Current Year Case Updates
|Case Updates for 2002|
Prior Case Updates for: 2012—2011—2010—2009—2008—2007—2006—2005—2004—2003—2002—2001
Progress Reported on Tax Issue
Judge Smith Defers Decision Until Tax Issue Resolved
The update below was provided by our attorney, Don S. Willner:
“On November 19th, there was a long conference between attorneys for the Department of Justice representing the Internal Revenue Service and IRS experts, attorneys and experts for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the receiver of Benj. Franklin), and our attorneys and experts. We all agreed that this was a confidential compromise and settlement conference held in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
We and the FDIC will be submitting additional information and argument which will be carefully reviewed by the Chief Counsel of the IRS. We have agreed to extend the deadlines for the Government and the FDIC to file further papers in the Federal District Courts until February 3, 2003, in order to allow for full discussion and hopefully resolution of our differences. I believe progress is being made. I wish I could tell you more, but this is not allowed under the rules of our conference.
Then, on November 21st, I argued the Motions for Reconsideration before Judge Smith of the Claims Court. The government attorney said that we are entitled to no damages for the seizure of Benj. Franklin.
My argument was that, even assuming that market value of Benj. stock is a fair measure of damages, using the date one day before the passage of FIRREA - the law which caused our seizure - is not fair. We are arguing that the value of the stock was depressed in response to the anticipated passage of FIRREA, and therefore an earlier date should be chosen.
Judge Smith said that he wanted to hear the results of the tax negotiations before making his decision, and called for a status conference in March. He did say that we will be entitled to whatever portion of the $90 million now in the receivership which is not subject to the tax, plus his final award.
There is, of course, a potential appeal by either side. The fight for justice goes on.”
Don S. Willner
Letter to Shareholders
Closed Meeting to Discuss Tax Issue A Positive Development
Letter to Shareholders
Fellow BENJ Shareholders:
As you can see from Don Willner’s update
(below), things are finally starting to move after all these years. Thanks
in large part to the exceptional counsel provided by Mr. Willner and his team
over these many years, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Taking all
indications into account, we feel that our chances for success are very
However, like many of you, we are frustrated
with the time and expense required to win justice for BENJ shareholders. The
next few weeks are arguably be the most important of this entire process as our
attorneys prepare for two pivotal events later this month.
We anticipate the expenses associated with
the upcoming meeting and oral argument in Washington D.C. are going to be high.
While many shareholders have contributed, many others are taking it for granted
that "the other people" will carry the burden for their cause. Indeed,
some have contributed more than their “fair share”, and their support is
greatly appreciated. However, democracy is not a spectator sport - sometimes it
requires making sacrifices.
As a matter of course, we must ask all BENJ
shareholders to support the fight for justice by making a financial contribution
immediately. You will have the satisfaction of knowing that you personally
helped right a wrong with the Federal Government and that you made a
difference that benefited ALL BENJ shareholders -
not just yourself.
The exciting news that the IRS and the FDIC
want to "talk" is the best news we have had in a long, long time.
Please help us succeed. Send your check to:
S. Willner, Trustee
Franklin Shareholders Litigation Fund
S.W. Naito Parkway, Suite C303
the Lead Plaintiffs
Closed Meeting to Discuss Tax Issue A Positive Development
Judge Smith Schedules Motion to Reconsider Argument
Update provided by our attorney, Don Willner.
The week of November 18 will be busy for the Benj. Franklin team. First, on Tuesday November 19th, there will be a closed meeting with the attorneys and tax advisors of the U.S. Department of Justice (attorneys for the IRS), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the receiver for Benj. Franklin), and Benj. Franklin. The discussions, by agreement between the parties, will be confidential.
We believe that there is no tax owed for Federal Financial Assistance provided to the receivership and a very slight corporate tax. The position of the government and the FDIC is not known, but will be made available two weeks prior to the meeting.
It is our hope that the tax matter can be fairly resolved at this meeting, but obviously an agreement requires the consent of all three parties. We have been trying to get such a meeting for years and the fact that these two agencies are now willing to meet is favorable.
