Estate of Wayne C. Bongard, Deceased, James A. Bernards, Personal Representative - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          business plan.  As explained hereinafter, the formation of BFLP             
          was part of decedent’s estate plan and not contemplated as a                
          necessary step in positioning Empak for a corporate liquidity               
          event.  On December 22, 1995, Mr. Boyle provided decedent with a            
          letter memorializing the steps associated with obtaining                    
          corporate liquidity.  Many of these integrated steps were                   
          completed before decedent’s death.                                          
                    1.  Empak’s Incorporation and Spinoff3 of Emplast                 
               On February 21, 1996, Empak incorporated a wholly owned                
          subsidiary, Emplast.  Emplast was incorporated and capitalized              
          with noncore assets of Empak to streamline Empak in preparation             
          for a corporate liquidity event.  The noncore assets consisted of           
          assets outside of Empak’s semiconductor business.  The net book             
          value of these assets was $5,752,854, which represented 5 percent           
          of Empak’s net book value.  Mark Bongard was appointed the chief            
          executive officer of Emplast and remained in that position until            
          decedent’s death.                                                           
               Empak had a stock split on April 18, 1996, which was                   
          approved by a vote of the outstanding Empak stockholders.  Empak            
          shareholders received 223 shares for each Empak share held, which           
          increased decedent’s number of shares to 5,686,500.  The stock              
          split also increased ISA Trust’s number of shares.  See infra p.            

               3The parties’ stipulation terms this transaction as a                  
          “spinoff”.  However, it appears that the distribution was a                 
          splitoff.                                                                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011