- 20 -
consisted of a letter to respondent’s counsel enclosing a copy of
an opinion of U.K. counsel that, under English law, July 11,
1997, was the actual date on which the sale of the H&C stock was
completed.
Respondent objects to petitioner’s motion on the ground that
(1) respondent’s position is nothing more than a legitimate legal
argument and (2) petitioner has not shown that respondent’s
arguments are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, frivolous, or
scandalous matter” within the meaning of Rule 52.
In essence, petitioner’s motion raises the issue of whether
we should strike respondent’s attack on petitioner’s argument
that the sale of the H&C stock occurred on July 11, 1997, the
date referred to in the stock sale agreement as the “escrow
release date”, rather than on June 30, 1997, the date of that
agreement and the date represented by petitioner to be the date
of sale in the request for 9100 relief. In framing that issue,
the parties have assumed that, were we to find that the stock
sale occurred on July 11, 1997, rather than on June 30, 1997,
there necessarily would be an 11-day period between the deemed
liquidation of H&C into Dover UK and Dover UK’s deemed sale of
the H&C operating assets, during which period Dover UK must be
deemed to have operated the H&C business as its own. Under those
circumstances, petitioner’s assertion that Dover UK’s deemed sale
of the H&C operating assets constituted a sale of property used
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011