Chapter 24 - Vesper’s final counterattack
Vesper filed a motion accusing me of using corporate resources to fund personal retaliation.
Evidence:
Marlowe security preserved gala footage.
Company legal department initially coordinated with my personal counsel.
One invoice included:
$18,600
for work partially related to gala assault and corporate investigation.
That was a real problem.
Corporate money should not pay my personal criminal defense.
Finance review found:
$7,900 of invoice related to personal legal advice that had been miscoded to corporate matter.
I reimbursed company immediately.
With interest? Not necessary, but pay modest imputed interest:
$240.
Then outside counsel reviewed all.
Another:
$3,400 in security overtime linked to family no-contact arrangements but billed as corporate event security.
Company already would have paid some.
Allocation corrected.
I paid:
$1,600 personal portion.
Vesper’s motion did not prove massive retaliation.
It proved our controls were still capable of blurring family and company spending.
The judge allowed her to use corrections in selective-enforcement argument.
Embarrassing.
Then board censured no one? Better governance action:
Audit committee issued written reprimand to finance/legal process, not me personally since coding was staff. But as CEO, I accepted recommendation.
Vesper said:
“You’re no different.”
I did not answer publicly.
The difference was not:
I never make a related-party mistake.
The difference had to become:
Mistakes are disclosed and corrected, even when mine.
Then settlement mediation resumed.
Vesper’s demand dropped:
$640,000.
Company:
$780,000.
Still active.
Then one new witness:
Greencrest CFO produced email showing Vesper had explicitly requested a higher advisory fee after securing renewal of a Marlowe contract.
Marlowe renewal is done. Adjust my annual advisory retainer accordingly.
That strengthened causation.
Not proof of bribery.
But compensation linked to Marlowe business.
Company raised demand again.
May you like
Vesper’s last counterattack had uncovered my coding error.
Then her own email hardened the case against her.
