.-I a . 2-85-2221?! FROM VANCE 8472958335 Memorandum To: Ronald F. Coplan CC: Eileen Trost me: Jerome S. Kalur Date: Re: Davis Trust 62'. your letter of 1-24.01 Your letter of 1-24-01 caught up with me yesterday. I am at present in Lake Forest, Illinois. With the exceptions of depositions in- vat-ions eastern locations on the 9th and 14th, I will be reachable at my present location until the morning of 2916, when I. will return to my home-of?ce in Montana. You may reach me here by mail at PMB 163, 825 s. Waukegan Road, A8, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045, via e-mail at Wm via fax at 847-295?6335, and via phone at 847-295-5816. In the event it has not yet reached you, I am faxing a copy of the annuity-cost letter that I sent ten-Mayor Magill on January 23rd. The recent additional cut in rates of 50 basis points would lower the annuity cost by a relatively small amount. The cost could'be paid out of the share of each of the three remainder bene?ciaries - 2?95-2281 FROM VANCE 8472955335 P. 2 February 4, 2001 after the court approves disbursement of the trust. The ?nal cost number could not be known until just before the purchase, since annuity quotations are good only for seven days after issued. What I have supplied is a close ?gure from an AM. Best A rated insurer. In light of the amount and the current value of the Davis Trust. it is obvious that the cost of purchase could be recovered by the remainder bene?ciaries in short order. You have requested that I describe my views as to how the litigation would be handled. I am pleased to do so. I have been and am cepying Eileen Trost, Esq., who is also a Shimer graduate, on the Board, and who has expertise in Illinois trust and estate law. She is associated with a large Chicago ?rm and would assist in drafting and presenting the dissolution petition. Since I am a trial lawyer, I would aid in the hearing, upon pro hac vice motion by Ms. Trost. Since this matter cannot go forward unless all interested entities are in agreement and without con?ict, it had always been my intention to offer our representation to the current bene?ciaries, and the remainder bene?ciaries, on an expense (no fee) only basis. If the City of Mt. Carroll or Masonic organizations desire outside counsel, that is of course their right. It has also been my intention, through Ms. Trost?s contacts, to involve the Illinois Attorney General?s Of?ce in the FROM VANCE 8472958335 53.3 February 4, 2001 petition process, as a friend of the court. Preliminary steps have already been taken on that point. In fact, all that is needed is the agreement of the City and the not yet contacted Masonic organizations, and we will be ready to begin drafting. This brings us to the City of Mt. Carroll?s position. The City is going to have to be able to agree: 1. That a de?ned and signi?cant portion of its remainder interest will be used in accordance with the facility designation of the grantor Or it is unlikely that the Court is going to approve a petition. Some form of formal and irrevocable commitment (ordinance?) will be needed. 2. The claim that ?Shinier College of Mt. Carroll, Illinois?, means anything other than a remainder bequest to Shimer College, a non- pro?t charitable Illinois corporation, wherever now located, is one that Mt. Carroll must resolve by concluding it has no merit. Absent written assurance from the City that such an absurd position would not be raised in the proceedings, Shimer College would not support a petition for disbursement of the Trust proceeds. If you feel that a meeting to discuss these matters ?n'ther would be of value, that could be arranged before 2-16, while I am in the area. E-IE-QQEH FROM VANCE 8472Q55335 FLA February 4, 2001 I look forward to working with you on this project and would be pleased to take whatever reasonable steps you might feel are needed to garner the City?s approval of Shimer?s proposal. Please excuse the informality of my faxed response, however I do feel that there is an underlying need to move with dispatch on this matter.