Document v6KbdG04Zmpy4YRvD1nGX4YY9

l/ullt 7 n* *4- LAW OFFICES Cjs* / OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK AND STEWART A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS DONALD A. COCKRILL, P.A. ONE THOUSAND EAST NORTH POST OFFICE BOX 2757 OREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 20602 (803) 242-1410 June 27,1988 OTHER OFFICES: ATLANTA. GEORGIA WASHINGTON. D. C. RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE ALBANY, GEORGIA SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK Peter F. Davey, Esquire (Union Carbide) John Endicott, Esquire (Maxus Energy) Beverly Gholson, Esquire (Georgia Gulf) Gary A. Jones, Esquire (B.F. Goodrich) Richard J. Lorenz, Esquire (Tenneco Oil) Robert D. Luss, Esquire (Occidental) Amy Ng, Esquire (Conoco) Re: Wanda Cox v. Georgia Gulf Corporation, et aL Civil Action Nos. 8:88-1399-3 and 8:88-1400-3 Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed is a letter from the plaintiffs attorney, Bob Ariail, which is selfexplanatory. It is somewhat inaccurate inasmuch as Mr. Ariail did not orally offer to settle the case in a previous conversation. While he casually alluded to that possibility, he did not make any offer. At any rate, he has now made a written offer and we need to consider it. I suggest that we not respond until we have an opportunity to complete our analysis of some of the preliminary legal issues. In the meantime, we will proceed with filing answers by August 1, 1988. Sincerely, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK AND STEWART DAC:vmt Enclosure Donald A. Cockrill PRIVILEGED AND "CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" UCC 079569 ** JACK H. MITCHELL III ROBERT M. ARIAIL LAW OFFICES Mitchell & Akiail lid WILLIAMS STREET S aoooiGreenville, outh Gaholina June 13, 1988 AREA CODE 003 TELEPHONE 271-4*43 Mr. Donald A. Cockrill Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P. O. Box 2757 Greenville, SC 29602 Re: Cox -vs- Georgia Gulf, et al Dear Don: This is to confirm in writing the proposal which I made to you orally early in your involvement in this matter. The proposal is that if a settlement can be reached within a short period of time, my client would be willing to settle the claim for $450,000.00. Furthermore, my client would be willing to settle with each Defendant for their prorata share of $450,000.00 with that share being determined by the number of total Defendants. By that I mean that if there are ultimately nine (9) Defendants involved in this action, she would settle with each for the sum of $50,000.00 provided all agreed to pay $50,000.00. If there are eight Defendants ultimately, then the prorata share would change accordingly. By copy of this letter I am advising Brad Martin who represents Sumitomo of this proposal. I look forward to your response. Yours very truly RMA/fkb c/ Mr. Brad Martin Robert M. Ariail UCC 079570