- 23 -
amount be allocated to ETS and reduce the proceeds of the Farmers
lawsuit that he had otherwise allocated to ETS under the selected
allocation analysis.
Under the selected allocation analysis, Mr. Donnelly recom-
mended that the proceeds of the Farmers lawsuit and the attor-
neys' fees and costs actually incurred in the Farmers lawsuit be
allocated between DCI and ETS, as follows:
Total Amount Recommended Recommended
Item of Item Allocation Allocation
Allocated Allocated to ETS to DCI
Lost profits damages $1,497,016 $446,981 $1,050,035
Punitive damages 290,715 86,714 204,001
Indemnity damages 63,159 -0- 63,159
Interest 177,881 53,115 124,766
Attorneys' fees
and costs 226,212 67,547 158,665
Total proceeds of
the Farmers lawsuit 2,254,983 654,357 1,600,626
Less:
Attorneys' fees and
costs actually incurred
in the Farmers lawsuit 683,556 204,112 479,444
Amount allocated 1,571,427 450,245 1,121,182
Sometime after August 9, 1988, and prior to September 30,
1988, in reliance on Mr. Donnelly's recommendation under the
selected allocation analysis, an additional allocation of $50,245
of the proceeds of the Farmers lawsuit was made to the Diamonds
as the owners of ETS, thereby increasing the amount of the
14(...continued)
fees and costs actually incurred in the Farmers lawsuit, Mr.
Donnelly used $683,556 as the amount of such fees and costs.
However, the actual amount of such fees and costs was $692,203.
The record does not explain that discrepancy, and the parties
make no argument about it.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011