- 13 -
individually, including Mr. Forsythe, sought damages for breach
of the Employment Agreement and Shareholders’ Agreement as well
as for tortious interference with contract and with prospective
economic advantage. In his complaint, Mr. Polsky again alleged
that he was entitled to receive as damages the value to which his
Indeck shares would have appreciated by June 1, 1993, the
expiration of his term of employment under the Employment
Agreement, which damages he alleged were not less than $55
million. The complaint also alleged certain new theories of
recovery not advanced in the arbitration proceedings. These new
theories incorporated the CMS Generation offer in addition to the
PowerLink offer, and alleged that Mr. Polsky was entitled to
damages measured by the higher of the two offers. The new
grounds also included allegations that Indeck and/or its agents
had refused to negotiate in good faith with PowerLink and CMS
Generation, and had created or altered documents in order to
misrepresent the value of Indeck’s shares. The defendants made
several counterclaims against Mr. Polsky, including claims that
he breached the Employment and Shareholders’ Agreements.
Indeck’s counsel believed that Indeck faced greater exposure in
the Lake County Lawsuit than the Cook County Lawsuit.
Settlement of the Dispute
From the filing of the original complaint in April 1992
until early April 1994, discovery and various pretrial
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