Yes on both counts.
There was an excellent two-part article in Crain's Chicago Business at the time regarding the "Fall of Schwinn." You may want to check it out at some point. Pretty compelling reading IMO.
Greg Parker
Ann Arbor, MI USA
> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:42:15 -0600
> From: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <DavidS4410@aol.com>
> Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: Re: [CR]Schwinn vs. Huffy - some perspective
>
> Was Richard a participant in the business and a party to that agreement? Or
> was that an order of the bankruptcy judge? Those would seem the only two
> circumstances under which it would be binding on Richard.
>
> Of course there is a similar circumstance with Alberto Masi having to sell
> bikes under the Milano name, but he may have been a party to that agreement.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DavidS4410@aol.com>
> To: <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>; <stevens@veloworks.com>; <garrison@efn.org>
> Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 11:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [CR]Schwinn vs. Huffy - some perspective
>
>
> > When Schwinn declared bankruptcy the first time, and was taken over by the
> > Scott Sports Group, any use of the Schwinn name by a Schwinn family member
> in
> > the bicycle business was specifically forbidden. This is why Richard
> Schwinn
> > went ahead with Waterford Precision Cycles.
> > Dave Staub
> > Orange, Ca.