- 29 -
contends that the agreement, in substance, was for a purchase
price of $15,030,000 for the shares plus $4,856,922 of interest
to compensate for the post-January 31, 1991, delay in payment.
Indeck’s contention is based, in part, on the Settlement
Agreement’s description of the settlement payment in components
that correspond to the arbitrator’s $15,030,000 value for the
shares and his award of 10-percent interest on that amount
commencing January 31, 1991. Indeck also points to
representations by Mr. Polsky’s attorneys to the Lake County
Circuit Court in connection with the settlement describing the
settlement payment as including “interest” at 10 percent from
January 31, 1991, on $15,030,000, which occurred after agreement
had been reached on the language in the Settlement Agreement
allocating the entire payment to “purchase price”.
It is obvious that the Settlement Agreement was modeled in
substantial part on the arbitrator’s value for the shares and his
award of interest. The question remains, however, whether the
parties’ use of the arbitration award as a model indicates that
they in substance agreed on a purchase price of $15,030,000 for
the shares plus $4,856,922 in interest, or simply a purchase
price equal to the total of the foregoing, as the Settlement
Agreement allocation indicates.
Indeck argues that the parties’ use of the arbitrator’s
award as a model for the settlement payment, and Mr. Polsky’s
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011