- 31 -
summary judgment at which numerous witnesses testified. Not only
did petitioner have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
damages issue in the prior case, it had every incentive, as the
plaintiff in that case, to litigate the issue aggressively. The
fact that petitioner may have settled with Boesky or otherwise
lacked an incentive to litigate against Boesky because he could
not pay the sought-after damages does not mean that petitioner
also lacked the same incentive as to Goldman. We conclude that
no special circumstances exist to cause us to exercise our
discretion to warrant an exception to the normal rules of
preclusion.
We hold that petitioner is collaterally estopped from
deducting a theft loss in an amount equal to the additional cash
payment of $217,649,340. Petitioner’s petition to this Court to
allow it to deduct such a theft loss is merely a request to
relitigate the applicable value of the old FMC stock in an
attempt to ascertain a value that will compel the Treasury to
subsidize petitioner’s redemption of its shares from its public
shareholders. Petitioner’s position in this Court, however,
continues to be essentially the same as the position that it
advanced in its prior case; to wit, that it was harmed because
its shareholders received too much. As recognized by Judge
Pollack when he rejected that position, the position is “a
remarkable proposition that was twice soundly rejected by the
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011