's more about money than legacy. I believe Dan's intents to keep it within the family ARE about the legacy.

The entire reason the brothers bought their sisters shares, rather than make them public, was obviously to keep the park in the direct control of the bloodline and under the Koch name. A lot can change with Lori - specifically her last name. I see the concern from the Koch side... there's too many variables under her ownership... (i.e. if she were to re-marry, or if her interests changed, or if the kids decided they don't want to run it...) thus opening the chance for a sell-off.

Under Dan's leadership, the appropriate time could be "bought" to establish the legacy. Giving both his, and Will's kids the opportunity to mature, grow and learn into adult businesspeople who could then be entrusted to continue the legacy.

[CoastersRZ]

Very well said, Shaggy!

I agree that it seems Lori doesn`t really have the legacy of the Koch name at heart with this lawsuit. It will be interesting to see what happens moving forward and how things progress.

[The Interpreter]

More:

http://m.courierpress.com/news/2013/mar/26/no-headline---holidayworld/

Note the comments as well.

[sccard01]

Dan Koch posted several comments as well. Check it out on coasterbuzz.

[TTD-120-420]

"The only thing wrong with inheritances from extremely rich people is the children have no incentive to make it on their own.
Aren't these the same Koch's that are so rich that they can buy their way out of crimes?

http://www.duboiscountyfreepress.com/..."

I hate comments like these. I don't understand the bias and hate towards people who have made something of themselves. Yeah, the whole Koch family is wealthy. Great for them! Why do people always question people and say they don't deserve their wealth?

[The Interpreter]

And it continues:

http://indianarealpropertylaw.com/2013/12/10/holiday-world-shareholder-dispute-petition-for-transfer-pending-before-indiana-supreme-court/

[windshawne]

I find this whole thing extremely upsetting. I hate to see the fighting, and especially feel bad for Pat.

[The Interpreter]

I found it especially upsetting that the new owner and her management claimed the reason we are seeing less of Pat is that the park is proceeding in a "new direction." Though technically true, such diversions from reality are at best clever deceit. We see less of Pat because that is HER choice. She is heart broken over all this. To claim it is the park's choice that we see less of her seems arrogant, offensive and patronizing, at least to me.

And if seeing less of her in the park and in marketing is not the result of Pat's own choice, that's even more revealing, and tells me far more than I ever wanted to know.

There was a time I adored that park and its management. That time has past.

This whole thing is just terribly sad.

[stashua123]

I'm not happy about this. I don't like it when family members fight so why do we need to see it in the Indiana Supreme Court? This fighting is going to give Holiday World a bad image. And with a new competitor for the Louisville market(Kentucky Kingdom) they need to get their act together.

[The Interpreter]

The park's image concerns this bunch of heirs far less than the millions and millions of dollars, both now and in the future, at stake here. The legal fees alone have doubtless cost the parties at least seven figures so far.

Nothing less than the ownership, control and future direction of the park is at stake here.

As I said before, all this is extremely sad. Pat and her late husband and brother-in-law, her son Will and most of the family and the many loyal, hard working employees have made Holiday World what it is today.

And now it's all tied up in court.

In all fairness, a reading of this thread is also helpful to understanding all this:

http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php/topic/26939-hw-matt-eckert-named-new-president-and-ceo/

It will be the courts to decide this matter. A settlement seems decidedly unlikely. And as it drags on and on, legal fees mount and distractions to being family and running a park continue eating away at relationships: family and business.

[RailRider]

A very sad commentary on how money and greed can destroy a family and potentially what was a very happy place. No time to grieve for the loss of a loved one, because folks were already making their moves to gain power and control.

How very sad.

[Gabe]

There have been some rumblings in the Indy legal community of which I belong that the two sides have been engaged in off and on settlement discussions quietly and out of the public eye--as it should be. If settlement talks reach a certain point, court dates will likely get pushed back. As mentioned before, there are a lot of moving parts here, so stay tuned.

[NoChickens]

They just reported on Fox59, the Indiana Supreme Court has rejected hearing the case.

[The Interpreter]

And that should be that. There are theoretically other avenues available, but virtually no probability of success for any of them.

[Gabe]

http://www.indystar.com/story/money/2014/02/17/ind-supreme-court-decides-not-to-hear-holiday-world-case/5556769/

Above is the link to the story. Dan issued a statement saying he still won't sell his shares to Lori, so despite this final setback, this has the potential to drag on some more.

[RailRider]

“I am available to work in the park and our future is bright. I love Holiday World and Splashin’ Safari and enjoy being a proud owner, even in a minority position, of such a wonderful family legacy,” Dan Koch’s email said.

Whose family name has been drug through the mud over infighting that has become all too public... As I learned long ago watch what someone does, not what they say.

[The Interpreter]

And now, two years later, watching who did what is instructive.

Dan no longer has any interest in Holiday World. Pat is not seen at Holiday World, and laudatory IAAPA articles that call Paula Werne a "goddess" write Pat and her late husband Bill out of the park's history, and yet some still see the family as a "coalition."

Not only has it not been that for a long time now, if anything, things seem worse now than they have been for quite some time.

Holiday World.

Family.

Family values.

[BeeastFarmer]

The Interpreter, I was wrong in that choice of wording and I was wrong in my understanding of who was trying to initiate Bluegrass Boardwalk.  I have apologized and edited that post to reflect my error.

 

My use of the word was what I thought was a unified family many years ago.  I was wrong, admitted it and moved on.  I do not see the family as a coalition, just for the record.

[The Interpreter]

Some.

Not one.

And some still do.

If only it were true.

It is not.

And, sadly, it is beginning to look like it may never be again...if it ever was.