Child Protection, Child protection services, compensatory damages, corruption, David Baria, Elections, Governor Bryant, Hope Village Meridian, Howard Sherman, mediation, Mississippi, Mississippi Democratic primary run off, Mississippi primary, Nabu, Robert De Niro, Roundhouse, Russia tampering US elections, Sela Ward, Targus, Treason, Trump, US Senate, Wicker
US Senate Candidate Howard Sherman sounds like a Trump-light on his web site. However, the more one reads, including the case below, the more he looks Trump-like. While there is more than one Howard Sherman, this is definitely the one running in the Democratic primary to become the Democratic candidate for US Senate, because his wife, Sela Ward, is mentioned in an article about Sherman and Roundhouse.
$4.1 million in damages were awarded to Targus and this was upheld upon appeal. 
“the judge ordered payment of compensatory damages from the Sherman group to Targus in the amount of $4,140,770, with substantial prejudgment interest, and specific performance of certain indemnification and release terms…” (Targus Group International vs. Howard Sherman et al.)
This sounds like fraud:
“In 2000 Targus purchased one hundred percent of the stock of Roundhouse in exchange for $79 million in cash and Targus stock. During the next two years, Targus concluded that the Sherman group had not accurately represented Roundhouse’s financial condition and resulting stock purchase value, and called upon the group to pay damages for breach of warrantied representations underlying the purchase price.” (Targus Group International vs. Howard Sherman et al.)
Contrary to what the case says, Howard Sherman didn’t even found Roundhouse. Rather, he “joined Roundhouse in 1993“, which at the time “was basically a 3-year-old design studio run by a couple of struggling young graphic artists.”  He was one of many recent MBAs in that period. In the 1980s it seemed as though almost everyone was doing MBAs. We don’t know what happened to the graphic artists, or if they are his co-defendants in this case.
In Sherman’s statement in response to the petition to disqualify him, as a US Senate candidate for the Democratic party (when he’s been a Republican and he and his wife donated to his potential Republican opponent Wicker less than a year ago), says “We have secured millions of dollars” for foster kids, without mentioning that this was millions from the state of Mississippi. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/987019946218655746. Part of this Mississippi money seems to be matched with money from the federal government, i.e. from taxpayers from other states. In a recent article he comes close to admitting that it was the issue of government funding for his “Hope Village” children’s home that brought him into the US Senate race. 
Excerpts from the case:
“TARGUS GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. HOWARD SHERMAN & others.
TARGUS GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. HOWARD SHERMAN & others. [Note 1]
76 Mass. App. Ct. 421
November 4, 2008 – March 5, 2010
Court Below: Superior Court, Suffolk
Present: KATZMANN, SIKORA, & RUBIN, JJ.
[ … ]
SIKORA, J. The issue of this appeal is the enforceability of a disputed settlement agreement resulting from mediation. The mediation produced an itemized “Agreement in Principle” (AIP or agreement) between the parties. The AIP called for the execution of final settlement documents and mutual releases. Over the ensuing three months the parties exchanged three drafts of final papers. When that drafting process appeared to stall, the plaintiff Targus Group International, Inc. (Targus or company), began suit in the Superior Court against the defendants Howard Sherman, Sean Brosmith, and Scott Oshry (Sherman group or group) for enforcement of the AIP by remedies of damages and specific performance. The Sherman group denied liability and subsequently moved for summary judgment. A Superior Court judge allowed the motion against three ancillary claims by Targus, but denied it upon Targus’s claims of breach of the AIP and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in the AIP. Upon those counts he ordered the entry of summary judgment in favor of Targus pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002). [Note 2] By supplemental rulings, the judge ordered payment of compensatory damages from the Sherman group to Targus in the amount of $4,140,770, with substantial prejudgment interest, and specific performance of certain indemnification and release terms. The resulting judgment hinges on the validity of the AIP. “Once again we consider in what circumstances a writing, which by context or by terms contemplates a more formal agreement, may nonetheless serve as a binding contract.” Goren v. Royal Invs. Inc., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 137, 138 (1987).
Factual background. The following undisputed facts emerge from the summary judgment record.
1. The parties’ business relationship. In 1992 the Sherman group founded Roundhouse, Inc. (Roundhouse). Sherman served as its chief executive officer, and Brosmith and Oshry as vice-
presidents. All three were directors and shareholders. Roundhouse dealt in the sale of various consumer goods. [Note 3]
In 2000 Targus purchased one hundred percent of the stock of Roundhouse in exchange for $79 million in cash and Targus stock. During the next two years, Targus concluded that the Sherman group had not accurately represented Roundhouse’s financial condition and resulting stock purchase value, and called upon the group to pay damages for breach of warrantied representations underlying the purchase price. The Sherman group countered that Targus had made certain misrepresentations about its financial condition apparently affecting the value of the Targus stock received by the group as part of the acquisition price for their Roundhouse shares.
