The party has gone out of bounds!
A partnership intended to build a giving legacy with Fred Schneider of the B-52s now faces a barrage of litigious tactics and bazaar behavior.

This conflict is not about who did what to whom or who is right or wrong; it's about how both parties agreed to resolve the conflict that is at the core of the dispute. Breyting is pioneering many new concepts to support positive change, including using collaborative law and value-based legal agreements to operate companies. This conflict is important to all businesses who wish to infuse values into their business because it will test Florida case law and hopefully prove there is a better way to operate companies and handle conflict and that business partners have the freedom to legally co-create their agreements and choose to:

• Transform the roles of attorneys from adversarial to advisers hired to guide the partners to a win-win outcome.
• Follow a conflict resolution process written by the partners
• Follow the partners values and instructions for how they treat each other

What makes this agreement different?
It's helpful to remember that the conventional legal system tells us what we can't do but doesn't tell us what is possible. With this in mind, Fred and Von set out to shape their own agreement and enlisted the help of a collaborative law practitioner to co-create it. The friends asked for their agreement to be written in plain English, removing any unnecessary legal jargon so they could understand what they agreed to. Then, they hired an attorney with experience litigating contracts to check case law to ensure the partners were not getting into trouble with the larger system and that the agreement would integrate with the conventional legal system.

Remaining friends was so important to Fred and Von that they literally wrote it into their agreement: "We begin this as friends, and we are creating an agreement which will put our friendship in the forefront of the business." Because not hurting one another is equally important, the agreement is not designed to be used in court to argue for damages. Instead, the agreement is written to maintain the partners' friendship and further a relationship that endures change, withstands and transforms conflict, and offers a path for their partnership to get back into alignment and win-win outcomes, even if that outcome is parting ways.

How does the process work?
The conflict resolution process begins with Fred and Von having coffee together to discuss their issues face-to-face. Their agreement specifies that the attorneys will act as non-adversarial advisers during this process. They have requested that the attorneys not intervene between the partners, stating, "We don't want to be protected from each other."

Florida law permits limiting attorneys' roles to advisors rather than full representatives as long as they do not infringe on statutory rights. For this reason, the agreement preserves access to the courts in case the conflict resolution process (e.g., mediation, arbitration) does not provide resolution.

Additionally, each partner has already selected and named their trusted advisors in their agreement to reach out to for help if there is a conflict. These advisors are trained in resolving conflict and collaborative law.

A key provision to the agreement is that engaging in the conflict resolution process is a precondition to filing any lawsuit and requires the partners to take the steps as many times as necessary to get to a resolution. This provision is designed to empower the partners to resolve their own conflicts. Once Fred and Von meet for coffee, they agreed to ask each other the questions below to guide their conversation:

• What do we most appreciate about the work we have done together so far? 

• What has really worked well for us so far? How can we expand on it? 

• Do each of us feel we are getting what we anticipated?   

• Is it time to redefine or redirect our work together?  

• Is there something that is no longer working for one or both of us?  

• Is there something difficult we are avoiding saying or doing?  

• Are there outside influences (or money) affecting how we are working together? 

• What do we gain by continuing/ending this work together?

These questions, along with a trained conflict mediator, are designed to help identify the issues and brainstorm ideas. The partners even thought about and agreed to the tools and practices that define how they will treat each other during the conversation. The idea is to put the partners in the appropriate headspace to hear each other and communicate effectively. The agreement spells out exactly how to handle conflict or close the partnership if needed. Nothing has been left to chance or for the courts to decide.

Formal Mediation
If the partners cannot reach an understanding at this point, they agree to proceed to the next step, which is formal mediation. During this step, the partners choose a trained, neutral facilitator to help them discuss their issues. The Mediator does not represent either of them or give legal advice, they are hired to help the partners discuss possible concepts to solve the conflict and guide them to a win-win outcome.

Collaborative Law
If formal mediation also fails to see results, the partners agreed to engage in The Florida Collaborative Law Process; the act and the rules became effective as of July 1, 2017, which starts with the partners consulting two specially trained lawyers. The lawyers enter into a contract to provide legal advice, problem-solving skills, and facilitation to achieve an agreement, but they will not go to court. The lawyers enter into a contract because The Florida Collaborative Law Process has a provision to disqualify the attorneys from representing their client in contested litigation against another party in a matter related to the subject of the collaborative process. The attorneys must be committed to problem-solving and not thinking about what would happen if this conflict went to trial. The role of advocating for the client is transformed into useful problem-solving skills.

