Sigitas J. Banaitis - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          awarded petitioner compensatory damages, under Oregon law the               
          jury was allowed to consider punitive damages.  The jury found              
          that the employees of both MBL and BCal were “guilty of wanton              
          misconduct and acted within their employment.”  As such, the jury           
          awarded punitive damages from MBL and BCal in the amounts of                
          $3 million and $2 million, respectively.                                    
               In summary, the money judgment against MBL was $500,000 for            
          noneconomic damages, $3 million for punitive damages and $646,389           
          for economic damages--$450,000 in lost future compensation and              
          $196,389 in wages.  The money judgment against BCal was $125,000            
          for noneconomic damages, $2 million for punitive damages, and               
          $646,389 for economic damages.  MBL and BCal were jointly and               
          severally liable for the economic damages and severally liable              
          for the noneconomic damages and the punitive damages.  Petitioner           
          was also entitled to postjudgment interest and costs of                     
          litigation.                                                                 
               Subsequently, MBL and BCal filed motions with the trial                
          court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  These motions              
          were granted in part and the judgment set aside.  At this point,            
          petitioner was still entitled to compensatory damages, but no               
          punitive damages.  Petitioner and the banks, separately, appealed           
          to the Oregon Court of Appeals.                                             
               For the legal fees occasioned by the appeal, petitioner and            
          his attorney, Charles J. Merten (Merten), entered into a second             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011