DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 118

                                         - 45 -                                       
          willing to accept the initial price if they could share in the              
          benefits of mutual affiliation by deferring the sale of a                   
          significant minority interest and enhance its value.                        
               In July 1989, JAL’s and Nissho Iwai’s advisers estimated               
          that at least one-half of DHL’s value was attributable to the               
          agency agreement and the goodwill of the DHL trademark.  In late            
          August 1989, JAL’s and Nissho Iwai’s advisers were advising that            
          unless they increased the purchase price, the transaction would             
          not be consummated.                                                         
               On September 14, 1989, Peers produced a revised report,                
          valuing a 100-percent interest in DHLI/MNV at $625 to $700                  
          million.  In late September 1989, the parties discussed placing             
          the foreign investors in a supermajority position on the boards             
          of DHLI and MNV, and other provisions were devised to protect the           
          DHL shareholders’ resulting minority interests against the                  
          foreign investors’ collective majority position.                            
               On September 28, 1989, JAL and Nissho Iwai extended an offer           
          to acquire a 60-percent interest in DHLI/MNV based on a $450                
          million valuation of those companies, which was rejected by the             
          DHL shareholders.  During late September 1989, the DHL                      
          shareholders asked for a price based on values of at least $500             
          million for the DHLI and MNV stock and $100 million for the DHL             
          trademark, which the foreign investors rejected.  The DHL                   
          shareholders stated that the parties were so far apart that                 

Page:  Previous  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011