it really annoys me when partnerships will give up 0.1 or 1 percent to better compete as a MBE. it's a sheisty practice. it should be a significant share of the company. poor nader. i'd want to disolve the firm as well.

wow... according to the article, she's a cunt.

a cunt? it looks like she has a right, besides, judging from the photo she can definitely kick his ass.

i think what cracks me up is tehrani's use of "sonny and cher" and the writer of the article missing the fact that "sonny and cher" were also at each other's throats.

firms have internal issues. it's a shame it becomes news - an external provocation that will now make these issues even harder to work out.

these two very smart people have now made their problems public which means that a far less nuanced - probably far more dumb and litigious and generic - result is likely. they could have instead agreed to a more private gracious and graceful split but...

so it goes.

if you think taking advantage of a sacrifice that a partner made in good faith - to the benefit of the partnership and practice - is a right. well, guess what? you're a cunt too.

people have disagreements and go their separate ways, fine. but to take advantage of that in the way she is doing it betrays her lack of character and integrity. did she make the majority of decisions after she gained that extra percent? i doubt it. it was what it was. why try to pretend?

yeah steven. i don't know why this is news that the whole world needs to know. i would suppose that one of them went to the press in attempt to try to get their story heard first and sort of check mate the other. sounds pretty ugly.

If is really is 50/50 then the woman owned firm stuff was fraud...

lots of firms do that kind of split -

it's personally sad for me to see. know most of that crew for a very long time. didn't know it had come to this (we're all in our little bubbles), but i hope they can figure out a way to amicably resolve this and move on. an amazing amount of great work came out of that collaboration.

And this is why you don't sleep with your business partners.

And this is why you don't piss off Venezuelan women.

Doesn't she live in Ann Arbor now, anyway? At least he's still in the 'hood.

But legally, outed, if the 50/50 split is upheld, they are in big trouble.

make - not necessarily. a lot would depend on their corporate status (is it C-corp, S-corp, llc/llp?) even if one partner legally owns 51%, their operating agreement could provide for them to jointly run the company and equally share any profits. it's not always a situation where the +1 means unilateral control. it might mean something in terms of distributing assets or properties.

from the article, legally, it sounds like monica would have a better case to retain the name.

It's really funny to see that only 1% of privilege could reveal someone's desire clear and make that person to practice the desire...

It's funny but also really scary...
Is it ok to do anything if "legally" or "practically" able to do?

i found one other article on this, posted on/by Cornell U. website which would makes Tehrani look bad.

the psychology of the 1% is interesting though...seen that before though...

by arch standards they are both young and i'm sure they'll both do fine on their own...it's just the mudslinging which will happen now may affect both of them getting clients.

the media move was a stupid move.

In case you all missed it from Archinect's News section:

UPDATE: Monica Ponce de Leon has provided Archinect with the following message...

“Nader and I have been working together for a long time. The Boston Globe article is grossly inaccurate and one sided. I did not give an interview to the Globe and I did not make any of the statements attributed to me. I did not use my majority stock to terminate his position with Office dA. This a small business dispute and the matter is scheduled for arbitration before the end of the month. Despite the dispute, Offica dA continues to thrive.”