Second, after Judge Smith’s decision in the Claims Court case, in which he awarded Benj. Franklin shareholders approximately $35 million, both sides filed Motions for Reconsideration – we argued for more and the government for less. Most Motions for Reconsideration are summarily denied. But in our case, Judge Smith instructed us each to file written briefs, which means that the matter was given serious consideration. Judge Smith has set oral argument for November 21st. Obviously, it is the forthcoming decision on the Motions for Reconsideration that counts, but the granting of briefs and oral argument is unusual and therefore favorable. The Claims Court argument is open to the public and will take place at 3:30 p.m. in the United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW, Washington D.C. 20005.
There is much work to be done during the next two weeks to prepare for the tax conference and the oral argument in the Claims Court.
Prospects on Tax Issue Improve
We have received the
following report from our attorney, Don S. Willner:
Don's report shows real progress.
Until now, the government was not willing even to
discuss the tax issue with us, the representatives of the shareholders. However,
the work on the tax issue continues to be costly. We hope that those of you who
have not contributed your 25 cents per share will pay it now. We especially need
help from the new shareholders. Please send your check to:
Don S. Willner, Trustee
Benj. Franklin Shareholders Litigation
200 S.W. Naito Parkway, Suite C303
Portland, OR 97204
Shareholders Letter - Legal Fees
Summary Report from Don S. Wilner
August 19, 2002
We are enthusiastic about the progress report filed by our attorneys (see below). We will continue to post progress reports as they become available.
Earlier this year, when the FDIC initiated transfer of the receivership funds to the IRS, our legal battle quickly increased from one to three litigations. As a result, we have experienced an unforeseen increase in legal fees, all of which must be borne by the lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs and 499 other shareholders have responded to our request for contributions this year. In fact, many long time shareholders have contributed more than their “fair share”.
However, we have noticed a worrisome trend that undermines our ability to continue the fight. Shareholders that recently purchased shares have been reticent in their financial support. In order to effectively fight the government – now on three legal fronts – we need shareholders that have not contributed to please do so. As in the past, we ask that shareholders contribute at least $0.25 per share.
Finally, it is important that we have your name, address, email address, and number of shares held. This information is necessary to properly distribute funds at the conclusion of the litigation. New shareholders should send their names and addresses by email to this website and send their "fair share" contributions of $0.25 per share to Don S. Willner, Trustee of the Benj. Franklin Shareholders Litigation Fund, 200 S.W. Naito Parkway, Suite 303, Portland, OR 97204. In the event of victory, all financial contributions will be repaid first. If we win, all of us win, but lawsuits are expensive.
The Lead Plaintiffs
August 19, 2002
Report from our attorney, Don S. Willner
Here is where we stand:
The decision of Judge Smith to request briefing on the pending Motions for
Reconsideration, and the decision of the FDIC not to voluntarily transfer the
receivership balance to the IRS resulting in the IRS suing FDIC are victories
WILLNER U’REN & HOOTON, LLP
Don S. Willner
Court Orders Responding Briefs
Taxing Legal Issues Remain in Limbo
Here is a report from our attorney, Don S. Willner
for Reconsideration of Judge Smith’s Award of $35 Million.
Both sides have filed Motions for Reconsideration. Most Motions for Reconsideration are summarily denied, and responding briefs may only be filed if ordered by the Court. Judge Smith has ordered that responding briefs be filed by July 24, 2002, and has promised an early decision. We are working hard on our briefs. Ordering the filing of further briefs is an important first step.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the receiver of Benj. Franklin, told me, by letter, that FDIC was considering turning the balance in the receivership, now close to $100 million, over to the IRS, and would not give us advance notice. Our response was to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order, from Chief Judge Haggerty of the Oregon Federal Court, preventing FDIC from turning over the money until a hearing on our request for a Preliminary Injunction. In its response to our motion, the FDIC attorneys raised procedural objections, and also wrote in their brief to Judge Haggerty that they were seeking authority from the Board of Directors of FDIC to file an “interpleader”, which is a court proceeding naming the IRS and us as competing claimants for the funds in the receivership, and paying the money into court, so a judge could decide whether it belongs to IRS or to the Shareholders. The Board of FDIC does not meet until August, but the recommendation of their attorneys is important, but not binding. Judge Haggerty then denied the Preliminary Injunction, and we have filed for reconsideration of this ruling.
the IRS’ statutory deadline for suing the FDIC to collect the money was June
19, 2002. On
June 17, 2002, the IRS sued the FDIC, in the Federal Court in Washington D.C.,
to collect the money. The IRS complaint says that FDIC “has neglected,
refused, or failed” to pay the receivership funds over to the IRS.
the FDIC was previously threatening to turn the money over to the IRS, but now
refuses to do so pending judicial determination of who owns the money, we have
achieved an important preliminary victory.
The FDIC has promised to keep me “in the loop”.
I am trying to keep FDIC and us fully involved in the litigation that
determines who owns the receivership funds.
Obviously, I cannot put on a public web site all of our strategy, but we are receiving the best tax and legal advice that can be found.
Motion for Reconsideration Filed
Court Denies Preliminary Injunction
The report below is from our attorney, Don S. Willner
We are now fighting for the shareholders on two fronts.
1. Suess et al v. United States (U.S. Court of Federal Claims). We have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the judgment. Our original argument at trial was that we were entitled to damages for loss of profits (expectancy/and loss of the value of the franchise (restitution). The judgment gave us only the market price of Benj. Franklin stock the day before the passage of FIRREA (August 8, 1999) which was just under $35 million. A Motion for Reconsideration is not supposed to reargue the case, but rather focus on matters the Court overlooked. Our motion accepts the court’s theory of market price for the purpose of the motion only, and argues (a) an earlier date should be chosen to value market price (we chose the date that President Bush prepared the new legislation), (b) we are entitled to a premium for change of control (transfer of membership of the whole corporation is worth more per share than sale of individual shares); and (c) this money should be paid to the shareholders, not placed in the receivership. The government submitted a Motion for Reconsideration, which says we are entitled to nothing.
Under Claims Court rules, there is no response to Motions for Reconsideration unless ordered by the Court, and many such motions are summarily denied. We have been advised that Judge Smith will order responding briefs. This is a good start. We have also filed a cost bill for $280 thousand to be added to the judgment.
2. Suess et al v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (United States District Court for the District of Oregon) There is close to $90 million in the FDIC receivership and it is our position that this money should stay there until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules on our forthcoming appeal from Judge Smith’s Opinion, after completion of the Motion for Reconsideration. The Internal Revenue Service is now demanding the money. We filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order which was granted for a two week period by Judge Haggerty. Unfortunately our request for a preliminary injunction (which lasts longer) was denied. We are discussing the next step with FDIC and trying to prevent transfer of this money to the IRS.
I am working closely with our new Washington, D.C. attorney, Jerry Stouck, and other members of our legal team. We are thankful for the recent financial contribution; of $67,570.90 from the shareholders. The unexpected IRS demand for the money in the receivership means more legal work and more expense, but we have to defend our position that the money in the receivership belongs to the shareholders.
Hearing Date Reset for Restraining Order
Chief Judge Ancer L. Haggerty will preside over a hearing to consider the Restraining Order (see below) on Tuesday, July 2, 2002 at 9:00 AM. The hearing will be held in Portland at the United States District Court of Oregon, 1000 S. W. 3rd Avenue. You are invited and encouraged to attend. It should prove to be a very interesting hearing!
Final Judgment Entered and Restraining Order Granted
June 19, 2002 (afternoon)
The FDIC (with new attorneys) phoned our attorney, Don Willner, at length today and requested a postponement of the preliminary injunction hearing set for June 25th. They could probably have obtained both of these postponements by Motion to the Court, so Mr. Willner agreed to the postponements. We will post an update when the new hearing date is reset.
The Benj. Franklin Shareholders Litigation Fund
June 19, 2002 (morning)
There recently have been three important positive events effecting our litigation.
First, you will remember Judge Smith’s $35 million award of April 1, 2002. On June 6, 2002, Judge Smith entered his final judgment, therefore allowing us to file a Motion for Reconsideration. This will be filed on June 20, 2002. The purpose of the Motion is to offer information which hopefully may change portions of his decision.
Following his final judgment, we then have 60 days to file an appeal with The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Yesterday, our attorney, Don Willner, requested and received a very timely and important temporary restraining order from the United States District Court of Oregon. It will prevent The FDIC from transferring money from the Benj. Franklin Receivership account to the IRS.
A copy of the Restraining Order follows which will provide additional information. Please note that a hearing will be held in Portland, Tuesday, June 25th at 9:00 AM before Chief Judge Ancer L. Haggerty in the United States District Court of Oregon, 1000 S. W. 3rd Avenue. You are invited and encouraged to attend. It should prove to be a very interesting hearing!
