- 21 -
sexual pursuit of a client of the firm by [name
redacted].
Some of the redacted portions of the complaint contained
accusations that Mr. Benedek had sexually harassed UTA clients.
Mr. Ostroff also advised UTA that petitioner would file the
complaint unless a settlement could be reached quickly. Mr.
Ostroff informed UTA that he thought petitioner’s claims against
UTA totaled approximately $20 million. Mr. Ostroff estimated the
contract damages to be worth approximately $8 million and the
tort damages, because of the egregious nature of and publicity
surrounding petitioner’s termination, to be worth approximately
$12 million. Petitioner was serious about prosecuting the
complaint in the event a settlement was not reached with UTA.
Mr. Berkus felt that petitioner’s attorneys were being
aggressive and that petitioner’s monetary demand was absurd. Mr.
Berkus scoffed at, and was derisive of, petitioner’s settlement
offer. He felt that petitioner was attempting to extort money
from UTA.
Mr. Dunham spoke for UTA at the April 23 meeting. He
indicated that UTA had the right to fire petitioner without cause
and would owe petitioner only $4 million if he was fired without
cause. UTA’s initial offer was between $2 million and $3
million. UTA adamantly defended its actions.
No agreement was reached between petitioner and UTA at the
April 23 meeting. At the time, Ms. Dillman thought that the
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