S06.E06: Jackie's Cookie Connection

[Amarsir]

Quote

A cookie business grows too quickly from a tiny shop to a full-production wholesale company, and it is now at the mercy of angry lenders; Marcus tries to teach owner Rachel how to stay in business despite heavy financial consequences.

Another really interesting episode. Marcus is smart enough to instantly see that he shouldn't be investing, but stuck around to consult anyway. I guess for the show's sake even though he says he doesn't do stuff for the cameras.

It reminded me a bit of Swanson's Fish Market. There he made it about their personal spending and here it was about optimism but both were deep in debt and ended with a surprise reveal of a lurking foreclosure notice.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Amarsir

[CrazyInAlabama]

I really disagree with Marcus.    When investors loan you millions for the inventory, and to fill purchase orders, and then you use that money for rent, leasing equipment, payroll, and nothing goes to inventory or purchase orders, then it is fraud.    I hope the investors/lenders had it in the contract what the money was to cover.    The cousin/accountant was a good financial guy, but the woman was delusional about her boyfriend.     

There is no way that I believe that David wasn't getting money out of the business either.    How did the woman support herself, and her kids, and David survive without income?     I'm not buying it at all.  

On the Profit Updates, it says they filed for Chapter 11 in December 2018, but continue to operate.    Since the ending of the show had their landlord foreclosing, and they were short of funds for their leased equipment, payroll, and other expenses, it sounds like they are just going further in debt.   

Marcus should have walked when he discovered the promised $70,000 to $80,000 in monthly back orders didn't exist, and the unfilled orders were less than $6,000.   Overstating the purchase orders, and interested customers was a huge red flag, and I'm wondering how long David and Rachel will last without her money available.   

Even when Marcus showed the actual shortfalls between orders, and future sales, and Rachel blew him off as her 'boyfriend was an optimist', the investors/lenders should have sued.    Apparently lenders didn't do their due diligence.      I wonder how the lenders felt watching that episode?    I also wonder if the investors were high interest lenders?     I also wonder since the investments were actually loans, if they were secured?    

The Amazon reviews are varied, because many shipments came crushed.     One reviewer on there said six out of seven of their packages came crushed.   The Amazon site also lists everything I looked at as 'currently unavailable'.    

They certainly won't be working with any co-packers either, since you actually have to finance that, and they are so broke.     

Edited February 13, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[BusyOctober]

David is a weasel.  Slick used car salesman who wants to live large and pose as a successful businessman....all on his girlfriend ‘s borrowed to the  max dimes.  

I never heard of Jackie’s cookies, but I’m on the east coast.  If you build a huge facility like Rachel had, I would’ve assumed she had the orders and demand for the product.  Who needs that much space when you 1) don’t have any PO’s to fill and 2) can’t afford butter to bake even a small batch of cookies?  I am not an entrepreneur nor do I have an MBA, but even I would know to follow the line of growth Marcus described.  Start small, if business is so good you can’t fulfill orders from your small shop, you look to a co-packer.  You don’t build the Tollhouse Cookie Taj Mahal!!! Or do it  with a million dollars you do not have!

Rachel looks like she has had too much ‘work’ done to her face.  Fillers or Botox or implants....something is ‘off’.  And her vocal fry made me want to jam ice picks in my ears to alleviate the pain her voice caused.

[Gregg247]

Those unseen lenders sure were angry!  Their e-mails were very unprofessional and seemed very personal in nature.  I generally side with lenders in these cases , but these morons lent a company millions where COGS were 150% of revenues!  What were they thinking?!?  I also disagree with Marcus that there was no fraud involved.  If some of the lenders loaned them money expressly for a P.O., with repayment to come from the proceeds, and the company never bothered to fill the P.O. but instead used the funds for payroll and taxes, that could very well be actionable.  Competent loan documents would have spelled this out completely.

Rachel let herself get ruined by her smooth-talking boyfriend.  She's so fixated on the idea that David is "saving" her that she refuses to look at reality.

I liked the way Marcus laid out the 3 options the company had - make a deal with the lenders, do a Deed in Lieu, or bankruptcy.  I wasn't entirely convinced which option would have been best for Marcus, though, so I was a little nervous about Rachel letting Marcus make a deal with the lenders for her.  Was what was in Rachel's best interest also what was in Marcus' best interest?  I don't know.  Exercising a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure would have handed the business over to the lenders (who wouldn't know what to do with it), but would allow Rachel to start over from scratch with a different name, a different recipe, different packaging  and, best of all, a clean slate on the balance sheet.  This sounds like something Marcus would have loved.

