This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Breach of Contract
Promissory Fraud
Breach of Purchase Agreement

Russell T. Gilbert v. M.A. Hanna Company

Published: Oct. 25, 1997 | Result Date: Sep. 23, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 759747 –  $0

Judge

Dennis S. Choate

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael J. Collins

Cormac J. Carney


Defendant

Paul Rianda

Gregory G. Brown
(Brown & Charbonneau LLP)


Facts

The plaintiff, Russell T. Gilbert, was the president of CIMCO, Inc. from the company's inception until February 1996. CIMCO was a company with annual sales of over $80 million that had two main divisions. The molding division produced plastic injection molded parts. The other division called Compounding Technologies, Inc. ("CTI"), produced plastic compounds. The defendants, M.A. Hanna Company, ("Hanna") wished to acquire CTI to expand its product and geographic base. Defendant Hanna was not interested in purchasing CIMCO's molding business. However, CIMCO would not sell only CTI to Hanna. CIMCO wanted to sell the entire company, both CTI and the molding division, to defendant Hanna. Consequently, Hanna purchased the entire company in January 1996 for approximately $52 million. After the merger between Hanna and CIMCO in January of 1996, the plaintiff made an offer to purchase the molding business. Defendant Hanna made a counter-offer to plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant Hanna engaged an investment banking firm to sell the molding division to the general investing public. In addition, defendant Hanna invited plaintiff to participate in the process, but he declined to do so. Eventually, the molding division was sold to another injection molder, Intesys Technologies, for approximately $14 million. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on breach of contract and promissory fraud theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $5,650,000. The defendant made an offer of compromise for $350,000.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $11,286,916 in "benefit of the bargain" damages due to his failure to purchase the molding division. In addition, he alleged punitive damages under his promissory fraud claim.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and seven months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held on Oct. 18, 1996 before Judge Dennis Choate that did not result in any meaningful change in the partie's settlement positions.

Deliberation

three hours

Poll

12-0 (promissory fraud); 10-2 (breach of contract)

Length

10 days


#79670

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390