- 42 -
intended to pay for petitioner’s direct claims and was not
necessarily intended to include claims of libel, slander, and
emotional distress as later alluded to in the Implementing
Agreement.
Moreover, it is the absence of knowledge of the claim by Mr.
Boyle and Ormet that is most damaging to petitioner. The basis
of the controversies between petitioner and Ormet centered around
issues dealing with directors’ rights in a contest for corporate
control and petitioner’s rights pursuant to the Option Agreement.
These claims are essentially contractual in nature. The record
reflects that these disputes were petitioner’s and Ormet’s
primary concern in conducting and settling the Six Lawsuits.
Petitioner’s attorney, Mr. Conner, wanted Ormet’s attorney,
Mr. Bachman, to allocate the $12 million to the personal injury
claims that petitioner had not filed, but Mr. Bachman, Mr. Boyle,
and Ormet were unwilling to do so. In fact, Mr. Bachman
testified that Ormet did not spend any time defending against
claims for libel or slander because there were none filed by
petitioner.
VI. Conclusion
Petitioners have not demonstrated that the $12 million
payment Mr. Bradley received from Ormet was “on account of
personal injuries or sickness”. Moreover, the Court will not
speculate as to unstated possible reasons for the settlement nor
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011