- 13 -
the alleged misconduct of * * * [First City Bank] and alleging
actual and consequential damages in an unspecified amount”.
Petitioner’s attorneys requested that the language “Mason
believes that * * * [First City Bank’s] conduct damaged his
business reputation” (business reputation sentence) be included
in the Recitals section of the final settlement agreement.
Because the FDIC attorney did not find petitioner’s belief
relevant, he permitted the inclusion of the business reputation
sentence in the final settlement agreement.
In the Consideration section of the final settlement
agreement, the parties released each other from any claims that
each had against the other. With regard to the scope of the
settlement agreement, however, the parties stated that the
“release is limited to those claims, demands, rights and causes
of action with respect to acts, omissions, transactions,
practices, conduct, facts or circumstances arising from (1) the
subject matter of the Recitals, (2) the subject matter of the
Mason Lawsuit, (3) the Mason Note and (4) the Mason Guaranty”
(scope provision). The scope provision similarly appeared in the
September 10, 1995, draft of the final settlement agreement.
The parties did not allocate the $550,000 petitioner
received from the FDIC (settlement proceeds) to any specific
claim by petitioner. After attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses, petitioner received a net amount of $266,686.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011