Viewing page 68 of 73

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-67-

[[underline]] Litigation Report [[/underline]]

Developments since the January 1976 report to the Regents in current litigation involving the Institution are as follows:

1. [[underline]] Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises, Inc. [[/underline]] v. [[underline]] Smithsonian Institution [[/underline]]

In this libel action involving a Smithsonian federal employee summary judgment was granted in favor of the Institution, but the decision has been appealed by the plaintiff. The case was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals on September 18, 1975. An opinion is expected in the near future.

2. [[underline]] Claims Arising out of Construction of the Hirshhorn Museum [[/underline]]

As previously reported, claims have been filed by the contractor and various subcontractors employed in the construction of the Hirshhorn Museum. Three of the larger claims have been decided in favor of the contractor, Piracci, Inc., by the General Services Administration's Board of Contract Appeals, but only on the question of entitlement to payment. One of the smaller claims has been paid by the GSA, out of the funds appropriated for construction of the Museum. The exact amount due the contractor on the principal claim is being negotiated between GSA and the contractor; however, the amount due may not be determined for a year or more. As to the remaining smaller claim, GSA and the contractor are negotiating over the exact amount due to the contractor, and a figure should be agreed upon soon. After consultation with the Department of Justice, it is understood that the two remaining claims will be paid through the normal procedures established for settlement of claims against the United States.

3. [[underline]] Living Window ICC, Inc., and Joseph Etelman [[/underline]] v. [[underline]] James S. Ward, Inc., James S. Ward and the Smithsonian Institution [[/underline]]

This is a suit by a subcontractor against the contractor, James S. Ward, Inc., and the Smithsonian Institution for alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, disclosure of trade secrets, and other alleged injuries. The action arises out of the termination of a subcontract caused by the failure of the subcontractor to perform under its agreement with the contractor to construct an optical dissolve device. The optical