- 19 -
IV. Motion and Evidentiary Objection
A. Petitioner’s Motion To Strike
1. Introduction
On July 14, 2003, after the parties’ submission of briefs,
pursuant to Rule 52, petitioner moved to strike respondent’s
argument that, as a matter of law, the doctrine of duty of
consistency mandates a finding that Dover UK’s sale of H&C stock
to Thyssen was completed as of June 30, 1997, not July 11, as
urged by petitioner.
2. Duty of Consistency Argument
In its motion, petitioner denies that it is attempting to
“change or recharacterize the facts [regarding the date of the
sale of the H&C stock] in this fully stipulated case” or that it
has “acted in a deceitful or misleading way” as implied by
respondent. Rather, petitioner states that (1) the issue as to
whether the stock sale agreement provided for a June 30 or July
11 sale of the H&C stock presents an issue of law and (2) its
prior representation that the date of sale was June 30, 1997,
constituted “a clear cut mistake of law * * * not a
misrepresentation of fact”. Petitioner also argues that
respondent was not surprised by petitioner’s argument because, on
December 12, 2001, more than a year before it filed its opening
brief, on March 5, 2003, petitioner apprised respondent of its
new position regarding the date of sale. That notification
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