Lastly, on the website, please look at the letters posted May 9th to shareholders. Many of you were generous with your support and we thank you. As of June 18th, 413 shareholders have forwarded funds to the Litigation Fund. If you have not done so already, we urge you to commit funds to support the important work ahead.
Don S. Willner
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
on plaintiffs’ verified complaint, the materials attached to the affidavit of
Don S. Willner,
the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and for an order to
show cause why a
preliminary injunction should not issue, and plaintiffs’ memorandum of law,
and the Affidavit
of plaintiffs’ attorney that all of the documents in the file were faxed to
Bruce Taylor, the
attorney for defendant immediately after the filing of the complaint, it
DATED this 17th day of June 2002.
L. Haggerty /s/
United States District Court Judge
for Plaintiffs Suess et al
Shareholder letter from former BENJ. Administrators.
of you will recognize one or more of the people who signed this letter. Dale
Weight was the last CEO. Wendell Wyatt served as Vice-Chairman of the Board
and is probably better remembered as a member of the United States Congress.
Some will remember Bob Hazen, former CEO, and his early morning radio show.
Bob Downie is also a former CEO and Don McIntyre operated the lending
reason we are sending this to you is that we are unanimous in our support of
the shareholders suit. Don
Willner’s letter explains what actions must now be taken, and the expenses
to accomplish a final win for you.
We urge you to provide funds to support the action. As a reminder, in the event of victory you funds will be returned to you before any general distribution of funds. Timing is important, please mail your check now.
Two letters to shareholders, one from Richard Green for the plaintiffs and one from our attorney, Don Willner
By now you have
most likely seen or read the Opinion of Judge Smith on our lawsuit to recover
damages as a result of the government seizure of Benj. Franklin.
This decision sets the damages for the untimely demise of Benj.
Franklin 12 years ago at $35 million, a valuation which even
Judge Smith says is "far less in economic terms than it is owed…(and)
grossly inadequate in view of the damages actually suffered by Franklin."
Don Willner, our
attorney, believes that this decision is seriously flawed, and that there is a
reasonable likelihood that we can improve the award on appeal.
However, he cautioned us that there is still substantial risk,
particularly in view of the unresolved tax issue
The plaintiffs in
this case, Bob Suess, Leo Sherry, Richard Green, Peter Baker, Mike Foster, and
Abe Siemens (representing Dr. Irving Roberts), are obviously very disappointed
by this decision. We met on April 18th
and 19th to discuss the future of this case and how best to seek restitution
for the damages done to all of us. We resolved to fight on.
We are committed to continuing
the fight for justice for the 6,500 shareholders of Benj. Franklin.
Toward that end,
we have hired Jerry Stouck to serve as co-counsel.
Jerry Stouck is a Washington, D.C. attorney with extensive experience
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court that will hear
our appeal. Don is also consulting a
leading expert on the tax issues. Don's
letter provides his best estimate of approximately $250,000 to continue the
appeal effort on your behalf. Although
we do not yet have an estimate for tax issues, Don and his team have made a
commitment to keeping the costs of litigation low, and will continue to do so.
Your most loyal
protagonist, Bob Suess, has pledged interim financial assistance.
The other plaintiffs have also made additional and substantial personal
financial commitments toward continuing the fight. However, we still need your help
in order to proceed! We are
profoundly grateful for your donations over the last twelve years.
We are also aware that Bob made a commitment to the nearly 4,000 of you
who did contribute your "fair share," that we would not ask for
added contributions, and we will honor that commitment as a matter of
We are asking that
shareholders who have not contributed their "fair share" to please
make an immediate contribution of $.25
per share to the Benj. Franklin Shareholder Litigation Fund and mail it to
Don S. Willner, Trustee BFSLF, at 200 SW Naito Parkway Suite 303, Portland,
Oregon 97204-3500. If you have already
contributed and wish to add to that contribution, we are again truly grateful
for your support. If you are one of the many who recently purchased Benj. Franklin shares,
we ask that you also contribute your "fair share" of $.25 per share
- consider it an investment in our joint fight for justice!
As a reminder, if
we are successful in removing the tax problem and if we prevail in our appeal,
both of which involve risk, shareholder contributions to the trust fund will
be repaid before any general distribution.
