Opinion ID: 2514808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Harris's Argument Regarding the Burden of Proof Fails.

Text: The trial court determined that under AS 10.06.478, the statute governing related party transactions, Harris was required to prove the transactions in question were proper, and it concluded that Harris failed to do so. Harris contends that the deals were part of a larger pre-incorporation agreement not subject to the requirements of AS 10.06.478, and that the trial court therefore improperly placed the burden on him to prove the transactions were fair rather than on his opponents to prove the transactions were unfair. But as the trial court recognized, [t]he proper allocation of burden of proof on this issue is irrelevant given its express finding that Ahtna Government Services established the transactions were unfair by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, even assuming that Harris is correct and that the trial court should have placed the burden on Ahtna Government Services to affirmatively prove the transactions were unfair, Ahtna Government Services has already met this burden.