- 66 -
other corporation which presented to us the same issue as is
presented here. That is because neither the pervasiveness of
such class voting requirements and such dividend and objection-
able action provisions in other corporations with analogous
investor profiles to that of Alumax nor the underlying reason for
their presence controls whether and/or how those requirements and
provisions affect the determination of whether the Alumax class C
common stock satisfies the 80-percent voting power test of
section 1504(a)(1) and amended section 1504(a)(1)(B) and (2)(A).
We did not find Mr. Balotti's reports to be helpful in
resolving the issue presented here under section 1504(a)(1) and
amended section 1504(a), and we do not rely on those reports in
making our findings and reaching our conclusions herein. See
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Mr. Black's Reports
We found certain statements in Mr. Black's reports to be
legal opinions that are beyond the proper scope of expert opin-
ions. See Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club Inc., 550 F.2d at 508-512;
Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. at 127-129. By way of illustra-
tion, Mr. Black, whose reports focus primarily on whether the
director and stockholder class voting requirements, the mandatory
dividend provision, and the objectionable action provision
affected the voting power of the Alumax class C common stock for
purposes of section 1504(a), concludes that the "consolidation
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011