- 16 -
independent of the shelter promoters in making decisions
regarding Drake’s initial operations and financial commitments.
Coppage did retain a lawyer, Renno L. Peterson, to review
Drake's offering memorandum. Peterson expressed criticism about
significant aspects of the Drake partnership, but the changes
Peterson recommended were not implemented.
Petitioner alleges differences in the license agreements
between the Drake and Barton partnerships, on the one hand, and a
number of the other partnerships, on the other hand. Petitioner
incorrectly alleges that, under their EOR license agreement,
Drake and Barton had the right to use the technology in a
commercial project but that the other partnerships did not have
such right. All partnerships, however, had the right to use the
EOR technology in a commercial project. Drake and Barton had a
single technology license agreement permitting both testing and
commercialization, whereas many of the other partnerships had one
license that allowed use of the technology only for testing and
another separate license for a commercial project. No evidence
indicates that this difference in format is material. Under
either license format, use of the technology on a commercial
project was permitted, but the fixed license fees were based on
the number of partnership units sold, and under both license
formats, the partnerships would be obligated to pay additional
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011