- 6 -
afternoon of Wednesday, March 12, 2003. We selected the
afternoon of March 12 because Mr. McCarthy had oral argument
scheduled for the morning of March 12 before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The parties continued negotiating over the points Mr.
Mansour had raised, but respondent refused to change his
position. Mr. Brant met with Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe and reviewed the
two issues Mr. Mansour had raised. He explained that, while
arguments could be raised and presented at trial, respondent
would not compromise either of the issues. On the afternoon of
March 11, Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe met with Messrs. McCarthy and Brant
and asked that they make one last attempt to convince respondent
to concede the disputed points and to determine whether
respondent would consider reducing some of the penalties.
Messrs. McCarthy and Brant telephoned respondent’s counsel,
Stephen J. Neubeck, to convey the Wolfes’ position and were
advised that respondent would agree to reduce some of the
penalties but would make no adjustments on the other issues.
After reporting on respondent’s final position, Mr. McCarthy
informed petitioners that it was time either to accept the
settlement as offered or to go to trial the next day. He asked
Mrs. Wolfe whether she accepted the settlement on behalf of
herself and WFO. She said yes. Mr. McCarthy then asked Mr.
Wolfe whether he accepted the settlement. He said yes. Mr.
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