- 48 -
Allen, wished to offer the same settlement to the test case
petitioners on appeal that the Thompsons had received: A 65-
percent reduction in deficiencies (an approximation of the
reduction of the Thompsons’ originally determined deficiencies
from $79,294 to the $30,000 figure finally agreed upon).
Bakutes was opposed to settling the appealed cases on that basis.
There is no evidence that the DOJ made any such settlement offer
to the test case petitioners on appeal.
On July 16, 1992, DeCastro filed a motion for entry of
decision in the Thompsons’ cases, on the terms of his settlement
agreement with McWade; i.e., deficiencies of zero, $15,000, and
$15,000 for 1979-1981, respectively.
On August 20, 1992, respondent filed objections to
DeCastro’s motion for entry of decision, together with
respondent’s own motion for entry of decision. Respondent’s
motion sought a decision that reflected the original 18.8-percent
reduction settlement agreed to by McWade and DeCastro in December
1986.21
21Respondent’s motion stated that the December 1986
agreement between DeCastro, Sims, and McWade to reduce the
Thompsons’ deficiencies by 18.8 percent exceeded the terms of the
standard 7-percent reduction settlement offer. Nevertheless,
respondent conceded: “Respondent’s counsel possessed the
authority to make such an offer, and such offer was accepted by
petitioners herein as well as others.” Respondent also noted the
“approximately 20 percent” reduction settlement offers previously
made to other participants. Respondent’s motion further
(continued...)
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011