ACM Partnership, Southampton-Hamilton Company, Tax Matters Partner - Page 34

                                       - 121 -                                        
          chart presentations to Colgate management through late October              
          assumed that $200 million private placement notes would be sold             
          for $140 million cash and $60 million LIBOR Notes.  Around the              
          time of the formation of ACM, however, it was decided that the              
          partners could afford to do without a substantial amount of this            
          internal hedge:  $175 million private placement notes would be              
          sold for $140 million cash and $35 million LIBOR Notes.  No                 
          explanation was provided at trial, and none is to be found in the           
          documentary evidence, of the reasons for the decision.  But the             
          effect was a reduction by 42 percent in the planned level of                
          interest rate hedging protection and the retention of assets                
          whose value would not vary with interest rates in a manner that             
          undercut the effectiveness of Colgate's liability management                
          strategy.24                                                                 
               At the time the LIBOR Notes were acquired, Colgate had no              
          intention of using them to reduce Southampton's interest rate               
          exposure.  Its management of Southampton belies any such claim.             
          Over the first 6 weeks after formation of ACM, Colgate increased            
          Southampton's share of the Yield Component to 39.7 percent, more            
          than double its original pro rata share and more than triple its            
          pro rata share after the distribution of the BFCE Notes.  In                
          conformity with the original plan for a falling interest rate               

               24 The change did not materially affect the size of the                
          anticipated tax loss.                                                       






Page:  Previous  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011