[hoosiermommy]

I wonder if Marcus's declaration that their activities were stupid not fraudulent was an actual legal opinion. Because my degree from Law & Order says he's wrong.

I noticed Marcus received Rachel's phone call while in Santa Claus, Indiana.  I recognized the distinctive Holiday World water tower in the background.

Her boyfriend was a "salesman" alright.  I know not all salesmen are like him, but those who are, are the ones who have helped perpetuate the stereotype of slick and untrustworthy.

Rachel reminded me of Veronica Montelongo from Flip This House.  

[Amarsir]

Fraud requires deliberate intent to deceive. Being stupid would be an affirmative defense.

It may be that they didn't actually have a PO and it was simply David's "optimistic" view that they would get one. In that case, a loan secured via PO would be fraud. However if they did have a PO, funded it legitimately, and then between the time the buyers paid and when the loan was due they stupided the money away, well that's just a loan default the same as any other.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think (I also attended the school of Law & Order, and advanced study of L.A. Law and Boston Legal) and I agree, unless the loan documents said the loans (and they were not investments apparently) were for purchase order, and inventory building, then using the money for payroll, leased equipment, rent, and other business expenses was probably deceptive, but not fraud.

However, if it can be proven that Mr. Slick (David) funneled business funds for personal expenses, or for any other personal expenses, such as vacations, personal houses, personal vehicles, then it's not only fraud, but embezzlement.    I'm really hoping some of that comes out in the bankruptcy filing, and the investors' due diligence (which they should have done before making unsecured loans).  

[seacliffsal]

I agree that David and Rachel were pulling money from the business but not in the form of salaries.  Although I don't think David attending the school of Law and Order (but he should have...), I think he attended the business school of Schitt's Creek and sat next to David Rose who misconstrued business write-offs thereby assuming purchasing something and vaguely using it for "business" was justified (i.e. purchasing vehicles so he could go on his business calls, clothes to wear to business calls, etc.).  Their debt load really implies that there was a lot of money that went somewhere (and as we later found out in the episode, they weren't paying their leases on the building and on equipment).

Rachel sure had a lot of righteous indignation for someone who borrowed money without paying it back, created a huge factory without paying rent/leases, rejected the coldpacker's factual statements (regarding labeling, etc.), and flat out got angry at anyone who disagreed with her and/or David.  According to her, she started the company as a hobby while her husband was alive.  It's always amazing to me how little about business so many business owners know.  Oh, but I forgot how 'stressed' she was so I guess it's okay...

[JasminePhyllisia]

This episode reminded me of the Planet Popcorn one, with the female owner and her sketchy boyfriend playing loose with the facts and misusing funds.  So many red flags in both episodes.

[Showthyme]

Rachel said that her late husband financed her business. Then, she relied on lenders and sleazy David to deal with her finances. Then, she looks to Marcus. She needs to learn how money works and handle her own finances. 

All that space and equipment to bake a few cookies was just plain stupid.  It ranks up with one of the dumbest decisions ever made for a business featured on The Profit.

I wonder if she squandered away her children’s college fund from her late husband to keep her hobby business.

The cosmetic procedures were another mistake.

[abronfeld1]

Even if they go through a bankruptcy, and the court finds that that their behavior was willful and malicious in misallocating funds due to creditors, they may never be able to discharge their debts. We don't have enough information from the edited program, but using purchase order financing, and then spending the funds originally promised to a specific PO creditor for other purposes, is skating on the line of intentional deception.

[CrazyInAlabama]

With all of that equipment and staff, they could have been co-packers for others if they ran a professional operation, instead of a vanity project for Miss Botox, and her expensive, delusional boyfriend.   Rachel's statements about how grossly overstating the purchases unfilled, (David said $70-80k a month, vs. reality of $5600) was David's "optimism" told me all I needed to know about her.    She had an expensive hobby, not a business.   

With the continued threats from the investors (lenders), I wonder if David the fool had her borrowing from usual sources, or higher interest scary people?  Borrowing from some people can have bad things happen, so they better have just been venting, and not serious.  

