T is a closely held corporation with 100 shares of voting common stock outstanding, which are owned 50 shares by A (adjusted basis $200), 30 shares by B (adjusted basis $400), and 20 shares by C (adjusted basis $150). T, owns the following assets:
Nonoperating assets $200 $300
Operating assets $700 $900
Totals $900 $1,200
T owes outstanding liabilities of $200 (in the form of a 20-year bond held by L at an adjusted basis of $200), and T has E&P of $400. Assume each T share is worth $10. P is a publicly held corporation whose stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
(3) T merges into P solely in exchange for P voting stock (and the debt assumption). B, however, dissents under state law procedure for objecting shareholders. B’s T stock is purchased by T under an agreement whereby B agrees to take the $300 nonoperating assets, and whereby the stock given by p is reduced to $700. [State the results generally but do the numbers for B only.]
*(4) Same as (3) above, A also dissents and likewise is bought out for $500 worth of the operating assets. P gives T only $200 in value of P stock. Will P be concerned about this result (aside from the loss of Ts assets)? What would you advise P to do to protect itself?
and therefore persistence through time such as Merricks (Merricks, 1995). Because Perdurantists rely on the relevant temporal part to account for intrinsic change, this suggests the property instantiation is therefore relative, meaning that the intrinsic property is relative to the time. This does not seem to consider the continuation, or change of the object over time, implying a contradiction. It seems evident from the arguments proposed, that there is no contradiction between an ordinary object persisting through time and changing over time. This is demonstrated by the arguments shown through four -dimensionalism, specifically stage theory, due to the addition of temporal parts. Firstly, the stages of time demonstrated in stage theory allow for the object to not only persist through time as the same object through the use of temporal parts theory (Magidor, 2015). Perdurantism and Stage theory seem to show issues whilst accounting for change, whilst endurantism and adverbialism do not hold identity as the reason for the existence of an ordinary object, and so fail to qualify the identity of the object at all. In his book Frege, Dummett remarks that “an observation can determine only how [an] object is at some one time” (Dummett, 1981), implying that perhaps an object exists only in the sense that one observes the object. The object changes because we in a previous state have observed the change. Perhaps another solution is to totally separate change from the passing of time as Aristotle argues, as changes happen at different rates and time is a continuous process (Stanford, 2015). Or, more controversially, argue that time does not exist as McTaggart argued in ‘The Unreality of Time’ argued, implying that an object cannot persist at all (McTaggart, 1908).>GET ANSWER