- 9 -
judgment and a brief in support of its motion against the royalty
interest owners. Exxon argued that it should recover the pro
rata share of all amounts paid to the U.S. Treasury as a result
of the DOE litigation, including prejudgment and postjudgment
interest. Also on January 16, 1990, the royalty and working
interest owners filed a joint motion for summary judgment and a
memorandum in support of their motion against Exxon. In their
accompanying memorandum, the interest owners denied that any
amounts were owed to Exxon, regardless of whether any liability
under law could attach to them, because Exxon had not, in fact,
suffered any loss in paying the approximately $2.1 billion
judgment.5
On March 14, 1990, the royalty interest owners filed a joint
opposition to Exxon’s motion for partial summary judgment. In
the joint opposition, the interest owners alleged that Exxon had
“profited handsomely from its overcharges” and that the elderly
interest owners faced “a very real risk” that they would not be
able to recoup in their lifetimes any payments made to Exxon
through tax-loss carryforwards to offset prior overpayments of
income taxes attributable to the overcharges. On April 19, 1990,
Exxon filed a reply to the royalty interest owners’ joint
opposition to Exxon’s motion for partial summary judgment. In
5The Allen parties expressly adopted the joint motion for
summary judgment filed on Jan. 16, 1990.
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