- 28 -
4. Allocation of the Settlement Payments
As just discussed, we are convinced that the settlement
payments to Katherine and Damian were on account of both personal
injuries and economic injuries.10 The record does not suggest
that Maritz Inc. was ever presented with empirical evidence as to
the extent of either Katherine’s or Damian’s personal or economic
injuries.11 The record is clear, however, that Maritz Inc. took
seriously the various claims that Suelthaus asserted on
Katherine’s and Damian’s behalf, believed that Katherine and
Damian would litigate these claims if they were not settled, and
made the settlement payments to discharge all such claims, for
personal and economic injuries alike.12 In these circumstances,
10 On the basis of all the evidence, we do not believe that
any part of the payments to Katherine and Damian was in
redemption of Maritz Inc. stock. The redemption agreement was
only for Maritz Inc. voting stock. Katherine owned only
nonvoting stock. Damian owned no Maritz Inc. stock in his
individual capacity. In his testimony, Backerman made clear that
Maritz Inc. viewed the payments it made to discharge Katherine’s
and Damian’s claims as being separate from the payments it made
to redeem the Hobler voting stock.
11 We note that before her termination, Katherine was
earning a $56,700 salary as a corporate officer of Maritz Inc.
and that Damian did $10,000 worth of business with the
corporation over a 6-month period. The record does not suggest,
however, any direct correlation between these figures and the
amounts of the settlement payments.
12 Backerman testified that Maritz Inc. took seriously the
claims asserted by Suelthaus on Katherine’s and Damian’s behalf.
He testified that “Maritz Inc., should not have, and did not,
come to a resolution of the stock redemption issue without also
clearing up these asserted claims, such as they were, and it
(continued...)
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011