Alumax Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 99

                                       - 91 -                                         
          objectionable action provision and the rights held by the holders           
          of the stock, options, and warrants involved in the cases and               
          rulings on which petitioners rely.  Contrary to petitioners'                
          claim, the director objectionable action provision did not give             
          the Mitsui group merely a contingent right to acquire additional            
          voting power over future actions of Alumax.  That provision gave            
          the Mitsui group the legally enforceable right during the period            
          at issue to (1) negate the exercise of the power of the Alumax              
          board on any director nonrestricted matter,28 which the Mitsui              
          group believed could materially and adversely affect the value of           
          its investment in Alumax and to which one of the class B direc-             
          tors whom it elected objected and (2) permit a panel of arbitra-            
          tors to decide whether or not that board's exercise of its power            
          on any such matter was to become effective.29  Consequently,the             


          28  We have found that the director objectionable action provi-             
          sion applied only to director nonrestricted matters on which the            
          directors voted in the aggregate, and not by class.  That is                
          because any board action that required a class vote of the Alumax           
          directors required, inter alia, an affirmative vote of the                  
          majority of the class B directors.  Since there were only two               
          class B directors, any such board action required the approval of           
          both of those directors and could not be taken over the objection           
          of either one of those directors.                                           
          29  Petitioners contend that the class C directors were not                 
          likely to take any action that would trigger the rights of the              
          Alumax class B common stock under the director objectionable                
          action provision and that the Mitsui group was not likely to                
          exercise its rights under that provision.  As we view it, the               
          essence of petitioners' contention is that the director objec-              
          tionable action provision is, in effect, a meaningless provision.           
          We disagree.  Moreover, petitioners concede on brief that that              
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011