Martin Ice Cream Company - Page 40

                                                   - 40 -                                               
            1988, Ms. Bronner stated that H�agen-Dazs, as requested by Mr. Hewit,                       
            would eliminate references to Martin and MIC from the purchase                              
            agreement, but she insisted that H�agen-Dazs had to acquire "any and                        
            all" of the distribution rights owned by Martin, Arnold, and their                          
            respective companies.  On June 15, 1988, MIC executed documents                             
            providing for the transfer of supermarket chain and food service                            
            distribution rights, and business records related thereto, from MIC to                      
            SIC.  Thereafter, Arnold continued to negotiate with H�agen-Dazs on                         
            behalf of himself and SIC until the purchase agreement was signed on                        
            July 8.  The purchase agreement, as finally negotiated and amended at                       
            the closing on July 22, provided that H�agen-Dazs could walk away from                      
            the deal if an audit by a "Big-8" accounting firm disclosed ice cream                       
            sales by petitioner of less than $4 million for the 12-month period                         
            ended May 31, 1988, and for a reduction in both the fixed and deferred                      
            contingent portions of the purchase price if such sales amounted to                         
            less than $4.7 million.  On July 22, following the Touche-Ross sales                        
            audit and the parties' agreement that ice cream sales amounted to                           
            $4,528,000, the sales price paid at the closing was reduced to                              
            $1,430,340 and the maximum deferred contingent payments were reduced                        
            to $333,660.                                                                                
                  The facts of this case are distinguishable from those of Court                        
            Holding.  In Court Holding and other cases applying its holding, such                       
            as Waltham Netoco Theaters, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, the change in                      
            the identity of the sellers took place at the last minute.  In such                         
            cases, the only difference in whether the corporation or all its                            
            shareholders are regarded as the seller(s) lies in whether the                              



Page:  Previous  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011