Alain and Monique Massot - Page 9

                                                - 9 -                                                  
            October 2, 1992 letter, petitioner’s counsel referred to                                   
            petitioner’s rights under the Millipore S.A. collective bargaining                         
            agreement and stated that petitioner should receive:  (1)                                  
            Cumulative damages of $977,814, plus (2) 60 percent of his salary                          
            during the period the noncompetition clause would be in effect,                            
            and (3) damages for termination without cause (the French                                  
            equivalent of outrageous dismissal).  The $977,814 cumulative                              
            damages were calculated as follows:                                                        
            10 months’salary (based on seniority)                             $190,000                 
            3 months’ salary (failure to give notice)                         57,000                   
            2 years’ salary (termination without cause)                       456,000                  
            French pension fund contribution                                  30,000                   
            Millipore participation plan contribution                         15,077                   
            Millipore savings plus match                                      4,237                    
            Millipore incentive (restricted) stock options                    175,500                  
            Millipore non-qualified stock options                              50,000                  
                        TOTAL                                                 977,814                  
                  This letter was referred to Geoffrey Nunes, Millipore’s                              
            general counsel and senior vice president.  After reviewing the                            
            letter, Mr. Nunes requested the parties to meet. Millipore                                 
            anticipated that petitioner would institute suit in Massachusetts                          
            for claims based in tort, as enumerated in petitioner’s counsel’s                          
            October 2 letter, and had potential causes of action in France.                            
            Millipore’s management recognized that petitioner’s claims posed                           
            the risk of significant financial exposure to the company.                                 
                  The parties met on October 9, 1992.  During the course of the                        
            meeting, a heated discussion ensued.  Mr. Nunes initially took the                         
            position that petitioner did not have any French or U.S. law claims                        

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