Introduction
This letter has two purposes:
To correct the false statements made by Daniel Duzan and Niki Leinberger regarding Strohm Newspapers, Inc. and the Strohm family.
To summarize the key facts and evidence for legal review.
All statements below are supported by documented evidence, including text messages, emails, and the signed Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 12, 2025.
Signed agreement in its entirety. Buyer refund liability portions outlined in red.
Background
For nearly 30 years, Strohm Newspapers proudly served Clark County through the Marshall Advocate and Casey Reporter. In May 2025, after decades of personal and financial investment, our family made the difficult decision to close the newspapers due to personal circumstances.
Shortly after our announcement, Daniel Duzan and Niki Leinberger expressed interest in purchasing the business. As negotiations dragged on, we ultimately agreed to transfer ownership at no cost, under the clear understanding that they would assume full responsibility for existing subscriber obligations.
As part of the transfer, we provided Daniel and Niki with all major business assets, including:
Complete subscriber and advertiser information
Business equipment (computers, templates, and related resources)
Digital publishing access and website domains
Control of both newspaper Facebook pages
In exchange, Daniel and Niki agreed to:
Take over full operations of the publications, now rebranded as the Clark County Courier
Fulfill all existing subscriber obligations
Assume full liability for any subscription refunds, as explicitly outlined in Section 2 of the Asset Purchase Agreement
Unfortunately, rather than honoring these commitments, Daniel and Niki halted operations shortly after taking over, informing Dre Strohm via text August 8th. They have since made false and defamatory statements about our family, including claims that we misled them about the business and “hid” debts from them — accusations that are entirely untrue and contradicted by the written agreement they signed.
Reason for Closure: Mental Health Crisis
The sudden closure of Strohm Newspapers was not arbitrary and was not a pretext to avoid refunds.
On the morning of Friday, May 16, 2025, Gary experienced a severe mental health crisis after multiple days of extreme sleep deprivation and intense stress managing the newspaper.
Symptoms included:
Severe exhaustion (1–2 hours of sleep per night)
Alarming weight loss and skyrocketing blood pressure
Borderline psychosis, requiring immediate medical attention
He was given an MRI to rule out a stroke as the cause of his condition
He was admitted to the Behavioral Health Unit at Sarah Bush Hospital twice for a total of one week. Records are available to verify this if required. At the time of closing, no one in the family or any other party, including the Buyers, anticipated this crisis.
Fact: Any claims by Daniel Duzan that Gary Strohm was never ill or that the reason for the abrupt closure was fabricated are false. The sudden closure was brought on by a legitimate, documented consequence of a serious health emergency, not an attempt to defraud or avoid contractual obligations.
False Claims vs. Facts
False Claim #1: Strohm Newspapers had a longstanding no-refund policy, and we agreed refunds weren’t on the table.
Fact:
The signed agreement (Section 2) states clearly that “Buyer shall be solely and fully responsible for honoring and paying any and all subscription refund requests, whether such requests relate to periods before or after the Closing Date.”
There is no mention of a “no-refund policy” anywhere in the Agreement.
Daniel and Niki had full access to the contract before signing and voluntarily accepted refund responsibility.
After the decision to close was made on May 16th, any checks that had not been deposited were returned. Any received afterward were also returned.
False Claim #2: We weren’t merging with Strohm; this was an entirely separate entity.
Fact:
The Courier was publicly announced and marketed as the combined successor to the Advocate and Reporter.
Section 1 of the Agreement transferred:
Facebook pages
All subscriber and advertiser information in digital and hard copy formats.
Computers and design templates
Outside of the contract, we also provided furniture and bought additional website domains for their use.
These assets are not characteristic of starting a “separate” business — they are the foundation of the merged publication.
We provided the Courier’s contact information to advertisers who were unaware of our closing.
We answered every question we received from Daniel and Niki via text, email, or phone in order to give them as much support as possible.
Dre also noted that if they began a paper without the Advocate or Reporter, they wouldn’t have the existing subscriber liability.
False Claim #3: We received no templates, no assistance, and had to start from scratch.
Fact:
Section 1 explicitly lists the assets provided, including templates, computers, advertiser binders, and website domain login credentials.
They also received full access to employee information, advertisers, and contacts to ease the transition.
Their failure to utilize these resources or communicate with stakeholders was a choice, not a lack of support.
False Claim #4: Key details about competition and business challenges were withheld from us.
Fact:
Section 4 of the Agreement confirms “Buyer has performed its own due diligence and accepts responsibility for future operations.”
We discussed potential competitors and potential market challenges openly before signing.
Their claim of being “blindsided” contradicts both documented conversations and their written acknowledgment of full due diligence.
False Claim #5: We didn’t collect any money — no subscription fees, no ad revenue — so we shouldn’t be responsible for refunds.
Fact:
Section 2 is unambiguous:
“Buyer shall be solely and fully responsible for honoring and paying any and all subscription refund requests, whether such requests relate to periods before or after the Closing Date.”This is a standard business risk when purchasing any ongoing operation.
Buying this newspaper business is like buying a gym that already has members with active paid memberships:
Even if the new owner hasn’t personally collected a single monthly payment yet, they still must honor the memberships or issue refunds — because the value of the business included those prepaid contracts. You can’t take ownership of the business, benefit from the existing subscriber base, and then deny the corresponding obligations.
Similarly, when purchasing a newspaper business, the Buyers took ownership knowing there were active subscriptions and committed — in writing — to fulfill or refund them.
Additionally, ad revenue, which generated 80% of revenue, was billed monthly after an ad was published, as they were informed multiple times. There would have been ad revenue had a newspaper actually been launched.
Their failure to honor these obligations constitutes a clear breach of contract and cannot be excused by their lack of upfront revenue collection.
False Claim #6: Refund liability was hidden in “fine print” and contradicted our mutual understanding.
Fact:
The refund clause is not hidden — it is a separate section, written in bold, making their liability explicit.
They received the Agreement days before signing and had ample opportunity to review, request revisions, or decline the deal.
We stressed multiple times that we were ready to send refunds if an agreement could not be reached.
False Claim #7: The letter sent to subscribers was misleading and unauthorized.
Fact:
Section 2 required Niki and Daniel to notify subscribers of the ownership change within one week of closing.
Section 2 stated that if the Buyers could not undertake this task, the Seller would and be reimbursed for postage.
When they did not, and continuously claimed they would but did not, we sent a letter to those who had requested refunds only and were not reimbursed for postage.
When we saw that Niki and Daniel had deactivated the Clark County Courier Facebook pages, leaving many in the dark about the newspaper’s status, we sent out a second letter in August. Signed by the “Strohm Family” this time, we sought only to reiterate that we are not the owners anymore. We provided them with Niki and Daniel’s contact information, so that they may answer questions by those waiting for answers.
Section 2 clearly prioritized keeping subscribers informed by requiring a letter to clarify ownership and refund responsibilities.
False Claim #8: We were blindsided by debts we didn’t create.
Fact:
They reviewed subscription liabilities and advertiser relationships in advance.
Section 4 again confirms they accepted all risks and liabilities after performing their own due diligence.
They assumed none of the paper’s existing debt: $40,000 in loans and outstanding bills.
False Claim #9: We acted in good faith and were misled.
Fact:
We transferred substantial assets — valued in the thousands of dollars — without upfront payment.
In exchange, Daniel and Niki agreed in writing to assume operational and financial responsibilities.
Their decision to stop publishing, publicly blame us, and disavow their obligations represents a breach of good faith and of the Agreement itself.
Attempted Intimidation by Buyers
In addition to refusing to honor contractual obligations, the Buyers engaged in threatening behavior via text messages:
Explicit threats to make us “look like s***” publicly.
Requests for Gary’s personal address and phone number under the guise of “serving papers.”
Threats to involve authorities: “I’ll send the sheriff to find out this information to have them served.”
Statements such as:
“I see you guys ever struggle or crying or in need just know I will never help again. I see what you guys are all about. I’ll see ya around.”
Fact: The Buyers responded to a simple reminder of their obligations to subscribers with hostility and intimidation. Despite Daniel’s claims of “helping a hurt man,” their actions have kept us entangled in the newspaper business, preventing us from disengaging as intended, delayed subscriber communications, and undermined our credibility and reputation within the community, all while causing significant emotional distress.
Moving Forward
We have sought legal counsel and are evaluating remedies for:
Defamation and reputational harm caused by their public statements.
Breach of contract for failing to honor refund obligations and fulfill operational commitments.
Recovery of assets, including damages related to misuse of transferred property and intellectual materials.
We have preserved all relevant evidence, including:
The signed Asset Purchase Agreement.
Screenshots of social media posts, pages, and subscriber complaints.
Assets shared online with Niki and Daniel.
A lawyer assisting our family attempted to call Niki and Daniel on August 19th. When they did not respond, he sent text messages requesting them to remove the Facebook posts and cease spreading falsehoods. They did not comply. On August 22nd, he sent a formal cease-and-desist via email. They have yet to comply.
In Closing
This matter is not a misunderstanding. It is straightforward:
There is a signed contract outlining clear responsibilities.
We fulfilled all obligations on our side.
Daniel and Niki are attempting to avoid accountability through misinformation.
Our family remains committed to protecting our reputation and ensuring subscribers receive the refunds they have requested.