F. Browne Gregg, Sr., and Juanita O. Gregg - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                          
               Later in 1972, the price of USI's stock fell, and the                   
          Leesburg Bank issued margin calls to petitioner.  When petitioner            
          did not respond, the bank began selling his stock.  Petitioner               
          then demanded that USI pay the dividends to the Leesburg Bank,               
          but USI refused.  Subsequently, the Leesburg Bank liquidated                 
          petitioner’s stock because the loans had become under-                       
          collateralized.                                                              
               In 1972, petitioner filed suit in Florida against USI.                  
          Petitioner's lawsuit against USI lasted several years and                    
          included a jury trial that ended in a mistrial, a second jury                
          trial that was appealed, reversed in part, and remanded (Gregg v.            
          U.S. Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1983), modified 721              
          F.2d 345 (11th Cir. 1983)), and a third jury trial that was                  
          affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Gregg             
          v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 887 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1989)).  USI paid             
          petitioner on the judgment in 1990.                                          
               The claims on which petitioner prevailed that are relevant              
          to this case are:  (1) Common-law fraud; and (2) interference                
          with a business relationship.                                                

          The Common-Law Fraud Claim                                                   
               The crux of petitioner's common-law fraud claim was                     
          fraudulent inducement.  Petitioner alleged that USI fraudulently             
          promised to provide petitioner's former businesses with capital              
          required for their successful operation, when in fact USI's                  
          established financial policies severely limited the cash that it             
          could make available to them for additional working capital.                 

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