- 20 -
Other disputed paragraphs seek to establish that
petitioners' representatives in the milk producers action
utilized tax advice regarding the settlement. Since this may be
relevant to the motivation of the parties in structuring the
settlement, we overrule the objection.
Petitioners also object to paragraph 51 and Exhibit 21-U on
the basis of rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The
exhibit is a letter from plaintiffs' attorneys to the Bank
Defendants' attorneys, regarding an offer of settlement. The
letter is not admissible to show liability for or invalidity of
the claim. It is admissible to show other circumstances
surrounding the negotiations; however, we note that the offer
bears little or no relation to the final settlement, either in
amount or structure, and we give it little weight.
Finally, we overrule petitioners' objection to Exhibit 35-
AI, stipulation re amendment of Exhibit A to milk producer
plaintiffs' third amended complaint. It is an intrinsic part of
Exhibit 16-P, the complaint, which has been stipulated and forms
an important part of the evidence. Exhibit 35-AI is received.
The Settlement
Respondent contends the settlement payment was really for
the lost milk under the contract between the milk producers and
Knudsen. Petitioners contend it was for emotional distress, as
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011