Lumber City Corporation, f.k.a. Neiman-Reed Lumber and Supply Company, Inc. - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

               in no event shall distributions of such compensation,                  
               fees, repayments or distributions exceed $500,000 in                   
               the aggregate per fiscal year of Neiman-Reed; with any                 
               excess in earnings thereof accruing. * * *                             
                                                                                     
          At the time that Stanislaus purchased petitioner in December                
          1986, petitioner acquired MFC, and the management agreement                 
          between petitioner and MFC was terminated.                                  
               In November 1988, after Mr. Ruf and petitioner's former                
          shareholders agreed on a final purchase price for petitioner's              
          stock, replacement notes (replacement notes) that called for                
          monthly principal payments of $200,000 and no interest payments             
          were issued to those former shareholders in lieu of the original            
          notes.8  During August 1988, the restrictions contained in the              
          original notes on the amount of cash (whether as compensation or            
          otherwise) that Mr. Ruf could withdraw from petitioner were                 
          terminated by agreement of petitioner's former shareholders.                
               Effective February 29, 1988, MFC and Stanislaus merged into            
          petitioner, with petitioner as the surviving corporation of those           
          mergers.  Mr. Ruf was the sole shareholder of Stanislaus prior to           
          its merger into petitioner, and, according to the merger agree-             
          ment between Stanislaus and petitioner, he was to be the sole               
          shareholder of petitioner subsequent to that merger.                        




          8  The details of those replacement notes are not clear from the            
          record.                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011