Zakir DocuSign timeline — 2026-09-06

Teams 1:1, JT and Jamar Anderson, from 7:59 PM ET Saturday 2026-09-06 through 12:30 AM ET Sunday 2026-09-07. Speakers are labeled by the connector. JT asked when the lowered-rate 2026 agreement was first sent to the Zakirs; Jamar found two DocuSign envelopes and attached the full history. Also raised at the end: Jamar's two outstanding emails on Jared Thompson and client-complaint documentation.

Summary

• JT asked Jamar to track down the date the Zakirs were first sent their 2026 agreement at the lowered 99 bps, placing it somewhere between April and June or July, and said not to worry if an expired envelope that old could not be pulled.
• Jamar found two envelopes, not one. The first went out 4/20/2026 and was never signed, so it expired. The second went out 6/9/2026 and Rob declined it on 7/2/2026.
• Jamar attached six PDFs to the chat (both client agreements and both DocuSign summary and void certificates) and saved the set to Box under the Zakir client folder, in a new Docusign History subfolder.
• JT confirmed this closes the April-to-June gap in the fee timeline and "helps button up the timeline."
• JT's read on where the matter now sits: "Now it's really Derek's call what he decides to do."
• Jamar then asked whether JT had seen his earlier emails on Jared Thompson and on client complaints generally, saying a few clients are getting restless and he wants everything documented.
• JT said he had seen them but had not thought them through properly yet, and would look at them the next day.

Decisions

• JT: the fee timeline is complete enough; the remaining question is Derek's decision, not further reconstruction. (JT, in his own words in the chat)

They asked me for

• Jamar: whether JT had seen the two emails he sent on Jared Thompson and on documenting client complaints generally.

I asked them for

• JT: the send date of the Zakirs' initial 2026 agreement at the lowered 99 bps.

Concerns and frustrations raised

• Jamar: "there is a few clients getting restless and I just want to make sure everything is being documented."

What they are focused on

• Jamar: having the documentation complete and in Box before anything escalates, on the Zakir matter and on client complaints generally.

Doable / not doable / needs a decision

• Pulling the expired 4/20/2026 envelope → doable and done; Jamar retrieved both envelopes and the void certificates the same evening.
• The Zakir credit → needs a decision, and it is not JT's. The reconstruction is complete; per JT it is Derek's call, with Brandon's CCO credit decision still open ahead of the 2026-09-11 package.
• Jamar's documentation-process question → still open on JT, now acknowledged in writing with a next-day commitment.

Action items

Mine

• Reply to Jamar's Jared Thompson email and his client follow-up documentation guidance request — JT committed to "tomorrow", 2026-09-07 — (Notion: not pushed)
• Fold the two 2026 DocuSign dates (4/20/2026 expired unsigned, 6/9/2026 sent, declined by Rob 7/2/2026) into the Zakir fee timeline ahead of the 2026-09-11 package — (Notion: not pushed)

Theirs

• Locate and save the DocuSign history — Jamar — done 2026-09-06, saved to the Zakir client folder in Box

Suggestions for me

• The 7/2/2026 decline is the strongest fact added to this matter since the reconstruction: the client was offered the reduced rate twice in 2026 and actively declined the second envelope, three months before writing that the firm had been unresponsive since 2018. That belongs in the 2026-09-11 package narrative and in whatever Brandon weighs on the goodwill credit.
• It also reframes the 133-day gap between the 4/20/2026 internal instruction and the 8/31/2026 completion: part of that delay sits with the client's non-signature and decline, not only with the firm.
• Jamar has now raised the documentation question twice in three days and JT has committed to a date. Answering it also answers the Thompson escalation, since both are the same underlying gap.

Notable quotes

"There were actually two Docusigns we sent to the Zakirs for them to sign the agreement at the lowered 99 bps. The first was sent on 4/20/2026. They never signed it so the envelope expired. We sent it to them again on 6/9/2026, however, Rob declined the Docusign on 7/2/2026." — Jamar Anderson

"Yes. This is great. More than enough thank you. This eliminates that small gap from April to June. Not that it was a big deal but helps button up the timeline." — JT

"Now it's really Derek's call what he decides to do." — JT

"Unfortunately there is a few clients getting restless and I just want to make sure everything is being documented." — Jamar Anderson