Edited February 15, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Jimmyfox]

On 2/13/2019 at 12:32 AM, Amarsir said:

Another really interesting episode. Marcus is smart enough to instantly see that he shouldn't be investing, but stuck around to consult anyway. I guess for the show's sake even though he says he doesn't do stuff for the cameras.

It reminded me a bit of Swanson's Fish Market. There he made it about their personal spending and here it was about optimism but both were deep in debt and ended with a surprise reveal of a lurking foreclosure notice.

I was shocked what I watched. I give Marcus credit for staying cool when he comes across a couple of morons. The cousin seemed like the only normal one.

I lost my fiancé when he was 48 and it’s hard, and so she was in shock and I’ll give her a slight pass why she is with David. But seriously, what a BS artist that guy is. After watching the episode and learning she put in over $1 million of her own money, I realized she had said her husband did very well. Marcus had asked her where she got the money. My feeling was she was bleeding her husband dry and stressed him out so much that the poor guy had a heart attack!

who in their right mind leases out a factory like that? And buys equipment like that when she doesn’t do the sales? It’s insane. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist. 

How I wish I had someone rich to put me in business. I would know what to do. I actually went to culinary school and bake. I teach out of my house. To be honest, nothing looked special about her cookies. When I heard she used salted butter I almost fell off my couch! Never! Verboten! No one uses salted butter. Martha Stewart, Thomas Keller, Nancy Silverton, Tartine Bakery in SF. You look at any baking recipe from Epicurious or Food and Wine. Even The Food Network. No one uses salted butter. You add a bit to bring out the flavors. That in itself told me this woman has something wrong with her. And hanging with a man who is living off her and has no business sense whatsoever. And who these lenders were, God only knows. 

I tried to find out what happened to her. I saw she has a FB page! And seems she is still in business. I don’t get that. How? And from this she is on Amazon. And she wrote a blog that was so weird. I had no idea what the heck she was talking about. So I would like to know how she is staying in business.

[HaaCHOO]

On 2/13/2019 at 5:16 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Marcus should have walked when he discovered the promised $70,000 to $80,000 in monthly back orders didn't exist, and the unfilled orders were less than $6,000. 

Isn't that when Marcus DID walk away?  He stayed long enough to tell David that he was lying to him.   I'll probably repeat this a few times.  I wonder what Rachel thought about the boyfriend when his lies were shown on national television?

On 2/13/2019 at 5:16 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I also wonder if the investors were high interest lenders? 

Didn't Michael say interest from one of the lenders was as high as 36%?  !!!

[HaaCHOO]

On 2/13/2019 at 5:44 AM, BusyOctober said:

 And her vocal fry made me want to jam ice picks in my ears to alleviate the pain her voice caused.

I watched this with my adult son and he commented a couple of times about that annoying "fry."   It was also inconsistent.

On 2/13/2019 at 5:44 AM, BusyOctober said:

David is a weasel.  Slick used car salesman who wants to live large and pose as a successful businessman....all on his girlfriend ‘s borrowed to the  max dimes.  

I hope we hear from someone who knows/knew Michael.  He's the type who left his wife and kids high and dry so he could be Prince Charming to the little Damsel in Distress.  Anyone know his last name?

[HaaCHOO]

On 2/13/2019 at 1:13 PM, Gregg247 said:

Those unseen lenders sure were angry!  Their e-mails were very unprofessional and seemed very personal in nature. 

We heard only a few of the messages and LONG after (I assume) their many "professional" demands were ignored.  They probably sent formal letters by Certified Mail for several months.  If they knew her personally--or met and were scammed by David in person, their emails were perfectly understandable.

On 2/13/2019 at 1:13 PM, Gregg247 said:

  If some of the lenders loaned them money expressly for a P.O., with repayment to come from the proceeds, and the company never bothered to fill the P.O. but instead used the funds for payroll and taxes, that could very well be actionable. 

If some of the lenders loaned them money expressly for a P.O., with repayment to come from the proceeds, and the company never bothered to fill the P.O. but instead used the funds for payroll and taxes, Botox, Baccarat, and the Bahamas...

On 2/13/2019 at 1:13 PM, Gregg247 said:

Rachel let herself get ruined by her smooth-talking boyfriend.  She's so fixated on the idea that David is "saving" her that she refuses to look at reality.

