But isn't Sherwood built by the compant that was building the 997.

Yes. That's why I don't see Sherwood being responsible for killing the 978 or being involved in the new entry-level unit.

Outlaw owes the manufacturer and the company that forced the manufacturer to stop nothing. So why not announce who it was if that is truly the real reason. I see no way why they could or would not announce it as both of them gave outlaw and outlaws customers the shaft.

It's a fair comment and no doubt many of us would love to know who the guilty party is.

I suspect, though, that there is a Non-disclosure agreement that Outlaw must sign when entering into a partnership like this. High end companies releasing products for thousands of dollars do not want it known that you can get mostly the same component from an internet direct company for a big discount off the steep price.

Of course this case is somewhat different in that there was a third party involved, the factory. How it was that they were able to bring Outlaw on board for the 978 when either they shouldn't have, or the parent company changed its mind, we will probably never know. But I'm sure the bottom line is that Outlaw was kicked to the curb, and warned not to disclose a thing as per the contract they signed, or there would be lawsuits flying back and forth as everybody lawyered up.

And Joe consumer gets stiffed by the man.

I still think D&M Holdings makes the most sense as the bully. Rationally, D&M has nothing to gain if Outlaw comes out with a 978 and much to lose:
- Outlaw sales of Marantz AVx units
- New competition at a lower price point (for their other retailers)
- An competitor to the online business D&M is considering entering

Nor do they risk much, if Outlaw were to pull its OEM speaker business because D&M has already closed their speaker business.

On the Outlaw side, there certainly is an incentive for Outlaw to keep quiet as they are probably dependent upon Marantz for a signficant portion of their revenue stream.

My immediate first guess was D&M Holding, but I remembered Scott said it was an American brand, and I don't consider D&M brands as American, but Japanese. But perhaps most consider Marantz American? I figured it would have to be a brand with significant clout, which I don't believe any of the other American brands metioned have. So, my next best guess was Sherwood. Hopefully, we'll find out the truth and spread it across the 'net and see what happens. I'll not worry any more and just see what the 975 specs will be.

D&M was a Japanese company, but they were acquired by Bain Capital in 2008 thus making them an American company. To the best of my knowledge, they are now a whole owned sub of Bain and headquartered in NJ.

They also substantially fit the B&M description.

Some of Outlaw's silence could be corporate politics. Outlaw has business relationships with a lot of companies, and will have to negotiate new partnerships in the future. They got burned with the Model 978, due to a partner and a third party that they (as far as we know) had no direct ties to. They were open about the situation with their customers, but they didn't "name names" publicly. That shows that they can be professional even when others are not. This could win them points in future negotiations.

Yeah, but the "Denon" half of D&M sells very heavily online, and the "Marantz" half of D&M has an existing partnership (still in place) to let Outlaw act as an authorized online dealer. I would not consider Denon to be a "brick and mortar" brand these days, even if Marantz is still heavily focused in that direction. Based on all of that, I have a hard time seeing D&M being involved in the Model 978's demise.

According to Peter T, it was a company headquartered in North America, so the obvious implication is that it could be a Canadian company.