- 15 -
MPI concluded that each share in Mr. DiSanto’s estate had a
fair market value of $23.50 when he died. Spiro testified that,
generally, MPI’s valuation method was reasonable.
Petitioners contend that none of their experts considered
factors such as business trends, MD&F's financial position,
MD&F's management, the death of Mr. DiSanto, a potential increase
in water rates, and pending litigation. We disagree. MPI
considered these items except for the proposed increases in water
costs and pending litigation. Petitioners offered no evidence
showing whether or to what extent the pending litigation or water
costs affected the value of MD&F stock. Thus, we do not decrease
MPI’s estimate based on those factors.
Spiro criticized MPI for (a) not adequately justifying its
conclusions, (b) relying solely on a market approach to value
MD&F stock, (c) comparing MD&F to some companies that he believed
were not similar to MD&F, and (d) applying incorrect weights to
MD&F’s earnings. We are not persuaded by Spiro’s criticisms. He
agreed that the market approach was an appropriate method here
and did not apply any other method. He did not suggest any
companies which he believed were more comparable to MD&F than
those used by MPI. MPI gave equal weight to MD&F’s earnings for
a 5-year average, 5-year weighted average, and latest year.
Spiro gave 45 percent of the weight to the 5-year average, 45
percent to the 5-year weighted average, and 10 percent to MD&F’s
most recent year’s earnings, despite the fact that MD&F’s
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011