- 28 -
conceded that his method could not account for this situation
because he only analyzed available timber volume and not the
prices of timber. The Walkers competed with the three mills that
petitioner owned. Hungate ignored this fact and only measured
the cash-flow of the two mills that petitioner bought from the
Walkers. Hungate testified that petitioner and the Walkers
bought timber from the Forest Service, BLM, and the State of
Oregon. Hungate ignored timber sales from BLM and the State of
Oregon.
Hungate evaluated the volume or market share of timber. To
select a dollar value, he assumed that the available volume of
timber had a direct relationship with cash-flow. He assumed that
each percentage increase of available volume of timber resulted
in about the same percentage increase in cash-flow. He did not
support that assumption. Hungate testified that the Court should
use caution in relying on his method. He admitted that it is
very difficult to analyze the direct relationship between the
volume of timber and cash-flow because many factors affect cash-
flow. However, he did not explain those factors. We also
disagree with Hungate's conclusion that Bebout's covenant not to
compete had no value. We do not find Hungate's estimates of the
value of the covenants not to compete to be very convincing.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011