If all fails, then this
The friends agreed that if they went through all of these processes and couldn't agree, they would sell everything, pay all debts, and split all the money equally. This was to prevent litigation, as Fred and Von agreed the pain caused to themselves and others was more significant than fighting over money and hurting their friendship. In addition, Fred’s likeness and designs which he licensed to the venture would revert back to him and Breyting brands, concept, and designs would revert back to Breyting.

How did Fred of the B-52s get involved?
Von Coven founded Breyting (Icelandic for “change") to raise support and awareness for removing unexploded bombs from Southeast Asia, and share the lessons learned from the wars in Southeast Asia. Von, many artists and vendors contributed 15 years of money and labor to bring Breyting to where it is today.

Von brought in his dear friend Fred Schneider of the B-52s as a funding partner for two of Breyting's initiatives, with the understanding that they would honor the investments and sacrifices made by many people, which reaches into the millions, by establishing a non-profit that would benefit their heirs and society. Their investments would be used to pay salaries to their heirs for the rest of their lives. This fact has been in all the organization's action plans since its founding. 

Before Fred became the frontman of the world's greatest party band, the B-52s, his ambition was to be an environmental conservationist. That is why Fred agreed to come on this journey with Von so Fred could have a legacy outside of his music and fulfill the part of him that wants to give back— Fred's closest friends remarked that they had never seen Fred so happy.

So, what caused the conflict?
Amidst Fred's battle with cancer, a family member took advantage of the situation and orchestrated a team, including lawyers, to dismantle the partnership without any valid grounds. They showed no intention of finding a solution or working with Breyting to ensure its longevity. 

This team refused to honor Fred's promise to transform Breyting's initiatives into a non-profit and honor the financial obligations to the people, vendors, artists, and non-profits involved. According to Fred, this person made untrue claims of fraud and manipulated Fred into signing over half of Fred's estate in the disguise of protecting him.

Fred, in his own words, expressed his anguish: 

"It's hard to explain. I've given (name withheld) half of the house, my house, and apartment, and he holds it over my head and says he can have me thrown out and just bulldozes me in a way I can't deal with. Believe me, I'm devasted."

We aren’t sure why Fred’s bandmates or friends are allowing the abuse Fred has experienced to go on or why they think Fred being fearful of being thrown out of his own home is ok? However, Fred has expressed his concerns to many of us over the years, saying he can’t stand up to this person who causes him so much pain.

Why bring awareness to this conflict?
Businesses were inspired by Breyting’s approach to non-adversarial agreements. Now, Fred and his attorneys are challenging the very foundation of this type of non-adversarial operating agreement. Instead of being advisers to Fred, as the agreement states, Fred's attorneys demand that each partner have legal representation and aggressively advocate for their client, which prevents Fred and Von from following their conflict resolution process. This is not at all what collaborative law is. It is exactly what Fred and Von agreed not to do—give over their power to people who are not trained to resolve conflict.

The agreement and its mission are much more significant than the partner's conflict as it is a fight for freedom—the freedom for business partners to make a conscious choice to legally commit themselves to an agreement that binds them to a non-adversarial process based on their values. 

So, what's next?
We have been in a holding pattern waiting for Fred to engage in the conflict resolution process. In the meantime, we are committed to finding the good in this horrible situation and are working on the projects below to further the collaborative law movement and help heal the people hurt by this conflict. 

Intervention
One Last Splash is a raw and intimate intervention that captures the testimonies of the people hurt by Fred's drinking. Fred's friends have heard these phrases before: "I know—I'm being bad," "I'm sorry," and "One last splash." Shortly after these phases, lines are blurred, and the party goes out of bounds. Being the frontman of the world's greatest party band comes at a cost to others, and it's not right. Maybe together, we can persuade Fred to put down the Chardonnay, bring those impacted together, discuss the harm done to them, and create a plan for repair and healing.

Documentary
We created our agreement so we would not have to fight using the legal system. We intend to keep this promise, so instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting over money, we are spending it on learning the lessons from this conflict. We are doing this by "bearing witness" to the harm caused by Fred through video, photography, and testimonies and sharing these lessons in a documentary (working title) "The World's Most Expensive Cup of Coffee”.

Foundation
This legal battle with Fred has also become the catalyst for establishing the "Enginn Skaði Foundation," a platform to rally the world's most talented and experienced collaborative law practitioners, attorneys, and conflict healers, and provide them the resources to write the best possible operating agreement for all socially conscious businesses to use.

In addition, the agreement will come with a user's manual that gives business owners instructions for creating, using, and defending their agreement in a way that is authentic to their values. The more Fred and his team of attorneys destroy Breyting's initiatives, the more we learn and help others avoid the pain abusive litigation inflicts on people. It's a win-win-win.


As a society and business owners, we must learn how to resolve conflict without harming each other.