I'm not so sure.  She puts out that "bereft widow" story a bit too easily/quickly.  She plays the Poor Widdle Me game very well--with her teenage vocal fry...reeling in a prevaricating Knight in Dented Armor*.    They're a perfect couple.

*The armor is about to be repossessed by the payday loan company.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Michael, the accountant was Rachel's cousin too (I think they only mentioned the cousin relationship at the beginning), and seemed to be the only person who knew the business was in trouble, and was doing his best.    I hope he had other companies he worked for, and I suggest that he was mostly there for the filming, and was trying to help Rachel out.   

When I looked on Amazon, almost all of the cookies listed as unavailable, and one was limited availability.     

The vocal fry is my big pet peeve.   It's one thing when it's a natural accent, but not when it comes and goes.  

Edited February 18, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Moose135]

On 2/13/2019 at 3:13 PM, Gregg247 said:

If some of the lenders loaned them money expressly for a P.O., with repayment to come from the proceeds, and the company never bothered to fill the P.O. but instead used the funds for payroll and taxes, that could very well be actionable. 

My understanding, from what Marcus said, was that they used the loan money to fulfill the POs, but when the customers paid, rather than using that money to pay off the loans, they used it for other business expenses.

[HaaCHOO]

1 hour ago, Moose135 said:

My understanding, from what Marcus said, was that they used the loan money to fulfill the POs, but when the customers paid, rather than using that money to pay off the loans, they used it for other business expenses.

"Business expenses."   I laugh.

[Biosynth]

I watched this with my husband.  My parents were in the bakery business.  I grew up seeing the operation of this business.  It's not the easiest thing to do. 

I did turn to my husband and say "Geez, why didn't she start out like a lot of people and cater from a website rather than having a physical business right away?"  A lot of people do that.  After you save up the capital, then open a brick and mortar store?  I guess people don't know that's an option?  *shrug*

[CrazyInAlabama]

Marcus only said that there was no fraud, after he examined all of the loan documents.     If the written and signed contract didn't say "money to be applied to purchase order/inventory building only", then it wasn't enforceable ?    Promises made to get the investor/lender to give them money probably aren't enforceable, because they weren't in writing, and signed.  

I hope the business is an LLC, so only the corporation's money can be attached by creditors.    At least I hope that's how it works.      I feel sorry for those who lost money, but it sounds like there needed to be more due diligence before lending.      The sad thing to me is that this could have been a great business, but it never will be now.  

Edited February 16, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[HaaCHOO]

4 hours ago, Biosynth said:

  I guess people don't know that's an option?  *shrug*

People who want to be big shot movers and shakers think that option is beneath them.  They're gonna make it FAST and FURIOUS.

[LuvMyShows]

7 hours ago, Moose135 said:

My understanding, from what Marcus said, was that they used the loan money to fulfill the POs, but when the customers paid, rather than using that money to pay off the loans, they used it for other business expenses.

I don't think so.  IIRC, this is the one that had one of those illustrations for it, and it specifically showed how the POs were not fulfilled, and instead the money was spent on things like salaries, rent, utilities, etc.

14 hours ago, HaaCHOO said:

She puts out that "bereft widow" story a bit too easily/quickly.  She plays the Poor Widdle Me game very well--with her teenage vocal fry...reeling in a prevaricating Knight in Dented Armor*.    They're a perfect couple.

The more I think about this, the more pissed off I get.  IIRC, when they were in that meeting with the co-packers and she was telling her 'story', she said or strongly implied that she started the business so she would have a way to provide for her kids after her husband died.  But when Marcus was asking about where the initial $1.5M came from, she said her husband provided it.  It seems pretty clear that this little company was initially a vanity project, and a nice way to involve her mother as well, and it didn't matter whether it made money or not because her husband would have had enough to keep funding it.   Then he died, and the 'oh shit' moment happened, and the company needed to make money.  Clearly she had no idea how to do that.

I cannot fathom that between two outwardly intelligent-seeming people, they couldn't see that it was impossible for the company to make money with their high COGS.  And it becomes more unfathomable when considering that they kept going to the well, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  I think that all those $$ simply meant nothing to her because of how she lived her life while she was married, when her husband was in charge.  She found another guy that she thought was like that, and handed over the thinking duties to him as well, but she picked the wrong one.

