If the current turmoil causes decline in participation or member exodus due to disillusionment with the organization that may be the death knell. No outside help required.
1 Like
“Not with a bang but a whimper.”
1 Like
So, here is my question:
Does CSI still “own” MasterFormat, UniFormat, and OmniClass? Regardless of the “delivery system” by which one looks things up?
Or was “ownership” of them that signed over to CIN/18Below? Which, if so, they could theoretically tank it, (like when Pepsi acquired SoBe.)
I have not yet been able to look at the super-secret documents that were shared. So I am not sure what money changed hands, for what, to whom, and how much.
If would it be possible to wrest them away from CIN/18Below? (Which would render “The Dynamic Standards” useless.)
1 Like
CSI claims they retain ownership of the formats. CIN owns the software used to deliver the formats.
1 Like
Analogous to the AIA owning the content of, and copyright to, MasterSpec. Deltek handles MasterSpec maintenance, software development, and distribution. However, the AIA does not have any ownership stake in Deltek, and Masterspec is only a small part of Deltek’s business.
1 Like
WARNING: Once again I am repeating much of what has been said on this forum and on LinkedIn, but I wanted share today’s post from CSI Community Forum. Dave Stutzman and Amy Baker had posted questioning the identity of Mr 5%. Here’s the post in its entirety:
Membership should be aware that on July 1, 2025, a series of transactions took place between and among CSI, CIN, and 18 Below LLC. CSI retained 46.55% of CIN, while 18 Below became the controlling member and parent of CIN, holding 48.45% of its equity interests. CIN Board of Managers comprises 18 Below principals Chris Anderson and Paul Addy, and CSI’s CEO Mark Dorsey.
As Dave Stutzman suggested above and further illustrated in a post on 4specs, if CSI and 18 Below agree on a course of action, “…the path forward will be straightforward. If priorities and interest diverge, the unknown 5% becomes a critical factor.” If the remaining 5% carries voting rights comparable to the interests held by CSI and 18 Below, its holder would become decisive when those two parties disagree. In fact, whoever controls the hidden 5% becomes the most powerful party in such a scenario. Who owns that 5% and what rights attach to it?
CSI converted our 100% controlling financial interest in CIN to a non-controlling investment. The only assurance disclosed to members that CSI’s interest will be protected and that there will be control over the future of our equity investment in CIN are vague promises, such as the one William Sundquist made on this forum on May 21. Sundquist stated that CSI retains “minority-protection rights that materially exceed customary terms and mitigated by items that require CSI Board approval.” The apparent implication was that CSI possesses meaningful protections against actions adverse to its interests, but we were not shown the agreements that assure that control, with Sundquist citing “confidentiality and asset protection” since CIN is a private company.
It is increasingly difficult to trust Sundquist, Dorsey, and other members of CSI leadership when responses to straightforward member questions are framed in ways that leave important facts unresolved. For example, in the same May 21 statement, Sundquist wrote: “No private equity or outside investor has contributed capital to CSI itself, nor to CIN beyond 18Below.” I initially understood that statement to mean that no other outside party held an equity interest in CIN. I now recognize that my inference went beyond the literal wording: saying that no other party contributed capital is not the same as saying that no other party owns equity. That distinction raises an even more important question: if CSI leadership knew that another party held some or all the remaining 5% equity interest, why wasn’t that fact simply disclosed when members plainly were trying to understand who owns and controls CIN?
Membership has asked repeatedly for a full accounting of the decision-making process and structure of the agreements that changed CIN’s ownership and transferred exclusive licensing rights to CIN. These requests repeatedly have been met with delay, vagueness, or misdirection. To repeat what has been frequently stated, the members of CSI are the “moral owners” of our organization, and our board is accountable to us. We have a right to know how our flagship intellectual property is being managed for us. Our new board chair and board have promised to work toward restoring member trust and improving transparency. It’s well past time for them to deliver on those promises.
CSI’s own audited financial statements say that 18 Below owns 48.45% and CSI owns 46.55%. That totals 95%. Who owns the remaining 5%, how did that party acquire it, what consideration was exchanged for it, and what governance or voting rights accompany it?
5 Likes