Alumax Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 90

                                       - 82 -                                         
          473 (perm. ed. 1990 rev.).  Once a company's board of directors             
          (or its delegates) has exercised its power to incur debt, any               
          fixed payments of principal and interest on that debt that are              
          set forth in the debt instrument are not matters relating to that           
          board's management of the company's business and affairs.  They             
          are matters relating to the contractual obligation that was                 
          imposed on the company when its board of directors (or delegates)           
          decided to exercise its power to incur the debt.  Unlike the                
          mandatory dividend provision which obligated the Alumax board to            
          declare and pay dividends to its stockholders to the extent of 35           
          percent of its net income and therefore restricted that board's             
          power to act with respect to one of the Alumax board management             
          matters, fixed-payment provisions in debt instruments do not                
          restrict the powers of a company's board of directors with                  
          respect to management matters entrusted to it.  We find that the            
          fixed-payment provisions in debt instruments to which petitioners           
          refer are materially different from the mandatory dividend                  
          provision involved here.                                                    
               As examples of preferential dividend provisions in preferred           
          stock certificates that petitioners claim are similar to the                
          mandatory dividend provision, they point to preferential dividend           
          provisions described in various cases and rulings (e.g., Rudolph            
          Wurlitzer Co. v. Commissioner, 81 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1936); Rev.            
          Rul. 71-83, 1971-1 C.B. 268; Priv. Ltr. Rul. 79-38-060 (June 21,            






Page:  Previous  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011