I had no idea Gibson had bought up KRK, Cerwin Vega and Stanton. Huh. Thats cool I guess.

Something for them to keep busy with while they wait for the Feds to give them back their wood...
 
(You DID know about the Feds seizing their wood, ya?)

I thought I saw a headline a couple of days ago that said Gibson had settled with the Feds; not sure what the terms were.

Watched an interview with the CEO of Gibson on TV last night. The government, being unable to point to an applicable law that had been broken, basically said "never mind, go about your business". This after the company had spent $2M on lawyers. And the wood still hasn't been returned.

Always best to put a good face on your criminal activity, and admit guilt, not because you have done anything wrong, but because the cost of defending yourself would be excessive. Gibson clearly understood that it was violating the law for at least two years, and made no attempt to do the right thing after warning by the DOJ and one of its own employees. To then pretend to be affronted that armed (what US police agencies are not armed?) agents showed up and seized contraband is pure stagecraft. Had they desisted after warnings, it is doubtful that any action would have been taken.

Unlike the vast majority of these settlements to avoid prosecution, this one included acknowledgement by Gibson that it had knowingly violated the law. Perhaps with a million dollars of defense expenditures, Gibson could have gotten the law overturned, but they clearly had reason to believe that they were breaking the law when they bought endangered plants that Madagascar had managed to protect.

For the gist of the agreement without the spin doctoring:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/August/12-enrd-976.html

In many cases it is simply a business decision to cop a plea, work out a deal, and pay the fine rather than fighting it. Even though they are innocent, and followed all the laws, the feds are a force to be reckoned with. They could have gone the distance and would have likely spent millions more to prove they were innocent and get the wood back..... but at what cost? On the other hand, a jury is an unknown factor and could just as easily have ruled against them and that could have bankrupted the company. 

Smart business decision most likely to settle it like they did. 

This puts the first situation in a different light then. 

here's a link to a brief story on the settlement


http://www.npr.org/2012/0...-last-word-in-business

 
as I was making my comment above I was just guessing ....... but.....it was as I described..settled as a business decision. 

Yes, just a business decision. Totally without honor or integrity. Just as the decision to source materials illegally, rather than finding legitimate more expensive sources in order to increase profits was a business decision. One reason we suffer under an immense mass of laws and regulations, is that the business community seems to see no reason to do the right (good not correct) thing, or avoid doing the wrong (evil not erroneous) thing, and malignantly justifies (excuses not makes just) all action based on whether the company prospers, and the executives receive bonuses. When the basis of your ethics is anything that is not against the law is good, you can expect your neighbors to start passing a lot of laws to keep you from pissing all over them.

I disrespect Gibson for caving under pressure if they believe they were in the right. But they never were, and they never thought they were. This was not principled civil disobedience to protest an application of extraterratorial law, it was just a cheap sleazy unethical (does that even apply to a business decision?) cheat. This is the same kind of business decision that justifies a pimp beating up a prostitute because it would cost too much to pay her, or a restaurant cooking stolen meat into the stew. Of course Gibson was in the wrong. They certainly thought that they were committing a crime, and they admitted as much. Now they want us to believe that they were good people, they just can't afford to prove it in our expensive courts. There is no injustice here, unless you believe that individuals who use their companies to commit crimes, or commit crimes in furtherance of their business, should personally suffer consequences.

Gives a whole new meaning to the line "Got wood?"