- 18 -
where the stores will be located, does not provide a timeframe in
which to act, and does not set forth financial data.
Similarly, respondent argues that the minutes from the May
13, 1993, board of directors meeting are not specific and do not
provide concrete and definite plans for the accumulation.
Respondent argues that petitioner provided no evidence that a
plan was ever finalized, no details on the long-range plan, no
schedule for openings and closings of stores, no specific cities
to target, no criteria used to determine that a particular retail
outlet was unprofitable, and no facts regarding the number of
stores to be closed. Respondent argues that petitioner did not
provide the names of real estate representatives or firms that it
allegedly met. As to the 4 stores opened recently by petitioner,
respondent argues that petitioner sets forth neither the costs of
opening those new stores nor the dates that the stores opened.
Respondent argues that petitioner has provided no evidence
regarding identification of sites for new stores, no projection
of the amount of funds needed to acquire new stores, and no
timetable for expansion into new stores.
We hold that petitioner has not disclosed in its statement
facts that are sufficiently substantial, material, definite, and
clear to permit respondent to prepare for trial. Petitioner
provided insufficient basis for its assertion of its expansion
plans for the opening of new stores and insufficient basis for
its assertion that, during each of the years in issue, its
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011