Hospital Corporation of America and Subsidiaries - Page 55

                                       - 55 -                                         
          respondent proffered the testimony of Howard Lewis (Mr. Lewis), a           
          valuation engineer with the Internal Revenue Service in Atlanta,            
          Georgia, as a rebuttal witness to Mr. Harris.                               
          Procedures Used by Goldman Sachs To Value the Preferred Stock               
               At trial, Mr. Harris stated that Goldman Sachs had used                
          appropriate procedures in valuing the Securities during 1987 and            
          that the Goldman Sachs Valuation had reached accurate                       
          conclusions.  Mr. Harris explained that, in preparing the Goldman           
          Sachs Valuation, Goldman Sachs had concluded that it would be               
          unreasonable to value the HealthTrust PIK Preferred Stock solely            
          by reference to the trading prices of existing publicly traded              
          PIK preferred stock because (1) only a limited number of publicly           
          traded PIK preferred stocks existed at the time HealthTrust                 
          issued the Preferred Stock; (2) shares of the publicly traded PIK           
          preferred stock were thinly traded; and (3) the issuers of the              
          publicly traded PIK preferred stock were not comparable companies           
          to HealthTrust as none were in the health care industry.  Based             
          on recommendations of its traders, Goldman Sachs concluded that a           
          more reliable valuation approach would be to analyze the                    
          increment between the market yield on the publicly traded PIK               


          12  (...continued)                                                          
          Co., to support the Commissioner's position that the fair market            
          value of the Securities was at least $443 million in total, of              
          which petitioners would own approximately $432 million.                     
          Respondent had not retained Mr. Doolittle as an expert witness,             
          and he did not wish to serve in that capacity.  As Mr. Doolittle            
          was not being called as a fact witness, we declined to enforce              
          the subpoena that would have required Mr. Doolittle to serve as             
          an involuntary, uncompensated expert witness.                               


Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011