- 12 -
In extending her counteroffer, Ms. Branda expressly adopted the
first and second numbered paragraphs in Mr. Kilberg's January 31,
1986, letter (quoted above) and partially adopted and modified
the third numbered paragraph therein. Ms. Branda did not
specifically characterize the settlement payment, or any part
thereof, as either compensation for the Government's losses or as
a penalty.
On February 18, 1986, the parties executed a settlement
agreement that was consistent with Ms. Branda's February 7, 1986,
counteroffer. The settlement agreement provided that Talley and
Stencel would pay the Government $1.9 million ($2.5 million less
an offset of $600,000), that Talley and Stencel would pay
$900,000 upon execution of the agreement, and that Talley and
Stencel would pay the remaining $1 million no later than February
18, 1987, with simple interest computed at the rate established
by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Renegotiation
Act Amendments, Pub. L. 92-41, sec. 2, 85 Stat. 97 (1971). The
settlement agreement provided that Talley and Stencel were
relieved of liability under the FCA and the TINA, and that the
settlement satisfied Stencel's obligation to provide restitution
under the Judgment and Probation Commitment Order entered on July
8, 1985. The settlement agreement did not characterize the
payment as either compensation to the Government for its losses
or as a penalty.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011