- 6 -
estopped from claiming that the PMI shareholders' rights had been
modified by the later agreements between PMI and PepsiCo.
Finally, petitioner alleged that the conduct by Pizza Hut in
preventing the public offering constituted a tortious
interference with petitioner's contractual rights and prospective
business advantages.
In 1990, petitioner and Lawrence F. Dickie, a representative
of PepsiCo, entered into settlement negotiations, resulting in an
agreement whereby PepsiCo would acquire all of petitioner's PMI
stock, and petitioner would release his claims against PepsiCo
and Pizza Hut. During these negotiations, petitioner and
Mr. Dickie discussed the damages suffered by petitioner as a
result of PepsiCo's actions, including the damage to his rela-
tionship with the bank and the harm to his business reputation
through adverse publicity in the press. On March 28, 1990, in
compliance with the settlement agreement, petitioner transferred
393,9483 shares of PMI stock to PepsiCo. On the same date, peti-
tioner signed documents releasing all claims against PepsiCo and
Pizza Hut. In consideration of the stock transfer and peti-
tioner's release of claims, PepsiCo paid petitioner $3,250,071.
3Petitioner owned 386,448 shares of Pizza Management, Inc.
(PMI). Additionally, petitioner controlled 7,500 shares that
were beneficially owned by his wife and children. The total of
these two amounts constitutes the 393,948 shares transferred to
PepsiCo, Inc. (PepsiCo).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011