Chapter 11 - Julian sues Apex
Julian’s wrongful-termination complaint was not ridiculous.
That mattered.
He alleged:
Conflict process contaminated by my divorce.
Selective enforcement.
Ambiguous related-party policy.
Procurement scoring changes authorized by outdated vendor data.
No proven financial loss.
Other executives had received lesser discipline for expense errors.
Apex answered:
His case involved repeated nondisclosure plus score manipulation.
Independent committee.
Outside counsel.
My recusal.
Documented audit trail.
Then Julian sought discovery of my communications with Jonathan.
Apex produced nonprivileged records under court rules.
My hospital call appeared.
“Every account, property, and Apex document.”
His lawyer loved it.
Headline sentence.
But context also appeared.
Jonathan’s reply to audit team minutes later:
Chair request interpreted subject to legal authority. Preserve Apex-controlled records only. No private financial access absent consent/process.
Good compliance officer.
Then my earlier preliminary review request dated six weeks before hospital incident.
That undercut retaliation.
Not erased.
But weakened.
Then Apex found one comparable executive who had failed to disclose a cousin-owned vendor.
Discipline:
Final warning.
Not termination.
Julian’s lawyer said:
“Selective.”
Difference:
No score manipulation.
No false annual certification repeated three times.
No unsupported charges.
Still, comparator existed.
Employment litigation remained uncertain.
Then divorce mediation.
Julian wanted:
Half of joint assets.
Reimbursement from house improvements.
Share of marital appreciation tied to certain investments.
No claim to the principal of my Ashford trust after reviewing prenup.
Progress.
I wanted:
Accounting for $96,000 condo transfer.
Allocation of joint debts.
My separate residence confirmed.
Division of joint portfolio.
No punitive request for his Apex pension? Standard marital portion.
We were moving.
Then Julian demanded $1.5 million settlement.
Rebecca asked:
“Based on?”
“Lifestyle.”
Not law.
His lawyer later reduced.
Negotiation.
Then criminal inquiry.
Detectives interviewed Seth Monroe, the analyst Julian blamed for bid-score changes.
Seth admitted something.
He had sent Julian updated staffing information.
That helped Julian.
But:
“I never told him to change safety score.”
Emails showed updated staff.
No updated safety record.
The score change remained unexplained.
Then North Vale’s safety history.
One incident had been misclassified in Apex database.
Correcting it legitimately improved score by 1.8 points.
Not enough to reach threshold.
Other changes added 7.5.
Audit revised accusation.
Again:
Precision.
Then Evelyn produced receipts supporting $31,000 of the previously unsupported $94,000 Vale invoices.
New unsupported amount:
Approximately $63,000.
No one complained that numbers shrank.
That was what evidence does.
Then she demanded I personally apologize for calling her business fraudulent.
May you like
I never had.
She hated that more.
