Nockname,I heard that there were a gamut of issues Stark argued...

Nockname,
I heard that there were a gamut of issues Stark argued why the Inviro sale should not be taken up as a sale/revenue, among other things was whether the term of the inviro contract had been amended to allow the sale to be taken up as revenue (ie as you pointed out the distributor only pays for the stock when they on-sell it to the end customer.), was this the original term? Remember how CMQ told the press, the sale was not financed and Inviro bought it on their own account and cannot return it to CMQ? But as stated earlier, it is dangerous to rely on what the press said!
And there were also arguments on whether the sale to inviro was completed which no doubt will be repeated in any CMQ vs Inviro case.

Excluding interest revenue is against accounting practices. Stark is trying to bring the court back to period before the ammendent and among other things they argued that they could not have intented for interest earned on their (financier’s) money to count towards “revenue”. Cases on contracts such as this one are often won or lost on “splitting hairs” using equitable principles in the interpretation. Until we sighted the evidences or court transcripts caution may be the appropriate response! If CMQ wins, there should be a reasonably good return for those who are brave enough to take the plunge now – fortune favors the brave but fortune have also been lost by punts on chances!

Cheers