Estate of Arthur G. Scanlan, Deceased, Ruth B. Scanlan, Administratrix - Page 16

                                           - 16 -                                            
                We reject Mr. Chaffe’s opinion.  He is unhelpful to us in                    
          resolving the issues herein.  We were unimpressed by his                           
          testimony during trial, and we are unpersuaded by the conclusions                  
          reached in his expert report.  Mr. Chaffe was unable to answer                     
          coherently many questions raised by the Court on conclusions                       
          reached in his reports, and he was unable to explain certain                       
          parts of the analysis contained in the reports.  He arbitrarily                    
          applied a 35-percent marketability discount to the subject                         
          shares.  He did not adequately discuss the publicly traded                         
          companies which he compared to Eatel, and he did not set forth                     
          their age, business, or product line with any specificity.  He                     
          made no mention of a hypothetical buyer or a hypothetical seller,                  
          and, indeed, we read his expert report to be skewed in favor of a                  
          low value for the stock.                                                           
                Mr. Chaffe relied primarily on his 1989 report to ascertain                  
          the value set forth in the 1991 report.  We are unpersuaded that                   
          the company valued in 1989 (DATA) was sufficiently similar to the                  
          company valued in 1991 (Eatel) to make such reliance reasonable.                   
          Whereas the 1989 report states that Mr. Chaffe toured DATA’s                       
          facilities on October 10, 1989, there is nothing in his testimony                  
          or the 1991 report to suggest that he did likewise before                          
          preparing the 1991 report, or that he took any other meaningful                    
          step to independently verify that Eatel’s operation in 1991 was                    
          the same as DATA’s operation in 1989.  Indeed, the 1991 report is                  
          silent with respect to Eatel’s then-current business.  Although                    




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011