- 14 -
close of 1990. Presumably such an occurrence would have entitled
petitioner to some, if not substantial, commissions. We find it
highly unlikely that the May 1990 meeting between petitioner and
Mr. Griffin did not include any discussion about potential future
business that might have resulted from petitioner's efforts while
employed by CMS. We are unwilling to accept petitioner's version
of what took place at the May 1990 meeting and his explanation as
to why the $20,000 payment was made to him. Furthermore,
petitioner's explanation as to why he received the $20,000
payment is inconsistent with the provisions of the agreement
subjecting the payment to payroll deductions.
On the other hand, we are not completely satisfied with Mr.
Griffin's version of the May 1990 meeting either. Mr. Griffin
testified that the GNMA letter was not discussed. It is clear
from the record that if the reference in the GNMA letter was to
the Signet credit facility, the letter contained false
statements. Knowing that his employment with CMS was soon to
end, we find it more likely than not that petitioner, believing
the GNMA letter to contain false representations, called it to
Mr. Griffin's attention, for whatever doing so might have been
worth to petitioner. We are somewhat disturbed that Mr. Griffin
could not support his claim regarding the accuracy of the GNMA
letter with supporting documentation, and also with the amount of
the payment made to petitioner upon termination of employment
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011