NRA v. Oliver North
NRA Reply to Counterclaims
July 31, 2019
This filing is the NRA’s response to Oliver North’s counterclaims. The NRA generally rejects the arguments by North’s counsel regarding North’s right to indemnification. The NRA alleges that North’s whistleblowing about NRA mismanagement was just a “tactic to deflect scrutiny” from his contract with Ackerman.
- The NRA argues that North “misrepresents the text of the NRA’s Bylaws to the Court in an obvious attempt to make it look like the Bylaws create a blanket right of indemnification for North simply because he is an NRA director.” Para. 1.)
- As the NRA reads the Bylaws, indemnification applies “only if such indemnification is provided for by the laws of the State of New York or is requested on another independent basis, such as a contract of a Board resolution.” (Para. 2.)
- The NRA alleges that North was not“concerned about the NRA’s payments” to the Brewer firm. (Pg. 5, Para. 9.) Instead, “North’s purported concern … was a tactic to deflect scrutiny from his multi-million dollar contract with Ackerman.” (Para. 9.)
- The NRA argues that the NRA general counsel did not ask North to resign, but to either resign or give up his contract with Ackerman. (Para. 17.)