- 156 -
respondent’s expert’s report, the adjustment for the 1985 through
1992 years would total $96.772 million.
Respondent’s position on this allocation is that the DHL
shareholders collectively controlled the entities and that the
stated ownership did not represent the true relationship between
the shareholders. Respondent builds on this supposition by
contending that the shareholders would not divide the network
operating profits on the basis of stock ownership. According to
respondent, because the DHL shareholders’ stock ownership did not
represent their actual interests, the shareholders would divide
profits based on their actual interest related to the DHL network
as a whole. Using this type of analysis, respondent reaches the
conclusion that the shareholders’ “true economic arrangement was
akin to a partnership.” The next step in respondent’s theory
involves a quantum leap from the shareholders’ relationships to
each other into the relationship between the corporate entities.
Respondent’s ultimate conclusion is that DHL, DHLI, and MNV were
engaged in a joint venture. Using this conjecture-based
analysis, respondent proposes that his proffered expert’s opinion
should be followed to allocate a part of DHLI’s income to DHL.
Respondent’s expert proposed to combine the financial results of
all three entities (DHL, DHLI, and MNV) and to allocate their
combined profits in proportion to the cost borne by each, on the
basis of a similar type of analysis.
Page: Previous 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011