- 196 -
making an incomplete an inaccurate presentation" of the First
Savings acquisition.88
By order dated November 24, 1997, the Court denied
Mr. Sticht's motion on the ground that the materials that
Mr. Sticht was seeking to submit to the Court should have been
offered into evidence during the initial evidentiary hearing in
May and June 1996, where all of the implicated parties had been
called to testify. Insofar as Mr. Sticht was arguing that there
was a meaningful link or connection between the First Savings
acquisition and the Investors Financial stock purchase plan, the
Court further observed that the First Savings acquisition was not
among the Kersting programs at issue in the trial of the test
cases, and that petitioners' theory of a link between the two
transactions would be ripe for consideration only if respondent
were to move for entry of decision based in part on adjustments
attributable to the First Savings acquisition.
E. Denial of Mr. Izen's Motion To Take Judicial Notice
On April 9, 1998, Mr. Izen filed a Motion to Take Judicial
Notice, asserting that the Court is obliged by rule 201 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence to take notice that the Hawaii District
88 The bulk of the testimony presented at the trial of the
test cases concerning the First Savings acquisition was offered
by Messrs. Kersting and Alexander. Although their testimony
concerning the transaction generally was consistent, the Court in
Dixon II apparently accepted Mr. Alexander's testimony that
Federal regulators rejected Investors Financial as a holding
company for First Savings despite Mr. Kersting's testimony to the
contrary. See Dixon II, 62 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1447, 1991 T.C.M.
(RIA), at 91-2987.
Page: Previous 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011