Following the publication of Janel Dressen’s article on the Lund v. Lund shareholder litigation (“Don’t Be the Next Lunds & Byerlys,” May/June 2019), Steve Wells and Jaime Stilson (the Dorsey & Whitney attorneys who represented the Lund defendants) contacted Bench & Bar to request a clarification regarding certain claims made by Dressen in the article, found in the following passage: “One of the most fascinating, yet tragic, facts about the Lunds case is that the parties did not engage in a single settlement discussion after Kim commenced litigation. In business litigation, that is virtually unheard of. However, because Kim Lund was requesting liquidity and defendants were solely focused on keeping Kim Lund captive as a shareholder, the parties were at a standstill.” Based on follow-up discussions about the article, Bench & Bar wishes to clarify the following points. First, information provided to Bench & Bar by Wells and Stilson indicates that the defendants did convey a previously rejected settlement offer following the commencement of the litigation, and offered to continue negotiating with respect to the settlement amount. Second, with regard to Dressen’s claim that the defendants sought to keep “Kim Lund captive as a shareholder,” Wells and Stilson point out that the Hennepin County District Court wrote in its buyout Order that defendant “Tres [Lund] has done nothing to ‘lock Kim in as a Lunds shareholder’,” though the Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that defendants’ position throughout the litigation “has been that Kim [Lund] cannot liquidate her interests because her siblings do not consent.” Third, the MSBA Probate and Trust Law Section filed an amicus brief in support of the Lund defendants with the Court of Appeals, relating to one issue in the appeal involving payment of attorneys’ fees and costs for two defendants who served as trustees. This was a section-only position that was not adopted by the MSBA Assembly.