[mojito]

I got the feeling that the cousin probably did handstands off-camera and out of view of Rachel because he knew that her boyfriend was leading the business down the wrong path (and Rachel possibly wouldn't listen to him when he tried to tell her that). He sat quite still and calm as Marcus gave his assessment, and seemed resigned (or at peace) with Marcus' conclusion.

[Moose135]

On 2/15/2019 at 7:04 PM, LuvMyShows said:

I don't think so.  IIRC, this is the one that had one of those illustrations for it, and it specifically showed how the POs were not fulfilled, and instead the money was spent on things like salaries, rent, utilities, etc.

You are correct.  They just reaired the episode this morning, and that is how he (and the graphics) explained it, I must have misunderstood it the first time I saw it.  He did say that after looking at all of the loan paperwork, it was a business mistake, and not fraud, but it was still the wrong thing to do.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I watched the rerun too, and concentrated on the financials, and the final meeting with Marcus, where he walked.     He had said no fraud in his opinion (and I'm assuming other legal and financial experts were consulted also), and in the last scene with Michael, Rachel and David, Marcus did say that if he had known about the eviction pending, that he never would have tried to do a deal. 

I think this was a case of growing way too fast, skipping steps, and thinking no one can replace what you've always done, and do it just as well.    I would have walked when the arguing happened at the co-packer meeting.   

Michael the accountant had a pretty good poker face, but every time Marcus talked about the COGS, the mismanagement, the loans/investments, and at the last meeting, when Marcus said they were through, you could see Michael trying hard to keep a straight face.    Michael definitely knew that David was full of it, and you could see that he was enjoying David finally being told what a phony he is.  

 That's just how Sweet Pete started, where he wanted to do everything himself, and realized that he would have control but not have to do every single candy by himself.    

Edited February 18, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Showthyme]

The more I think about it...Marcus intended to get rid of David as soon as the deal was signed. He suggested that they use that sales group. David did sales. Hmmm. I believe that Marcus told the lenders that it was safe to make a deal because David would be gone and it would be quick. 

Words matter. Rachel kept referring to her lenders as investors. She sees things as she wants them to be, very much like a child.  She didn't seem alarmed about getting an eviction notice! She is someone that would be very frustrating to deal with on a daily basis. 

[Amarsir]

5 hours ago, Showthyme said:

Words matter. Rachel kept referring to her lenders as investors. She sees things as she wants them to be, very much like a child. 

Oh yeah I forgot how ridiculous that was. At first I thought she was just clueless about financing. (Which she is.) That's bad, but having seen enough business shows I know it's surprisingly common. But now in hindsight it really does seem like a delusion.

[HaaCHOO]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think this was a case of growing way too fast, skipping steps, and thinking no one can replace what you've always done, and do it just as well. 

I think they used being a good-looking couple with that backstory/sob-story (poor pretty young widow) often because it worked--especially with the sympathetic investors.  Scams or ill-advised efforts work...until they don't.

[silverspoons]

As I watch each episode now, I wonder why does Marcus want this business. How does it fit into his portifilo. He wants to have his fashion empire and then many of the other business work for his other business (like making signs, lightening fixtures, shirts, promo items etc). Seems like he is using the show to build his empire because lets face it, businesses like this cookie company had nothign unique about them, he rarely invests in some patented one of a kind business. It is like he wants someone to start up a food or fashion business and he just walks in and gives them 200k for 50% and he has a business to add to his empire and employees to run it (I realize he saves the business but if you look at the deals, the business usually keeps 1-2 locations and he gets all the new locations for himself in some sort of loophole?).

On my you tube recommended there was a 2 hour deposition Marcus gave in a case against him in 2017. It is Stetler vs Camping world. I have not watched it all yet. I was surprised at how slimy or maybe smug Marcus was. He sure did not recall stuff or really did not want to give out info that was pretty basic. Like name a charity event your company sponsored? or what states does your company do business in?  He could not recall his wedding date, even paused a long time to give a year? Does anyone know what the case was about? I just found it fascinating to watch him for a bit when there was no edit or storyline, and he hopefully was being truthful because it was a taped legal proceeding. 

[ae2]

6 hours ago, silverspoons said:

On my you tube recommended there was a 2 hour deposition Marcus gave in a case against him in 2017. It is Stetler vs Camping world. I have not watched it all yet. I was surprised at how slimy or maybe smug Marcus was. He sure did not recall stuff or really did not want to give out info that was pretty basic. Like name a charity event your company sponsored? or what states does your company do business in?  He could not recall his wedding date, even paused a long time to give a year? Does anyone know what the case was about? I just found it fascinating to watch him for a bit when there was no edit or storyline, and he hopefully was being truthful because it was a taped legal proceeding. 

