- 13 - after March 1, 1995, which contradicts Article 4.2 of the royalty agreement. Third, the royalty agreement contains a debt offset provision pursuant to which ECI agrees to accept MBL’s and Crocus’s debt obligations to petitioner as payment of petitioner’s debt obligation to ECI. The provision states that petitioner’s obligation to ECI exceeds the amounts MBL and Crocus owe petitioner. However, Schedule A of the royalty agreement states that the total of MBL’s and Crocus’s debts to petitioner is exactly equal to petitioner’s debt to ECI.8 During 1995 and 1996, the stockholders of ECI were Fallon Nominees, Ltd. (Fallon), and Management Nominees, Ltd. (Management). Petitioner claims that none of its officers or stockholders owns shares of or otherwise controls ECI, Fallon, or Management or knows who owns or controls Fallon or Management. John Fitzgerald, a director of ECI, declared in an exhibit to the declaration of Frank Agostino (petitioner’s counsel) in support of petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, that petitioner had no direct or indirect control over ECI, and there was no identity or overlap of ownership between petitioner and ECI. However, under Article VI of the royalty agreement, petitioner has rights of first refusal over any of ECI’s stock that ECI intends to assign, transfer, or dispose of. 8See supra note 6.Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011