- 25 -
subject to the respective partnership agreements for such part-
nerships.
On March 28, 1996, the parties in the litigation among the
children and their respective attorneys executed an amendment to
the 1994 plan for settlement (1996 amendment to the 1994 plan for
settlement). At the time they executed that 1996 amendment, the
parties in the litigation among the children contemplated signing
a third settlement agreement in which they would amend and
restate both the 1994 plan for settlement and the 1996 amendment
to that plan, which, as discussed below, they did. Ms. Stone and
Mr. Stone were not parties to the 1996 amendment to the 1994 plan
for settlement, and neither of them signed that document.
With respect to the issues relating to the trusts, the 1996
amendment to the 1994 plan for settlement did not change any of
the provisions of that plan relating to such issues.
With respect to the issues relating to the children’s
concerns regarding Mr. Stone’s and Ms. Stone’s assets, the 1996
amendment to the 1994 plan for settlement provided in part as
follows:
3. CEDAR MOUNTAIN DIVISION
In implementation of * * * [the paragraph of]
the June 3, 1994 Plan of Settlement [requiring arbitra-
tion of any disputes among the children regarding
section VI of that plan], the parties agree as follows:
(i) The parties agree to the two-page Cedar Moun-
tain division map * * * which has been signed
by * * * [the children].
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011