Charles E. and Noel K. Bradley - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
               On March 31, 1994, Ms. Boyle transferred her 29,273 Oralco             
          shares back to Mr. Boyle.  Mr. Boyle, in turn, transferred                  
          120,967.5 EAC II shares to Ms. Boyle.  Mr. Boyle then caused                
          Oralco to purchase Ms. Boyle’s 120,967.5 EAC II shares for                  
          $14,400,000.  To finance Oralco’s purchase of Ms. Boyle’s EAC II            
          shares, Bancboston Financial Company (Bancboston) acting through            
          its employee, David L. Risdon (Mr. Risdon), lent $14,400,000 to             
          Oralco.  These actions prevented petitioner from exercising his             
          stock purchase option with Ms. Boyle because the event triggering           
          the Option Agreement never occurred.                                        
               On March 31, 1994, the Circuit Court denied petitioner’s               
          motion to intervene in the Boyles’ divorce proceeding on the                
          theory that petitioner’s interests were adequately protected by             
          existing parties.20  This action prompted petitioner to appeal              
          the order to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.  On June           
          16, 1995, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia upheld              






               19(...continued)                                                       
          for any and all losses, liabilities, judgments, awards, damages,            
          assessments, charges, fines, penalties, costs, attorney’s fees,             
          and expenses paid, suffered or incurred by Ms. Boyle arising out            
          of any claim, demand, action, suit, or proceeding brought by                
          petitioner resulting from Ms. Boyle’s actions in compliance with            
          the final divorce decree.                                                   
               20 This is lawsuit number four of the Six Lawsuits.  See               
          also supra note 3.                                                          




Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011