According to news reports, Infilaw appears to be backing away from acquiring Charleston School of Law. The proposed acquisition of Charleston stalled after Infilaw withdrew its application to the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education lasat June. At the time, Infilaw indicated that it would resubmit the application - presumably after addressing concerns surfaced by Commission staff - but the company now says it has no plans to resubmit. And Charleston students are now in limbo.
H/T Richard Gershon
Check out C. Peter Goplerud's (president of InfiLaw Management Solutions) piece in the Post and Courier from yesterday regarding Charlston SOL.
It reminds me of the story of Czar Ivan the Terrible. The nobles and clergy gave Czar Ivan much trouble in connection with his running Russia. Things weren't going well for the Czar. So he came up with a plan. Knowing his subjects could not run Russia without him, he left the Kremlin and Moscow and wrote to his subjects that he was abdicating. Without him things got worse in Russia and soon the nobles and clergy begged him to return to Moscow and take up his crown again. Czar Ivan refused unless he was allowed to rule with absolute power this time. The nobles and clergy were only too happy to agree. So Ivan returned to Moscow and the rest is history, much to the sorrow of those who begged him to return.
Judging from the Post and Courier piece I say, "well played Czar Ivan!"
Posted by: confused by your post | April 27, 2015 at 02:46 PM
Dear Confused by Your Post: I think you misunderstand the situation. The students and faculty at the Charleston School of Law are overwhelmingly ecstatic that Infilaw is leaving. I can't imagine anyone would "beg" or even ask them to return under any circumstances.
Posted by: Charleston | April 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Charleston,
When Ivan first left Moscow the boyars were happy, too. Then things fell apart and they realized their would be no empire without Ivan; only a bleak future. The boyars, etc. did not beg Ivan to return because they liked him.
The blunt and menacing purpose of the Post and Courier piece was to explain to all who would resist that there will be no Charleston SOL without Infilaw.
Although those that matter may not accept it quite yet, C. Peter Goplerud is correct. It will be Infilaw or death for Charleston.
Posted by: confused by your post | April 28, 2015 at 03:07 PM