United Parcel Service of America - Page 91




                                       - 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