- 5 -
where he requested a continuance until the Court’s March 10,
2003, trial session in Columbus, Ohio. After extended discussion
in two hearings of the merits of a continuance, which respondent
opposed, and the establishment of a timetable under which
petitioners would supply information to respondent’s trial
counsel, a continuance was granted.
On March 7, 2003, Mr. Wolfe and Joel S. Brant, Mr.
McCarthy’s associate, attended settlement negotiations with
respondent. By day’s end, the parties had reached agreement on a
basis for settling all issues. Respondent’s counsel agreed to
draft a stipulation of settled issues for petitioners to review,
which was provided to petitioners on Saturday, March 8, 2003.
Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe forwarded the draft stipulation to Mr.
Mansour, who expressed his belief that petitioners should not
have agreed to certain of its terms. In particular, he believed
that respondent had double counted some of WFO’s income and
included some WFO income in the wrong year. After hearing Mr.
Mansour’s views, Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe refused to approve the draft
stipulation and insisted on continuing negotiations with
respondent.
The parties had not resolved the issues that Mr. Mansour
raised by the March 10, 2003, calendar call in Columbus, Ohio,
which Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe attended. Counsel reported that the
parties had not reached a settlement, and we set trial for the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011