- 31 -
Henry received, the $50,000 assistance payment from du Pont. In
late January 1992, Mr. Henry requested, and in early February
1992, Mr. Henry received, the $150,000 assistance payment from du
Pont. On the record before us, we find that petitioner has
failed to show that he was under any restrictions as to how he
used either the $50,000 assistance payment or the $150,000
assistance payment or that he did not have full control over how
he used each of those payments. We further find on that record
that petitioner has failed to establish that he was under an
obligation (contingent or otherwise) to return either the $50,000
payment2 or the $150,000 payment to du Pont or that there were
any indicia of a loan associated with either of those payments.
The record does show that at the respective times du Pont made
the $50,000 assistance payment and the $150,000 assistance
payment to Mr. Henry it expected to pay him substantial, ad-
ditional amounts with respect to his claimed damage due to his
use of Benlate. Indeed, the record establishes that du Pont
offered Mr. Henry a settlement of $509,742 by letter dated March
2Although du Pont's Benlate resolution manager, who was in
charge of assistance payments, and certain other du Pont of-
ficials considered that du Pont had a right to ask that an
assistance payment be paid back to it, they never sought a formal
opinion from du Pont's attorneys on the question. Moreover, we
do not believe that, because du Pont's Benlate resolution manager
and certain other du Pont officials considered that du Pont had a
right to ask that an assistance payment be paid back to it, du
Pont had the legal right to require that an assistance payment be
returned to it.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011