Published Sunday, September 1, 2002
Winner case
By Michael Roknick
Herald Business Editor
A suit brought against Winner Development LLC by the Mercer County Industrial Development Authority is headed for court-supervised arbitration after both sides came to an understanding Friday over payments made by the Sharon company.
But Jim Winner, the company's chairman, threatened to countersue MCIDA if it appealed the arbitration decision.
Winner also lashed out at authority chairman, Charles "Chuck'' Bestwick. Winner said Bestwick was trying to bury his company in legal fees by dragging the dispute on, tried to stop his development of the former Westinghouse Electric Corp. site in Sharon and was attempting to ruin Winner's reputation by saying he's not a man who pays his bills.
"If he can hurt me with costing me legal fees he's going to do it,'' Winner said of Bestwick. "There's nothing to be gained by all of this. It's his only way to keep his name in print.''
Bestwick denied all of Winner's allegations.
"There's nothing new to this. It's the same thing over and over again,'' Bestwick said.
In June MCIDA sued Winner Development for the more than $31,000 the authority says it's owed for legal and administrative expenses it spent to help the company apply for a $7 million state grant for the business to develop the Westinghouse property.
Winner Development dropped the application through MCIDA, complaining the agency was hindering its efforts. Now Winner is trying to secure the grant through the city of Sharon. MCIDA said that despite repeated requests, the company failed to supply information on 21 conditions set by the state in order to get the grant.
Winner Development last week gave MCIDA two checks totaling $16,338. Friday, after clarifying terms with the company, the authority accepted the payment.
As a result, the disputed amount is now below $20,000. The amount is significant because in Mercer County disputes involving less than that are settled by court-supervised arbitration rather than through a regular court suit. However, the arbitration isn't binding and either side can appeal the arbitrators' decision to Mercer County Common Pleas Court.
But Winner said the buck should stop with the arbitrators and that their decision should be binding and final.
"We've made overtures to MCIDA to make this binding arbitration and they said no,'' he said. "What's the rationale behind all of this? I want closure. Our appeal to them is: 'Please make it binding so we have closure.' ''
Winner said he wanted arbitration all along in any form but MCIDA wouldn't agree to it.
"If we prevail in arbitration and they don't accept it we would certainly countersue for personal injury and legal costs,'' Winner said. When asked what personal injury was involved, Winner responded, "My integrity.''
A publicly acrid relationship between the two men has been smoldering over the past year. Winner claims he's been libeled by Bestwick for saying he doesn't pay his bills but Bestwick said Winner has made the
matter personal. Winner said Bestwick had tried to prevent his company from developing the abandoned Sharon plant.
"His chances of stopping the project are over. He needs to get it behind him,'' Winner said.
"That's absurd,'' Bestwick responded. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've never spent more time on a project in the 15 years I've been with MCIDA.''
Bestwick said he had met repeatedly with Winner to move the project along and told him the conditions the state demanded in order to approve the grant.
"We went into this project wanting it to work,'' Bestwick said.
He also said MCIDA offered arbitration but the two sides couldn't come to an agreement over how that should proceed. All decisions over arbitration have been made in talking with the agency's solicitors, Bestwick said.
All of this boils down to an old-fashioned contract dispute, with both sides contending their documents and attorneys are correct. Most of the remaining money in the dispute involves administrative fees, which Winner said were capped under terms of a contract his company had with MCIDA and he doesn't have to pay. Bestwick said the contract requires the company to pay the fees.
Bestwick said an $11,000 check sent by Winner Development in November was marked "paid in full." After consulting with attorneys, the check was returned. Winner said the check didn't have the notation and provided a photo copy of the check which didn't have the notation and a letter which was sent with the check which he said shows it wasn't meant as payment in full.
"We're doing what our attorney advised us to do,'' Bestwick said.
"I've had three attorneys look at all of this and they tell me I'm right,'' Winner said.