-21-
amendment to the answer in docket No. 4142-01 (i.e., relating to
1997 and 1998). On October 21, 2003, the Court granted the
motion and filed respondent’s amendment to answer which asserted
that the only ESOs at issue were those granted on or after April
2, 1995, and exercised during 1997 and 1998. As a result of this
amendment, respondent’s adjustments to petitioner’s cost-sharing
pool, relating to ESOs exercised in 1997 and 1998, decreased from
$4,504,781 to $389,037 and $5,195,104 to $1,263,006,
respectively.
On November 25, 2003, the Court granted the parties' joint
motion to consolidate docket No. 4142-01 and docket No. 702-03
(i.e., relating to 1999) for purposes of trial, briefing, and
opinion.
The Court, on February 6, 2004, filed respondent’s motion
for leave to file a second amendment to the answer in docket No.
4142-01 and an amendment to the amended answer in docket No. 702-
03. In this motion, respondent sought permission to contend that
ESOs provided to petitioner’s research and development employees
be valued as of the date those options were granted (grant date
theory). On April 8, 2004, the Court denied respondent’s motion
because the motion failed to provide sufficient information
(i.e., the number of options at issue or the amounts of the
revised deficiencies) relating to respondent’s grant date theory.
The Court, on May 11, 2004, filed respondent’s motion for
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011