- 19 -
See also Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245, 257
(D.C. Cir. 1992) (quoting Jones v. United States, supra).
Petitioners also assert the following as another change in
the controlling facts:
[W]hen the case [Monahan I] was tried in January of
1993, Lyn Bell had not yet caused Grove Management
Limited to be stricken from the Registry of Companies.
His demonstrated and undisputed ability to dissolve
Grove Management demonstrates his control over that
company and proves that Aldergrove was not Petitioner's
alter ego.
That purported change in controlling facts, according to
petitioners, is sufficient to prevent application of issue
preclusion. Petitioners' assertion appears to be a variation of
an argument made in a memorandum in support of their motion for
reconsideration of Monahan I, filed June 13, 1994 (the
reconsideration motion). In that memorandum, petitioners argued
as follows:
When the case [Monahan I] was tried in January of
1993, Grove Management Limited was a solvent entity.
The Court might reasonably conclude, as it did, that
petitioner's SAR's in Grove Management, Ltd., were
valuable assets. In December of 1993, however,
petitioners were advised by Anguillan counsel that GML
was listed as an inactive corporation and was to be
stricken from the Anguillan Register of Companies.
Petitioners' SAR's were rendered worthless by the
striking, and the Court's conclusion that the Monahans'
retained control over funds placed in GML by virtue of
those SAR's became untenable.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in reviewing this
Court's denial of the reconsideration motion, rejected that
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011