- 19 -
deposition. For reasons not disclosed by the parties, respondent
did not proceed with the foreign deposition.
On February 8, 2001, petitioner filed its motion for summary
judgment. Petitioner’s position in the motion for summary
judgement was that respondent could not ignore ECI’s separate
legal existence and include in petitioner’s gross income amounts
paid to ECI by petitioner and exhibitors in foreign trade shows
in accordance with Articles 3.2 and 4.1 of the royalty agreement.
On November 20, 2001, the parties submitted the case to the
Court fully stipulated under Rule 122 in a document entitled
“First Stipulation of Facts” that included not only stipulations
of fact and attached exhibits, but also stipulations of settled
issues, the opposing contentions of the parties, and a set of
ground rules to be observed by the Court in deciding the case as
the parties have presented it.11
In three separate paragraphs, the stipulation of facts
document sets forth the opposing contentions and the ground rules
as follows:
12. * * * Petitioner alleges that Crocus and it
orally agreed to a 50-50 split of the net profits from
the trade shows held in Russia and in the other former
Soviet Bloc countries. * * *
* * * * * * *
20. Before January 1, 1995, * * * The net
profits, if any, [of foreign trade shows after
11The parties have not submitted any additional or
supplemental stipulation of facts.
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