- 85 - certain key board decisions required supermajority approval, including: Amendments to the bylaws and articles of association; entering into a new business other than one that was directly related to the principal business of DHL; reappointment of the CEO; certain debt or lease financing decisions; and matters that exceeded a fair market value of $20 million, excluding the exercise of the trademark option. For these matters, the foreign investors’ majority was not sufficient for control. Accordingly, the foreign investors did not have shareholding control, and, as to many critical matters, their collective board control was limited. We must also weigh the fact that the foreign investors did not have an agreement to collectively control the board or to take any particular actions together. Considering the above, we hold that requisite control existed for application of section 482 during the interim (1990 to 1992) period that concluded when the foreign investors exercised their options and acquired additional shares. B. Effect of the Trademark Transfer After the Foreign Investors Attained Their Collective Shareholding Majority of the New DHLI/MNV Entity Petitioners argue that, even if the Court should find that the requisite control existed during the interim period, the trademark rights should not be subject to a section 482 allocation because the trademark rights were transferred about 1 month after the exercise of the foreign investors’ 45-percent share option. Petitioners contend that respondent may notPage: Previous 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011