What follows is the conclusion of the Appeals Court decision in the Edmondson v. AMA case, in which liability on the part of the AMA is affirmed, the order for the AMA to pay limited damages related to some of Edmondson’s claims is affirmed, and a new trial ordered on the amount of damages related to other claims made by Edmondson. It is worth noting that the Appeals Court characterized the behavior of the AMA and its Board of Trustees by saying “The conduct was certainly unethical and had the capacity to deceive.” The Appeals Court mentioned Trustees Carl Reynolds and Cary Agajanian by name in its decision. The entire decision may be read by clicking on a link at the end of our earlier posting on the matter. Now, to the conclusion of the Appeals Court: “In conclusion, we: (1) affirm the judgment with respect to Edmondson’s conversion claim pertaining to the Mailing List; (2) vacate the judgment with respect to Edmondson’s claim for conversion of his business assets and interests that he brought to the 1994 joint venture and remand for a new trial with proper instructions outlined in Part IV of this opinion; (3) affirm the judgment with respect to Edmondson’s claim alleging tortious interference with contracts; (4) vacate the judgment in favor of Edmondson with respect to his constructive fraud claim and remand with instructions that the district court enter judgment in favor of the AMA with respect to that claim; (5) vacate the judgment as it pertains to the district court’s conclusion that the Defendants’ failure to disclose the terms and/or nature of television coverage contracts for motorcycle races produced by the joint venture violated S 75-1.1; (6) affirm the liability portion of the judgment in favor of Edmondson with respect to the balance of the Defendants’ conduct the district court concluded violatedS 75-1.1; (7) affirm the portion of the judgment allowing Edmondson to recover the trebled amounts of his actual damages flowing from the Defendants’ violations of S 75-1.1 in connection with their conversion of the Mailing List and tortious interference with Edmondson’s actual and prospective contractual rights; (8) vacate the portion of the judgment allowing Edmondson to recover the trebled amount of damages the district court presumed the jury found with respect to the Defendants’ exclusion of Edmondson from his business and remand for a new trial on damages as to that issue; (9) vacate the punitive damages award and remand for a retrial on that issue; and (10) vacate the award for attorneys’ fees and disbursements and remand for the district court to reconsider Edmondson’s motion for attorneys’ fees and disbursements at the conclusion of all other proceedings on remand. “AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED”