THE BIG
NUMBERS
OF 1996
Verdicts

Career Move: Don Howarth's clients William B.
Forti and Delores Blanton fought General Dynamics, claiming breach
of oral contract.
|
CASE: Forti v. General Dynamics Corp.,
KC 016 871 (Super Ct., Los Angeles)
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS: Don Howarth
and Brian D. Bubb, of Los Angeles'
Howarth & Smith
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS: Linda L. Listrom
and Gregory S. Gallopoulos. of
Chicago's Jenner & Block; Michael W.
Mugg, of San Bernardino, Calif.'s Mac
Lachlan, Burford& Arias
JURY VERDICT: $107.4 million, reduced
to $37.45 millionIN 1990, William B. Forti was working in business development
and Delores Blanton was working as an administrator at General
Dynamics Corp., when their employer asked them to leave their
positions to help develop a new subsidiary called E-Metrics,
said plaintiffs' attorney Don Howarth. E-Metrics would attempt
to develop commercial products based on General Dynamics patents
in neural network technology.
As founders, Mr. Forti and Ms. Blanton were to receive an
equity share in the subsidiary, Mr. Howarth said. Five other
General Dynamics employees were offered the same deal, he added.
In 1992, General Dynamics sold E-Metrics, along with other
divisions of its Air Research Defense Systems, to Hughes Aircraft
Corp. for about $500 million, Mr. Howarth said. The E-Metrics
employees received nothing from the sale, so Mr. Forti and Ms.
Blanton sued General Dynamics, charging breach of oral contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The other employees did not
sue, Mr. Howarth said.
Company executives denied at trial that any promises of ownership
had been given. General Dynamics also denied that E-Metrics was
worth anything. "E-Metrics was never able to find customers
or outside investors for its technology," the company said
in a public statement.
But on July 26, 1996, a Los Angeles jury awarded each plaintiff
$3.7 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitives,
for a total of $107.4 million. In October, Superior Court Judge
Chris R. Conway sliced the punitives from $100 million to $30
million, then added $50,000 to the judgment for costs. The case
is on appeal. |