Lee B. Arberg and Melissa A. Quinn - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulations of the parties, with accompanying exhibits, are            
          incorporated herein by this reference.2  At the time the petition           
          was filed in this case, Mr. Arberg resided in Florida and                   
          petitioner Melissa A. Quinn (Ms. Quinn) resided in Georgia.                 
          Employment and Trading Activities                                           
               Mr. Arberg was born in 1968 and graduated from Princeton               
          University in 1990 with a major in history.  Upon graduation, he            
          was employed by the Cummins Engine Company in Columbus, Indiana.            
          He worked in the company’s mergers and acquisitions division,               
          focusing on financial and valuation analysis.  After                        
          approximately 2 years, Mr. Arberg went to work for Hemisphere               
          Trading Company, an investment adviser based in Memphis,                    


               2 The parties filed a stipulation of facts and exhibits at             
          the trial session in Jacksonville, Florida.  Both parties                   
          subsequently filed an opening brief including proposed findings             
          of fact.  Respondent’s proposed findings incorporated verbatim              
          various of the stipulated facts, and petitioners included a                 
          number of consistent paraphrases.  On reply brief, petitioners’             
          response to respondent’s requested findings consists of the                 
          following:  “Petitioners object to Respondent’s Requested                   
          Findings of Fact in their entirety and request that this Court              
          adopt Petitioners’ Requested Findings of Fact in their entirety.”           
          While the Court has taken the findings proposed in petitioners’             
          opening brief into account in finding the facts set forth infra,            
          the obvious overbreadth of their approach on reply brief complies           
          with neither the letter nor the spirit of Rule 151(e)(3).  In               
          effect, this severely truncated approach has deprived petitioners           
          of the full extent of their opportunity to set forth an                     
          objection, as to each proposed finding of fact, afforded by the             
          Rule.                                                                       






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007