I don't know... the guy is being sued, it's in his best interest to say as little as possible and not give away any additional information. He's also surely been coached by lawyers exactly what will be asked, and how to answer the questions. I haven't watched the entire thing but I have a hard time faulting anyone for trying to protect themselves.

He doesn't come across slimy to me. Just completely on guard yet uninterested. Seems like Deposition 101.

Found a few articles detailing the case. Didn't seem too interesting but it was hard to follow exactly what happened.

[ae2]

6 hours ago, silverspoons said:

On my you tube recommended there was a 2 hour deposition Marcus gave in a case against him in 2017. It is Stetler vs Camping world. I have not watched it all yet. I was surprised at how slimy or maybe smug Marcus was. He sure did not recall stuff or really did not want to give out info that was pretty basic. Like name a charity event your company sponsored? or what states does your company do business in?  He could not recall his wedding date, even paused a long time to give a year? Does anyone know what the case was about? I just found it fascinating to watch him for a bit when there was no edit or storyline, and he hopefully was being truthful because it was a taped legal proceeding. 

I don't know... the guy is being sued, it's in his best interest to say as little as possible and not give away any additional information. He's also surely been coached by lawyers exactly what will be asked, and how to answer the questions. I haven't watched the entire thing but I have a hard time faulting anyone for trying to protect themselves.

He doesn't come across slimy to me. Just completely on guard yet uninterested. Seems like Deposition 101.

Found a few articles detailing the case. Didn't seem too interesting but it was hard to follow exactly what happened.

Also, this cracks me up at 22:20.

[Amarsir]

9 hours ago, silverspoons said:

On my you tube recommended there was a 2 hour deposition Marcus gave in a case against him in 2017. It is Stetler vs Camping world. I have not watched it all yet. I was surprised at how slimy or maybe smug Marcus was. He sure did not recall stuff or really did not want to give out info that was pretty basic. Like name a charity event your company sponsored? or what states does your company do business in?  He could not recall his wedding date, even paused a long time to give a year? Does anyone know what the case was about? I just found it fascinating to watch him for a bit when there was no edit or storyline, and he hopefully was being truthful because it was a taped legal proceeding. 

Standard practice for a deposition is that you never ever volunteer information and are very much on guard. During a deposition the opposing counsel is in charge and their goal is to get you to say stuff on the record from which they can pick and choose later. If the case goes to jury they will never hear all or even most of it, just what the opposing counsel wants to quote. So it is much more important to be on guard than to say even a single thing wrong. (Plus there is an element of wasting their time so they never get around to anything useful.)

And when I say "standard practice", I mean I was taught this in engineering school on the chance I might ever be called as an expert witness on anything. It's just that common of a technique.

Linked below is an amusing reenactment of an actual deposition if you've never seen it. And I understand that's not so unusual. 

BTW the case appears to have been that some woman was the sponsor of an event and then the event replaced her with Camping World. She was mostly suing the event but also named CW, Marcus, and his wife because that's how suits work. You name everyone so that if any one of them deflects blame it's helping you against another.

[silverspoons]

2 hours ago, ae2 said:

I don't know... the guy is being sued, it's in his best interest to say as little as possible and not give away any additional information. He's also surely been coached by lawyers exactly what will be asked, and how to answer the questions. I haven't watched the entire thing but I have a hard time faulting anyone for trying to protect themselves.

He doesn't come across slimy to me. Just completely on guard yet uninterested. Seems like Deposition 101.

Found a few articles detailing the case. Didn't seem too interesting but it was hard to follow exactly what happened.

Also, this cracks me up at 22:20.

I did get a laugh out of that and a few other statements. I also think I have the same candy he was eating on my nightstand.  I understand not giving too much info, saying I don;t remember every location of a business or every person but he seemed downright mean about his wife? When asked about his wife's horses and if she liked to ride or won awards, he seemed like he just did not care. It was rather cold. he could have said, it is my wife's hobby. I'm not into it, I just pay for it. When asked if his wife was in his business , he could have said just no. Instead he followed up, I am glad she is not, laughing about something like never. He also said he did not care about the charity events he gave money too. I realize people give to charity for tax write offs or favors, but at least say our company gives to many charities and I can''t be involved with all of them.

