- 68 -
stock. The analysis that he used in reaching that conclusion
involved the following three steps: (1) A division into four
categories of the range of actions that could be taken by Alumax;
(2) a determination of the "relative importance" of each such
class of actions; and (3) a determination of the degree of
"control" exercised by the Amax group stockholders and the
Mitsui/Nippon group stockholders over each such class of actions.
Mr. Black does not define or explain in his reports certain key
components of that analysis, such as his definition of "control".
In fact, he uses the term "control", as well as the terms "total
voting power", "voting power", "effective voting power", "effec-
tive control", "voting control", and "relative voting power",
without giving any of those terms a defined meaning; at times he
uses them as though they have the same meaning, and at other
times he uses them as though they have different meanings.
Assuming arguendo that Mr. Black's analysis were the proper
analysis to be applied in determining whether the Alumax class C
common stock satisfied the 80-percent voting power test of
section 1504(a)(1) and amended section 1504(a)(1)(B) and (2)(B),
we nonetheless would not find that analysis useful in making that
determination. That is because some of the key steps in Mr.
Black's analysis require that he make qualitative judgments, but
at times he does not explain the bases for those judgments. See
Rule 143(f)(1). By way of illustration, Mr. Black concludes,
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011