Many of you look at our web site. For those of you who have not yet seen it, we urge you to keep up with the latest news at www.benfranklinoregon.org. A copy of the Judge Smith's opinion can be found at the following web site: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Smith/02/SMITH.Suess.PDF.
the Plaintiffs, C. Robert Suess, et al. v. the United States
& HOOTON, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 1, 2002
This is a supplement to the many reports that I have written to you since 1990.
We finished the trial on damages on September 17, 1999, and U.S. Claims Court Senior Judge Loren Smith filed his decision on April 1, 2002. It was a victory, but a small one. We received a judgment for $35 million. Here are the rulings:
Motions for reconsideration are due ten days from the date of the date of the Judgment, which is not yet entered. Notices of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must be filed within 60 days of the Judgment. I am now in discussions with a tax expert who believes that the IRS tax claim is not correct. We will be taking appropriate action and will provide more information when available.
The plaintiffs welcome the victory, but believe the amount of damages set by Judge Smith are clearly insufficient. In my professional judgment, there are errors in the Court's Opinion and reasonable chances of increasing the amount awarded. Toward that end, we have added Jerry Stouck, to our legal team. Jerry Stouck is a prominent Washington, D.C. attorney with a winning record in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where our appeal will be heard.
It is clear that we have substantial work ahead. Although it is very difficult to estimate future expenses in advance, my best estimate for the Motions to Reconsider, and the Appeal, is $250,000. I cannot yet give you an estimate in connection with the tax matter. Over 4000 shareholders have contributed nearly $3 million to the financing of this case thus far, with the plaintiffs contributing substantially more than their fair share.
The plaintiffs are committed to continuing the fight for justice for the 6,500 shareholders of Benj. Franklin. I, and the other members of the legal team, pledge that we will do everything possible to remedy the wrong, and make the dream of full justice for the shareholders a reality.
U’REN & HOOTON, LLP
Don S. Willner
Plaintiffs Develop Strategy for Appeal
The lead plaintiffs held a very productive strategy meeting April 18th & 19th . On the advice of our attorney, Don Willner, we have elected to proceed with the appeal of our case to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. We believe that this will be a fruitful step towards a fair settlement. Mr. Willner has assembled an excellent team of attorneys to aid in this effort.
It is expected that Judge Smith, after reviewing our Motion for Reconsideration, will enter his final judgment later this week. Following his response, we will then have 60 days to file a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Currently, our attorneys are working to resolve a tax assessment that arises out of the IRS’s belief that federal financial assistance (“FFA”), provided in connection with the disposal of certain BENJ. Franklin assets, is taxable income to Benj. Franklin or its successors, namely the FDIC. We expect this issue to be resolved prior to the time U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit hears our case.
Finally, we are working up a cost estimate to settle the tax issue and complete the appeal. It will be incumbent upon all shareholders, including those that recently purchased BENJI stock, to support this effort. We expect to have this estimate available within 10 days.
We wish to thank those many shareholders for their generous support of the BENJ Franklin Litigation Fund in the past. We are especially appreciative of the recent support by shareholders to continue the fight for a fair and just conclusion.
Response to Court's Decision Under Consideration
Our attorney, Don Willner, is considering the best course of action in light of the very disappointing decision by Judge Smith yesterday (see below). We will keep you posted as more information becomes available.
For those interested in reading the entire opinion, it is available online at:
Click on Suess. In the meantime, don't give up, we still have options.
The Lead Plaintiffs.
Report from Don S. Willner
April 1, 2002, Judge Smith gave us a very small victory – an award of about
$35 million, which was the market value of Benj. Franklin on August 6, 1989,
the day before the passage of FIRREA.
This was the congressional law which broke the agreement with Benj.
Franklin and led to the seizure.
had sought the value that Benj. Franklin would have had at the time of trial
if it had not been seized.
Judge Smith said our proof was flawed and too speculative.
a fallback position we sought $163 million that Bank of America actually paid
for the assets of Benj. Franklin in September 1990, plus the additional value
that Bank of America believed Benj. Franklin had at that time. Judge Smith, to
my surprise, rejected this evidence.
The approximately $35 million is a gross amount. There are still expenses and costs, and also an IRS tax claim against the receivership. There is also about $80 million in the receivership, and if we can defeat or minimize the tax claim, this could be additional money for the shareholders.
award is insufficient and I am now evaluating the chances of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Another savings and loan case called Bluebonnet received nothing
at the trial level; this was reversed on appeal, and Bluebonnet has just been
awarded $132 million, the full amount it was seeking.
order to get a more objective view of our situation, I have retained Jerry
Stouck of Washington D.C., a prominent attorney who regularly wins cases in
the court which would hear our appeal, to join our team.
