- 121 -
counteroffers represented, as to each individual asset, a “fair
market value.”
The parties’ experts have placed us in an environment where
it is more difficult to precisely value the trademark within the
universe of intangibles that may account for the income benefits
enjoyed by the DHL network and other attributes that may affect
the value of the trademark. We must, however, decide the value
of the trademark as a stand-alone asset and accordingly segregate
its value from those of other intangibles. Petitioners have
steadfastly held to their primary position that the trademark had
a $20 million value and, at most, there is a $50 million ceiling
on value. They maintain that the transaction was at arm’s length
and/or that the involvement of the foreign investors caused an
environment where the agreed-to prices represent fair market
value. We have concluded that petitioners’ premise cannot be
sustained. Petitioners have also allowed the question of whether
Bain’s $20 million “comfort letter” was for the worldwide rights
and other related matters to remain murky. For example,
petitioners’ experts have attempted to show that intangibles
other than the trademark were responsible for DHLI’s success in
the marketplace. Those “other intangibles”, however, have not
been clearly defined, and no specific value(s) were assigned to
them. Respondent has not provided any assistance regarding any
intangible other than the trademark and takes a position
diametrically opposed to petitioners’.
Page: Previous 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011