$1.6 million debt, The Brunswick Co. and prominent businessman Frederick W.

Yearwood have reached a settlement.

Lawyers representing the two sides appeared in court before the three Court of Appeal judges to announce that an agreement had been reached in the matter.

Court of Appeal President Sir James Astwood stayed the appeal being made by Mr. Yearwood. The lawyers were in the process yesterday of writing up the agreement to be approved by the court.

No other details were available yesterday.

Mr. Yearwood is appealing an earlier decision by a Supreme Court judge not to give him summary judgment for $1.6 million he claims The Brunswick Co. owes him as a debt. He Supreme Court sent the matter to a civil trial and Mr.

Yearwood was appealing that judgment. In response to the claim Brunswick's shareholders are alleging Mr. Yearwood attempted to gain control of the company through getting the company deeper into debt with him. They're alleging he was "negligent'' and exercised "undue influence'' in getting the company deeper into financial difficulties. Brunswick lawyer Ian Kawaley made the allegations before the Court of Appeal earlier this week as a indication of the claims that will be made if Mr. Yearwood suit had been allowed to proceed to trial.

Mr. Yearwood is claiming the Brunswick Co. owes him $1.6 million in principal and interest on loans he made to the company over time.

Brunswick, Yearwood in settlement president at the time a decision was made to buy The Brunswick Building on Front Street in 1989.

The company also owns a building by the same name on Brunswick Street. Soon afterward Brunswick Co. was apparently going through financial difficulties and Mr. Yearwood, a vice president and shareholder, claims he made loans to the company to keep it afloat.

Part of the dispute centres around whether there had been an oral agreements between Mr. Yearwood and company directors over money subsequently received by Brunswick Co.

Although the loans are referred to in the minutes of the board of directors meetings, Brunswick wants to contest how the money was advanced and is disputing whether the company in fact owes anything to Mr. Yearwood.

Last year Supreme Court Mrs. Justice Wade-Miller turned down Mr. Yearwood's request for summary judgment for the $1.6 million, which meant the case was to go to a full trial.

In appealing the judgment Mr. Yearwood's lawyer Andrew Martin claimed Brunswick hadn't advanced a defence that the money wasn't owed to him.

In arguing against a summary judgment Mr. Kawaley said the shareholders want to show that Mr. Yearwood was "unilaterally'' advancing the money to the company without the proper authority.

He used "undue influence'' as a prominent member to push the five or six other board members to accept the loans after these were made, Mr. Kawaley argued.

The shareholders also trusted his advice in investing in the Front Street property, he stated. When the company had difficulty paying the loan back Mr.

Yearwood then suggested he receive more shares in return. The company also wants to make a counterclaim seeking unspecified damages against Mr. Yearwood.

"He engaged in a corporate strategy to gain control by allowing them to dig themselves into a hole,'' Mr. Kawaley said.

In querying Mr. Kawaley over the claim Mr. Justice Philip Clough asked what "possible irregularity'' was being suggested and whether such business practices was part of the "tapestry of life''.

COURT OF APPEAL COA