- 76 - applied.34 Nevertheless, petitioner made no attempt to analyze the issue or obtain legal advice before deciding to restructure the EVC part of its business. This leads us to believe that petitioner's interjection of NUF and OPL into its excess value activities in 1984 was not done in order to avoid running afoul of State insurance laws and regulations.35 34Petitioner has not attempted to draw a distinction between concerns about interstate versus intrastate matters. According to the testimony of petitioner's former chairman and C.E.O., in excess of 75 percent of petitioner's volume in 1984 consisted of interstate shipments and 98 percent of petitioner's volume in 1984 consisted of ground transportation. As previously indicated, petitioner obtained authorization for its pre-1984 EVC activities from the required State transportation authorities, and no State had asserted that petitioner was not in compliance with State insurance law. 35As stated by Dr. Shapiro in his expert report: Assuming the risk of state regulation was real, abandoning a profitable business because of this risk is equivalent to burning down the barn to get rid of the rats. Even if you solved the problem, the price was too high. * * * * * * * Based on my business experience, it is my strongly-held opinion that a company would not walk away from such a valuable business on a mere suspicion that it might be subject to an added risk of regulation. Rather, in such a situation, the company would first meet with legal counsel to get an opinion as to the likelihood and business consequences of such regulation. Next, it would analyze the financial impact of such regulation and explore how it might be able to legally avoid, minimize, or delay the impact of any potential regulation. * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.]Page: Previous 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011