- 6 -
the parties’ attorneys. During the conference call, the trial
Judge expressed a generally unfavorable view of the estate’s
position in these cases. After the call, Mr. Harkavy contacted
Mrs. Peterson concerning the conference call and explained that
the Judge had a negative view of the estate’s position. Mr.
Harkavy recommended to Mrs. Peterson that they should attempt to
reinstate the December 1999 settlement offer. Mrs. Peterson
agreed to that course of action based on her belief that “the
Judge had already made up his mind”.4
Mr. Harkavy contacted Mr. Klinghoffer and inquired whether
settlement was still possible. Mrs. Peterson was contacted by
Mr. Harkavy at approximately noon on October 3, 2000, and was
advised that negotiations were ongoing and that a final decision
would have to be made by 5:00 p.m. that same day. Prior to that
time, Mrs. Peterson had learned that the estate’s accountant was
being called as a favorable witness for respondent. Mrs.
Peterson contacted her accountant on October 3, 2000, to garner
his support for the estate’s position, but he refused.
Ultimately, on October 3, 2000, Mrs. Peterson called Mr.
Harkavy’s office and agreed to the settlement, which ended up
being the same as the offer made by Appeals during December 1999.
The terms of the settlement agreement were embodied in a
Stipulation of Agreed Issues and signed by Mr. Harkavy on October
4 The pretrial Judge is a different Judge from the one who
is considering the estate’s motions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011