Something does not add up about the wife. This was in March 2017. Bethany admitted to dating Marcus in an interview with E! in April of 2017. I guess that is what threw me off so much was how he did not seem to be nice about his wife. Again I understand you give as little info about your business , but what harm would there be in saying I like my wife or implying in your answers that you care about a spouse of their interests. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

That was the first wife, apparently long separated from Marcus, they divorced in 2017.   I imagine they led very separate lives until one or the other wanted to remarry.     He remarried in 2018 to another woman, who is in the clothing business.  

I've always been told in investigation interviews, or hearings to answer only what you're asked, and say 'Yes', 'No', or 'I Don't Know', so he was following instructions. 

It's so sad to see what happened to a nice cookie business, and I wonder what will happen to the mother's brick-and-mortar store now.   I wonder if the cookie shop is separate enough from the rest of the business to continue?     

[piccolascimmia]

So part of me wonders if these "investors" are friends of the late husband?  She'd have had the access, and they may have felt like they wanted to help her initially if they had strong ties to the late husband.

[Christina]

Marcus and his then wife actively interfered with the Plaintiff's contracts to rent RVs and RV spaces at events such as races, and were found guilty in civil courts going up to the State Appellate Court in whichever state that was originally filed in. Their actions were blatantly illegal and they bankrupted that woman expecting it to make her go away. I lost a ton of respect for Marcus when I read the court documents a few years ago because it was obvious that it was a planned execution of a competitor's business as opposed to any good faith business negotiation. There were also criminal fines that they paid for their actions, but those specifics have been lost from my memory to time.  

It wasn't even like they just undercut her prices or legitimately bid on land to evict her, they convinced the RV manufacturer where she purchased her equipment to not sell to her, convinced the land owners to not rent to her any longer, even though according to them, she had been a great renter up until then, and some of the equipment and RV providers testified under oath that Marcus' wife threatened to cancel their contracts with Camping World, back when it was Good Sam, and at a time when it was the almost the only domestic choice of providers. 

I don't know if his then wife took the bulk of the blame herself, was thrown under the bus by Marcus, or was actually the main culprit, but the fact that she was considered the primary culprit and the one that the Plaintiff said was her primary harasser is the only reason I can tolerate Marcus at all. 

However, Marcus has been accused of doing many similar manipulative and questionable acts as alleged in that lawsuit, by people on this show. I don't think that he is guilty of everything and do think that some of the business owners were expecting him to hand them a lot of cash and continue running their businesses as they have been, and then get mad at Marcus when he doesn't roll over. I think that he's in the right much more often then The Profit business owners, but in the lawsuit referenced in this thread, Marcus and his wife behaved abhorably, and were found both criminally and civilly liable. I really think they just paid the fines for the criminal and SEC violations to keep from going to court, but I don't remember for certain.

[sarthaz]

Marcus should have walked the moment the phrase "crunchy cookie" was uttered. Dafuq?

Then we she scoffed at baking with unsalted butter, he should have unceremoniously removed his microphone, dropped it on the floor, and walked out the door, extending a middle finger in the air.

[CrazyInAlabama]

An exit like the ending of Worldwide Trailers was appropriate for this company.     According to what Marcus said, there was a lot of hidden debts, and the eviction coming, the woman fought the co-packer on everything, and had illegal labels.     Her boyfriend/salesman wasn't an optimist, he was indulging in serious puffery about the company, and it's assets, and debts.     If an owner refuses to accept the reality of their situation, then they can't be helped.     

Edited February 24, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[link417]

Popping in to report that I bought some of the peppermint chocolate chip cookies . . . at TJ Maxx . . . on the clearance aisle.

Theyre just okay, I don’t know why Marcus was going crazy over them. The flavor is all peppermint and very little chocolate taste.

[sskrill]

CNBC just reaired this episode.  This woman has no common sense - not in business and not in her personal life.

David is a schyster - I'm not sure a single thing he said was accurate - but any time anyone else challenged him his reply was "thats not factually accurate" ... which was ironic, as well as wrong, considering we'd JUST SEEN THE DAMN FOOTAGE of him saying it.

I'm kind of ok with people like that losing all their money.  If you can't run your business honestly, and with integrity, then you get what you deserve.