2. The mediation process. In June, 2003, the parties agreed to undertake mediation. They executed a detailed agreement with a highly regarded mediator in Boston. An opening session went forward in Boston on August 15, 2003. All principals and their counsel attended. That session did not produce a solution. During the ensuing months, the parties kept open the mediation process as Targus furnished the Sherman group with requested information about the Targus claims.
On July 13, 2004, a second formal mediation session took place in Boston. It extended from the morning until near midnight. Targus appeared in the person of an authorized director, two accounting experts, and counsel; Howard Sherman, an accounting expert, and counsel appeared for the Sherman group. At the conclusion of the session, the mediator drafted the AIP and submitted it to the parties. After inspection, the principals signed it (Sherman for the group; the Targus director for the company); their counsel signed also; and the mediator initialed it
Conclusion. We affirm summary judgment in favor of Targus upon the claim of breach of contract (count two). We reverse summary judgment in favor of Targus upon the claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count four). We affirm the assessment of compensatory damages and statutory interest recited in the final judgment. We affirm also the reduction of the Sherman group’s statutory interest obligation by the amount of all interest earned upon sums withheld by Targus in the escrow account, as ordered by the judge.” http://masscases.com/cases/app/76/76massappct421.html
It is noted that “the judge erred in ordering summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, where the issue of the defendants’ state of mind was left unresolved as a genuine issue of material fact. [435-436]
In a civil action alleging breach of contract, the judge, in calculating compensatory damages for losses arising from the defendants’ failure to deliver stock in accordance with the contract at issue, did not err in the selection of a date for the valuation of the shares that served as a reasonable approximation of value and damages [436-437]; further, the judge did not err in fixing the dates of breach for the purpose of calculating prejudgment interest [437-438] and correctly deducted from the award of prejudgment interest the amount of all interest earned upon sums withheld by the defendants in an escrow account ….” http://masscases.com/cases/app/76/76massappct421.html
The ruling is now part of case law:
See page 9: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi
See page 5: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/06/06/17P0522.pdf
“Corrected: $4M Mediated Settlement To Targus Upheld On Appeal
By Pete Brush Law360 (March 9, 2010, 6:27 PM EST) https://www.law360.com/articles/154432/corrected-4m-mediated-settlement-to-targus-upheld-on-appeal
“Mediation: Massachusetts Appeal Court Upholds an Agreement in Principle” (Web) March 17, 2010 http://www.cpradr.org/news-publications/articles/2010-03-17-mediation-massachusetts-appeal-court-upholds-an-agreement-in-principle-web
Note 2: “Selling out but staying on, October 11, 2000: 12:15 p.m. ET
By Jane Applegate, http://money.cnn.com/2000/10/11/cashflow/q_jane_col/
It was clear that Sherman got the better end of the deal, but not that it was unfairly so, until we ran across the case. Roundhouse appears to have made CD storage containers. Sherman et al. got out at the peak of the CD boom.
“How the compact disc lost its shine: It’s 30 years since Dire Straits’ Brothers in Arms began the CD boom. How did the revolution in music formats come about and what killed it?“, by Dorian Lynskey Thu 28 May 2015 13.39 EDT Last modified on Sat 25 Nov 2017, 02.33 EST https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/28/how-the-compact-disc-lost-its-shine
 “Saving Home, 2018-06-01, By MEGHAN HOLMES http://web.archive.org/web/20180615175344/http://www.readlegends.com/single-post/2018/06/01/Saving-Home
Mentioned in the above article:
“Lawmakers ‘blown away’ by $40 million Child Protection Services budget shortfall” BY LARRISON CAMPBELL JANUARY 10, 2018 https://mississippitoday.org/2018/01/10/lawmakers-blown-away-by-40-million-child-protection-services-budget-shortfall/
In one interview Sherman (falsely) claims that the legislature’s failure to get the matching monies proves that business people should be in government. If it proves anything it’s that people with degrees in public administration and/or planning need to be in government. They are the ones who should know how to apply for grants, etc. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the Mississippi Republican representatives intentionally failed to apply for the matching grants from the Federal government because of a belief in state’s rights-not wanting to take money from the Feds, especially to help poor people. It’s also possible that those responsible cannot read. The US has suffered a lot over the last decades due to the belief that it needs business people to run government. By now it should be clear that America needs educated, literate, professionals to handle the complex task of governance.