Nashville business partners seem headed for divorce

Crosslin says Vaden's lawsuit against him in Chancery Court is an 'unfortunate move'

Email | Print By Milt Capps

Mike Vaden

Mike Vaden's lawsuit against fellow shareholder Dell Crosslin suggests their days together at Crosslin, Vaden & Associates PC may be numbered.

Whether or not the ligitation goes the distance, it's clear the 20-year-old accounting and consulting team has been strained, if not broken by a succession of events — including a fruitless merger attempt and disagreements about limits on Vaden, should he attempt to leave the firm with his entertainment-industry portfolio intact.

In his complaint July 26 in Davidson County Chancery Court, Vaden seeks, among other things, an injunction requiring Crosslin to permit Vaden and those working with him on the entertainment business to leave Crosslin Vaden with clients they currently serve, unencumbered by noncompete agreements.

Vaden declined to comment on the suit when asked about it this afternoon by NashvillePost.com.

Crosslin provided a statement via an assistant; he said, "Our first priority is always our clients and serving their needs. This lawsuit against me personally in no way affects that. This is just an unfortunate move that my partner has made in a longstanding disagreement between the two of us."

Vaden's filings in Chancery suggest the owners once agreed on the imperative of growing the firm "through either merger or the admission of new owners and directors from within."

The move toward divorce may, in fact, have begun when the company failed to find a merger partner.

An exhibit accompanying Vaden's complaint suggests the group had considered deals with Chattanooga-based Decosimo, which recently opened its own Nashville office; with Chicago-based BDO Seidman LLP, which in December announced its first local office, or others.

With no merger in sight and tensions rising, the owners reviewed their ownership rights and responsibilities and sought to formalize mutual assurances.

During that process, Vaden argues Crosslin agreed to facilitate Vaden's departure if their firm did not merge with another, or if Vaden chose not to preserve his equity through an alternate "in-house" ownership plan the executives once considered.

Vaden says he has attempted to resolve the matter since February. A major source of contention has been disagreement regarding which of several documents executed by Crosslin, Vaden and fellow minority owner David Hunt would determine the terms of the Vaden's possible departure.

As of this afternoon, Crosslin has not responded to the lawsuit. Vaden's request for the injunction and other relief was not accompanied by a formal request for a hearing before Part I Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman.