Greg Adler files a lawsuit in Pitkin County District Court against David Cook and Spencer McKnight, alleging they secretly renegotiated a $215,000+ buyout of his son's stake in Paperbag Media LLC without providing required notices.

What happens to your money when the people holding the purse strings decide to rewrite the rules while you’re not looking?
That’s the question hanging over the Aspen Daily News right now. Greg Adler isn’t asking for a favor. He’s asking for accountability. And he’s taking it to Pitkin County District Court.
The lawsuit, filed June 12, paints a picture of a family business deal that went sideways. It centers on Gabriel Adler, Greg’s son, who inherited a 33.3% stake in Paperbag Media LLC after his stepmother died in 2023. Gabriel isn’t just a passive investor. He struggles with addiction. The buyout agreement signed in March 2024 between Gabriel and the majority owners, David Cook and Spencer McKnight, included a specific safeguard: notices and modifications had to go to Greg. Why? Because Greg was part of Gabriel’s "supported decision-making" team. He was there to help his son navigate the financial world, not just watch it slip away.
But the complaint alleges something different happened. It claims Cook and McKnight secretly renegotiated the buyout payments. They bypassed the notice requirement. They didn’t tell Greg. And in doing so, they allegedly changed the deal Gabriel had signed.
"Here’s the thing though," Sara Bodner, Greg’s attorney, noted in an email. "Greg Adler was actively involved in negotiating Cook and McKnight’s purchase of his son’s interest." He even emailed in October 2023, writing simply: "Watching out for Gabriel."
The financial stakes are clear. The original agreement called for an upfront payment of $215,000. Then came a promissory note requiring three annual payments of $77,113.80 in 2025, 2026, and 2027. Gabriel signed through JSPB Media LLC. The contract listed Greg’s contact information explicitly. The notice provision wasn’t boilerplate. It was a shield.
The lawsuit argues that shield was breached. Cook and McKnight, through their companies Cook Media Consulting Inc. and McKnight & Mayo Productions LLC, allegedly acted in bad faith. They didn’t just ignore the contract; they allegedly engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct." The complaint details three specific occasions in 2025 where the notice requirement became the central issue. The details are still unfolding, but the allegation is stark: the majority owners changed the terms without telling the designated supporter.
Jeffrey A. Springer, the attorney for Cook and McKnight, isn’t backing down. He calls the lawsuit "without merit." In his view, Greg Adler wasn’t a party to the contract. He wasn’t an intended beneficiary. Therefore, Greg has "absolutely no claim against anyone related to the contract." Springer describes the suit as a "groundless attempt to harass Spencer McKnight and David Cook."
It’s a classic dispute over who actually holds the power in a private company. Is it the majority owner who writes the checks? Or is it the person the contract says must be notified when the money moves?
Greg Adler’s camp stands by the complaint. "Greg Adler was not a party to the contract, was not an intended beneficiary of the contract and has absolutely no claim against anyone related to the contract," Springer said. But the Adlers argue the contract says otherwise. They argue that by including Greg’s name and contact info, the parties agreed he had enforceable rights.
The case, numbered 2026CV30101, is now in the hands of a judge. It’s not just about $215,000 and a few hundred thousand in promissory notes. It’s about whether "supported decision-making" — a legal alternative to guardianship that allows individuals to retain authority while receiving guidance — holds up when the other side decides to play by a different set of rules.
Picture this: a quiet office in Aspen. A contract sits on a desk. The ink is dry. But the people who signed it are already looking for the exit ramp. They’re changing the terms. They’re not telling the guy who was supposed to be watching. And now, they’re waiting to see if the court agrees that silence is golden, or if it’s a breach of contract.





