Posted By:
warshawlawI've dealt with the writer of the article (Michael O'Keefe) and have found him to be very responsible in following up his leads and trying to get all points of the story clear. The article clearly names the people making the allegations and reports them as allegations, not as facts. It also reports Mastro's denials. I see no evidence of bias here and I think the criticisms of the writer are wholly inaccurate.
It seems to me that we don't have the facts and that about all we can conclude at this time is that maybe there will be an investigation of Mastro and maybe there won't.
What little experience I have with liquidators would not lead me to consider them to be above threatening actions in order to shake restitution out of vendors. You might want to consider that motive. You also might want to consider the Spitzer motive; the investigator may want/need to make a name for himself in order to run for higher office. Doesn't mean Mastro is innocent; just don't assume that every investigator's comments are motivated by purely selfless considerations. The mere threat of an investigation is so dire for a business where trust is key that it could result in a settlement with a non-admission of liability just to put it to bed.