- 46 -
ated group that had Amax as its common parent. Nor are we
suggesting that petitioners have carried their burden of showing
that they satisfy the 80-percent value test of amended section
1504(a)(1)(B) and (2)(B). To the contrary, on the record before
us, we find that they have not.
The dispute as framed by the parties is whether the Alumax
class C common stock owned by the Amax group stockholders pos-
sessed "at least 80 percent of the voting power of all classes of
stock" of Alumax within the meaning of section 1504(a)(1).11
It is petitioners' position that at all relevant times the
Alumax class C common stock possessed 80 percent of the voting
power of all classes of Alumax stock within the meaning of
section 1504(a)(1). It is significant to our resolution of the
question presented under section 1504(a)(1) and amended section
1504(a) that petitioners do not contend that that stock possessed
more than 80 percent of the voting power of all classes of Alumax
stock. Petitioners argue that "all judicial and administrative
11 Each party, and in particular petitioners, appears to have
misconstrued in material respects the arguments on brief of the
opposing party on the issue under sec. 1504(a)(1). As a result,
the briefs, and in particular petitioners' briefs, often address
arguments and contentions that we do not believe are even being
advanced by the opposing party. In any event, we shall resolve
the issue presented to us under sec. 1504(a)(1) and amended sec.
1504(a) by following the path mandated by the facts established
by the record and the applicable law.
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011