- 40 -
now claims to have completed the global settlement agreement.22
Finally, (6) Attorney Forbes’s letter to Mr. Burke dated January
13, 2006, stated that petitioner and related parties had not
accepted the settlement terms and that respondent was “hereby
withdrawing the proposed January 6, 2006 settlement unless
Barbara Drake agrees to the vacatur of the January 11, 2006
Memorandum Decision and January 12, 2006 Order of the Bankruptcy
Court.”23
Based on the administrative record in the instant case, we
conclude that no objective manifestation of mutual assent existed
with respect to the global settlement. Although Mr. Burke and
Attorney Cardone attempted to reach agreement as to most if not
all of the settlement terms outlined in Mr. Cardone’s letter of
December 20, 2005, the record demonstrates that the parties did
not complete an enforceable settlement agreement.24
22We note that Mr. Burke is listed as a counsel of record in
In re Drake, 336 Bankr. 155 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2006), in addition
to representing petitioner in the instant case.
23Attorney Forbes’s letter is consistent with respondent’s
position as set forth in respondent’s “Response to Motion to
Compel”, which contended that the documents sent by Attorney
Cardone to Mr. Burke on Jan. 6, 2006, constituted a settlement
offer requiring the signature of petitioner and the related
parties for acceptance.
24Because we hold that the global settlement agreement is
not enforceable, we need not address whether the Court has
jurisdiction with respect to a settlement agreement governing
parties other than the petitioner.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011