- 8 -
Cravenses than respondent’s 7-percent reduction project
settlement offer, which had been available to Kersting project
participants during 1982 through 1988.
In Dixon II, the Court sustained almost all of respondent’s
deficiency determinations in the test cases. After the Court
entered decisions for respondent in the test cases in accordance
with Dixon II, respondent’s management discovered the Thompson
and Cravens settlements and disclosed them to the Court. On June
9, 1992, respondent filed motions for leave to file motions to
vacate the decisions entered against the Thompsons, the
Cravenses, and another test case petitioner, Ralph J. Rina
(Rina). Respondent asked the Court to conduct an evidentiary
hearing to determine whether the undisclosed agreements with the
Thompsons and the Cravenses had affected the trial of the test
cases or the opinion of the Court. In the meantime (on May 14,
1992), the other test case petitioners, who continued to be
represented by Izen, had appealed the Court’s decisions against
them.
On June 22, 1992, the Court granted respondent’s motions to
vacate the decisions filed in the Thompson and Cravens cases and
denied respondent’s request for an evidentiary hearing. By order
dated June 22, 1992, the Court also denied respondent’s motion to
vacate the decision against Rina, on the ground that the
testimony, stipulated facts, and exhibits relating to 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