Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (11140)	8/11/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

tsk, tsk, no one says UPS set up a front. From the UPS web site, the factor causing the problem was, "the Court held that UPS is liable for tax on income of Overseas Partners Ltd., a Bermuda company, which has reinsured excess value package insurance purchased by our customers from unrelated insurers." UPS is appealing. The insurance on the shipments was sold in the U.S. but a Bermuda sub of UPS bought the contracts (how much of each I don't know). Thus the profits in large part were earned outside this country. UPS says the original insures were independent of U.P.S. What went on in reality I do not know. Why did they all seem to pick a sub of UPS for reinsurance? Was reinsurance of a minimal risk necessary or common? who knows. Seems quite different than earnings from operations or royalties on sales that did not occur in the U.S.