He will first evaluate our chances on appeal.
government is considering a Motion for Reconsideration.
If filed, this motion will delay the start of the appeal.
Our team is also considering a Motion for Reconsideration.
I will keep you posted.
Judge Smith Renders Decision
Judge Smith rendered a long awaited decision today. The decision included the amount for BENJ shareholders for the amount of $35 million or $4.54 per share. More details to follow.
Our attorney, Don Willner received word this afternoon from Judge Smith's office that the decision scheduled for release tomorrow, March 29th has been delayed. The decision has been rescheduled for release Monday, April 1st at 5:00 PM EST. This latest delay is disappointing for everyone.
We will post an update on this Web site as soon as information is available.
Decision Expected This Week
In a phone call on Monday, March 25th with our attorney, Don Willner and the attorney for the government, Judge Smith's Administrator said that Judge Smith intends to issue the decision at 5 p.m. eastern time on Friday March 29. Please do not call or e-mail for further information. This is all we know at this time and hopefully we will not be disappointed by another delay.
The BENJ Case is Mentioned by Judge Smith
(THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE WAS POSTED AT THE MERITOR WEB SITE. SEE www.meritorpsfs.com FOR FURTHER DETAILS. While there are obvious implications to our case, this new information is greeted with cautious optimism. OUR THANKS TO THE MERITOR SHAREHOLDERS FOR SHARING THIS INFORMATION.)
"We attended a hearing this afternoon on the subject of the government's motion to remove jurisdiction from the Court of Claims on the basis that the FDIC is a "non-appropriated funds instrumentality" ("NAFI"). (See Sept. 10 update on web site). As you may recall, this motion has been outstanding for over a year now and it is thought that in finally scheduling a hearing, the court was signaling that it was clearing the decks for its final verdict."Even if we could somehow predict how Judge Smith will rule on the NAFI motion, we would not be so bold as to do so. Suffice to say, however, that we were pleased by his line of questioning. More important, we had a conversation with a court official in the hallway before the hearing began and the court official was quite emphatic that the Slattery/Meritor case was a "top priority" and would be decided in the spring. Even more encouraging, at the end of the hearing, Judge Smith himself stated in open court that he will rule on the motion AND hand down the trial verdict simultaneously within 60 to 90 days. He also stated that his decision in the Suess/Ben Franklin case will come "shortly", which he later defined as "within 30 days". While there have, in the past, been other "predictions" by court personnel as to when our case would be ruled upon, we are encouraged by the fact that this is the first time that Judge Smith himself has promised a deadline. He acknowledged that both cases had "gone on far too long".
See related story in The Oregonian: http://oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/business/10147281362165072.xml
Decision on Suess to be Announced First
attorney, Don Willner, reports that he is doing everything appropriate within
his power to get an early decision.
Judge Smith has announced that he will complete his work on two other
delayed decisions in Meritor and Glendale Federal after he files
the Suess decision.
In other words, the Meritor and Glendale plaintiffs are
also anxious to have Suess decided.
We will immediately put on our website any new information that is
this appears on the Meritor website:
“As you will recall, Ben Franklin Savings is the case in front of ours on Judge Smith’s “to-do” list. Don Willner, the attorney for Ben Franklin, has some insightful comments and advice on their website, which is located at www.benfranklinoregon.org. With respect to not sending letters to Judge Smith, we couldn’t agree more. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT.”
Judge Smith Urged to Prioritize the Suess Case
|Our attorney, Don Willner, reports that Federal Claims Court former Chief Judge Smith (who is the judge in our case) and the current Chief Judge, Chief Judge Baskir, met with the plaintiffs and the government coordinating committees on December 20th, 2001. A member of the plaintiffs coordinating committee specifically asked Judge Smith to give priority to completing the Suess decision. Judge Smith responded that he was working on the Suess decision as a vehicle to analyze all of the recent Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decisions on damages in the saving and loan cases. This analysis may be a reason for the delay in completing our decision. Certainly, Judge Smith is giving our case priority.|
This Website was originally designed by Digital
Information Design and revised by
Micro Chips Webs. If you have technical problems with this Website send mail to
Copyright © 2001-2012 Benj. Franklin Shareholders Litigation Fund.