- 120 -
reality of trademark value but was more motivated by business and
tax planning considerations between parties. Those parties were
attempting to negotiate a result or solution where the existing
shareholders would receive some return on or redemption of their
capital holdings, and the foreign (or new) investors wished to
find a synergetic enhancement of their existing international
airline and freight capabilities.
The fact that the DHL shareholders may have countered with a
$100 million offer in this setting may reflect the value placed
on the trademark asset by its owners but is again tempered by the
type of relationship that was being formulated and the needs of
the parties. Essentially, the DHL shareholders, after failing to
strike a deal with a prior potential merger partner, were more
motivated or determined to find a partner to resolve the
financial and marketplace problems they confronted. After
extensive negotiations with the foreign investors, the DHL
shareholders were confined to a fixed maximum sale price that the
foreign investors steadfastly refused to move from on several
occasions. The foreign investors’ rigidity on price eventually
resulted in a cessation of negotiations and discussions.
Ultimately, the parties were willing to vary prices of individual
assets (e.g., reduction of the trademark price from $50 to $20
million) without changing the total price of the transaction. In
that environment, it is less certain that the offers and
Page: Previous 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011