- 7 -
of approving financing for that transaction (item number 2
above) were both prepared prior to the valuation date.
Both documents were prepared in connection with Dubin
Clark's purchase of SWI, and neither describes subsequent
events which affected the value of the stock. Accordingly,
these documents are directly relevant to our determination
of the value of SWI stock on the valuation date. See
Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, supra.
The valuation of a noncontrolling equity interest in
SWI prepared by KPMG Peat Marwick (item number 3 above) and
the confidential private placement memorandum prepared by
Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc. (item
number 4 above), were both prepared after the valuation
date. However, both of these documents contain information
regarding the value of SWI stock within a reasonable time
after that date, and neither describes subsequent events
which affected the value of SWI stock. Both documents also
represent valuations of SWI stock by third parties who were
not influenced by the biases of litigation. The fact that
they were prepared after the valuation date is a factor
that we must consider in determining the probative value of
the evidence, but does not automatically make the documents
irrelevant. See Krapf v. United States, 977 F.2d 1454,
1458-1459 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011