- 12 -
2000), that all, or any portion, of the total settlement amount,
or the total settlement payment, was paid on account of the loss
of the plaintiffs’ business reputation or the loss of their
reputation as orchid growers. Furthermore, unlike the facts
presented in Fabry, the record in Henry v. Commissioner, supra,
did not establish (1) that throughout the trial in the lawsuit
and/or throughout settlement discussions after the jury verdict
in the lawsuit the plaintiffs had steadfastly presented claims
for a specified dollar amount as damages for injury to their
business reputation and injury to their reputation as orchid
growers, (2) that du Pont never disputed the plaintiffs’ claims
for damages for injury to their business reputation and injury to
their reputation as orchid growers throughout the lawsuit and/or
those settlement discussions, (3) that du Pont sought and ob-
tained a release specifically with respect to the plaintiffs’
reputation claims, and (4) that du Pont would not have settled
the lawsuit without a release of the plaintiffs’ claims for
damages for injury to their business reputation and injury to
their reputation as orchid growers. But see Fabry v. Commis-
sioner, 223 F.3d 1261, 1268-1269 n.21 (11th Cir. 2000); cf. supra
note 3.
Although we found on the record presented to us in Henry I
that petitioner had failed to establish that all, or any portion,
of the $2,800,000 total settlement amount, or the $1,623,203
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011