Opinion ID: 2469348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: January 2009 Discussions[6]

Text: Oldham responded immediately by email to Old Navy's January Proposal: [Your projections] seem EXTREMELY uncommitted to me. This feels like an effort to absolve old navy's contractual responsibilities and not a commitment to build a new brand that was made to me when i joined and what you reiterated to me last month. 100 stores will not work. the 1 million in launch dollars will not be effective. the one year commitment is too brief as there are so many hiccups in launching a brand.... i hope that we can get this resolved but we are very far away from a reasonable plan. the volume of work necessary to bring a project of this scale to bloom is at great odds with your financial projections. Counterclaims Ex. A. In the discussions that followed, L-7 asked for a minimum guarantee of $37.5 million for a three-year term and then reduced the request to $20 million for a two-year term. On January 16, 2009, L-7 inquired of Old Navy whether it had made any changes to any of its positions as stated [in the January Proposal]. Id. Ex. E. Old Navy responded the next day: To date, we have not been presented with any comprehensive counteroffer and instead there has been a[sic] insistence on large guaranteed minimum payments that we have explained are unacceptable and inconsistent with our business plans and practices.... Id. Ex. D. Additional emails were exchanged, and on January 29, 2009, the parties held a conference call, during which they agreed to talk again after speaking with their respective principals. Ex. 28. The same day, L-7 emailed Old Navy a revised proposal reflecting Oldham's input on the points discussed during the call. Id.