Viewing page 110 of 116

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 4 -

in the Control Case that Eastern's control of Colonial had terminated, spoke as of December 30, 1954, when the hearing in that case was closed; that, therefore, it must be assumed that Eastern controlled Colonial on December 20, 1954 when Eastern submitted its bid.

We do not agree with this assumption. Although, neither the Examiner nor we in the Control Case addressed ourselves to the problem of determining the precise date when Eastern's control of Colonial had in fact ceased,8/ the Examiner's subsidiary findings, which we adopted, demonstrate that as early as August 31, 1954, Eastern's power to control Colonial had effectively been terminated. The Examiner found that on August 31, 1954, the number of shares of stock held by persons previously found to have been under Eastern's influence or control 9/ had been reduced from 110,524 to 27,755 shares. At that time there were outstanding 515,600 shares of Colonial stock. One stockholder, Edmund A. Guggenheim, who the Examiner found was utterly free and independent of any influence or possible control by Eastern,10/ alone had the power to vote and control 52,100 shares of Colonial stock, or almost double the number of shares remaining in the hands of persons under Eastern's influence and control.11/ In addition, the Examiner found that the Eastern-Janas agreement, which we had found in the original acquisition case to constitute an element

8/ For the purpose of the Control Case, it was necessary to determine only whether control had been terminated.

9/ In the Eastern-Colonial Acquisition Case, Docket No. 5666.

10/ National did not even allege that Guggenheim was controlled or influenced by Eastern.

11/ In the Control Case, National charged that there were other Colonial stockholders (in addition to those originally found to be in Eastern's orbit) who during and since the original acquisition case had purchased Colonial stock and who were under Eastern's influence and control. The Examiner found in the Control Case, and we agreed, that such persons were in fact independent of any such influence or control. Manifestly, this condition was true as of August 31, 1954, as well as on December 30, 1954.