Pope & Talbot, Inc., & Subsidiaries - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          this reference.  For purposes of convenience, our findings of               
          fact with respect to respondent's specific determinations will be           
          combined with our opinion on each issue.                                    
                                     Background                                       

               Petitioner is a publicly held Delaware corporation with its            
          principal place of business in Portland, Oregon.  Petitioner’s              
          shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange.  During 1985,             
          petitioner engaged in several businesses, primarily in Oregon and           
          Washington, including timber, sawmill and pulp mill operations,             
          land development, and resort businesses.                                    
               In October 1985, petitioner’s board of directors adopted a             
          Plan of Distribution (the plan).  Under the terms of the plan,              
          petitioner would transfer its timber and land development                   
          properties and related assets located in the State of Washington            
          (collectively referred to as the "Washington properties") to Pope           
          Resources, a newly formed Delaware limited partnership (the                 
          Partnership).  Upon transfer of the Washington properties to the            
          Partnership, the managing general partner was to make a pro rata            
          distribution of the interests in the Partnership (partnership               
          units or units), on the basis of one partnership unit for each              
          five shares of common stock.                                                
               Petitioner’s board of directors believed the plan to be in             
          the best interests of petitioner’s shareholders for several                 
          reasons.  First, the plan would provide certain tax benefits,               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011