Posted 11/21/06
AHRMA Board Speaks
on Reorganization and Litigation

Frequently asked questions about AHRMA reorganization and litigation

Until now, your trustees have been very limited in what we could publicly state regarding the lawsuit brought by Team Obsolete and Mr. Robert Iannucci.  We have been unable to respond to specific issues unsuccessfully bought in court by Mr. Iannucci based upon our legal team’s advice that such information could harm our case and tactics. A plaintiff in this case was even observed with an apparent concealed tape recorder at a town hall meeting during questioning of the trustees regarding just these issues.  That is an example of the kind of behavior we are dealing with.

Now that we have filed our petition to reorganize, we are no longer compelled to suffer the false, misleading disinformation coming from Mr. Iannucci and his agents.

The root cause of our reorganization is the defense of the protracted, frivolous lawsuit brought by Mr. Iannucci in March 2001.  At the heart of that lawsuit was our decision to not renew Mr. Iannucci’s membership. Mr. Iannucci’s membership was not renewed as a direct result of his long-standing pattern of disruptive and harmful behavior, as clearly documented by the decision in that case.

The federal district court concluded:

1) Team Obsolete had infringed on AHRMA’s BEARS trademark, and

2) “Team Obsolete has a history of shifty behavior in its dealings with AHRMA”.

These are not AHRMA’s words, they are the words of the federal judge who examined Mr. Iannucci’s behavior with regard to AHRMA. This ruling was rendered in a “Summary Judgment,” a relatively unusual event indicating that the facts were crystal clear and did not even warrant a trial.  Additionally, this ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit.  This documented, continuing “history of shifty behavior” was the basis for the non-renewal of Mr. Iannucci’s membership.  The full BEARS decision is posted on our website.  We encourage members to read it.

AHRMA’s expense in defending our trademark and defending ourselves from Mr. Iannucci’s continual disruptive and harmful behavior with us was approximately $85,000.

Mr. Iannucci has stated his intent in his current lawsuit is to bankrupt the organization and individually pursue our officials and trustees.  His original filing in the suit cited 13 individuals, as well as AHRMA as a corporation.  The individual claims were dismissed very early in this case, as nearly all of Mr. Iannucci’s claims have been.  Mr. Iannucci’s own statements in a Nov. 22, 2006, Cycle News article, as well as multiple BBS postings, confirm that he intends to continue to pursue his personal vendetta.

Mr. Iannucci has a history of litigious behavior that extends far beyond AHRMA, and in our case his legal shenanigans have been carefully orchestrated to slowly bleed our resources with baseless additional claims, filings and motion practice, all consistent with his stated goal. He is also suing the AMA in this case. The documented proof of his behavior has been filed in a memorandum to the bankruptcy court on Nov. 14, in conjunction with our filing to estimate the value (if any) of his claim against us. This memo clearly documents Mr. Iannucci’s litigious tactics designed to achieve his stated goal to bankrupt AHRMA, and is also available on our website.  We encourage members to read it.

During Mr. Iannucci’s 5½-year suit, the AHRMA boards have behaved with integrity and acted for the good of the association and our membership.  AHRMA contacted Mr. Iannucci to negotiate settlement — in spite of a strong case and no wrongdoing on our part.  Although negotiations were very cordial, Mr. Iannucci’s minimum financial demand greatly exceeded our available resources.  AHRMA was therefore compelled to continue in our defense. We expected to prevail on summary judgment late this year. That was based on cost estimates from multiple attorneys, the BEARS ruling and the continuing pattern of dismissal of Mr. Iannucci’s groundless claims.  

Unfortunately, Mr. Iannucci’s tactics led to a deposition period this summer/fall that wildly exceeded our legal team’s highest estimates. Expenses incurred in this year were more than double the previous five years combined.  AHRMA has now spent approximately $400,000 of our own funds in defense of this case since its inception in 2001. Over $300,000 of those billings and payments occurred in just three months this summer/fall. We also incurred an additional $176,000 that we were unable to pay. 

At that point, our only option was to shut down AHRMA or to reorganize and maintain operating capital in the interest of continuing to provide quality competition opportunities for our members.  We have endeavored to enact a plan to remove the burden of this lawsuit, replenish AHRMA funds and continue to operate vintage, post -intage and modern alternative motorcycle competitions per our original intent.

In summary, AHRMA is in this situation because:

1)  AHRMA is defending a groundless lawsuit by an individual whose clearly stated intent is to bankrupt the association, who also has great knowledge of our legal system to protract the litigation (he’s an attorney) and, unfortunately, the wealth to pursue that goal; and

2)  AHRMA’s insurance carrier went bankrupt in the largest failure of its type in history, leaving us with greatly degraded resources to withstand this outrageously expensive, frivolous litigation.

We have also posted more detailed answers to members frequently asked questions (FAQ) regarding these matters.

We would like to thank membership for their patience regarding our forced silence on many of these issues. We fully understand our members’ frustration as rumors abounded, Please see the FAQ on our website for more detailed information.

More information

[AHRMA Home] [News Flashes] [Events & Results] [WebMart] [Rulebook] [E-Mail Directory]