- 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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011