About EDGAR Online | Login
 
Enter your Email for a Free Trial:
The following is an excerpt from a 10KSB SEC Filing, filed by BIG BUCK BREWERY & STEAKHOUSE INC on 4/1/2002.
Next Section Next Section Previous Section Previous Section
BIG BUCK BREWERY & STEAKHOUSE INC - 10KSB - 20020401 - LEGAL_PROCEEDINGS

ITEM 3 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

GRAPEVINE UNIT

On May 3, 2001, Knoebel Construction, Inc., the general contractor of the Grapevine unit, sued Buck & Bass, L.P., BBBP Management Company, Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C., St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Grapevine II, L.P. and our company in the 352nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, for breach of contract and quantum meruit, as well as claims under the Texas Property Code for alleged failure to make prompt payment and alleged misapplication of statutory construction trust funds. Our company owns an 89.9% interest in Buck & Bass. The proceeding is a lawsuit that arises out of the construction of the Grapevine unit. Buck & Bass, as owner, and Knoebel, as construction manager, signed an AIA "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager" dated March 31, 2000. Under the agreement, Buck & Bass hired Knoebel to construct the Grapevine unit. Knoebel alleges that it performed its obligations under the agreement but is still owed $1,174,516 that Buck & Bass has failed to pay. Buck & Bass disputes the amount of Knoebel's claims and has sought to have the district court case abated while the parties pursue mediation and binding arbitration, as required under the agreement. Knoebel also seeks recovery under St. Paul's bond and foreclosure of a statutory lien. In addition to its alleged damages of $1,174,516, Knoebel's petition asks for attorneys' fees, court costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On behalf of Buck & Bass, we have settled directly with and obtained releases from the subcontractors on the Grapevine unit, as well as the project's architect. Knoebel has asserted that it may dispute the validity of some or all of the claims of the subcontractors and, therefore, will dispute the amount of any offset that we would apply to Knoebel's claim based upon our payments to the subcontractors. We cannot assure you that we will be able to fully and finally discharge of record all outstanding liens and claims.

NASHVILLE UNIT

In November 2000, we executed a lease with Opry Mills Limited Partnership, a division of the Mills Corporation for 20,046 square feet of space in a one-level building in Nashville, Tennessee. During 2001, we received a $340,000 tenant allowance from Opry Mills. In September 2001, Opry Mills brought suit against us in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, for breach of a commercial lease agreement. This case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division) in October 2001. In October 2001, Opry Mills brought a separate suit against us in the General Sessions Court for Davidson County, Tennessee for breach of the same commercial lease agreement (the "eviction action"). The eviction action was also removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in November 2001. The lawsuits sought both a monetary judgment for unpaid rent and other moneys allegedly owed to Opry Mills pursuant to the lease and that legal possession of the premises be returned to Opry Mills. In March 2002, we entered into two agreements with Opry Mills to resolve the lawsuits, a possession agreement and a settlement and termination agreement. Pursuant to such agreements, we relinquished possession of the Nashville premises to Opry Mills, we paid Opry Mills $200,000 for termination of the related lease and the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice the litigation commenced by Opry Mills for breach of such lease. Under the terms of such agreements, we also forfeited all improvements made to the site, including assets purchased through use of the tenant allowance.

We also agreed to provide Opry Mills by April 30, 2002 a full and complete release of liens and claims from suppliers, contractors or laborers which performed work or supplied materials to the premises. We have also agreed to indemnify Opry Mills from any claims or actions taken against Opry Mills or the premises by any unpaid supplier, contractor or laborer which performed work or supplied materials to the premises.

10

GENERAL

In addition, we are involved in routine legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. Although the outcomes of any such legal actions cannot be predicted, in the opinion of management these routine legal proceedings are unlikely to have a material adverse effect upon our business, operating results, cash flows and financial condition.

11

BROKERAGE PARTNERS