- 9 -
III. Arguments of the Parties
A. Reliance on Expert Testimony
Both parties rely on expert testimony to establish the value
of a G&J share. Petitioners rely on the expert testimony of
David O. McCoy, a business appraiser, who prepared a report
valuing the common shares of G&J. Mr. McCoy was accepted as an
expert appraisal witness by the Court, and his report was
accepted into evidence as his direct testimony. Mr. McCoy also
prepared a report in rebuttal to respondent’s expert witness,
which report was accepted into evidence as additional direct
testimony. Petitioners also called Charles A. Wilhoite, an
appraiser and valuation expert, who prepared a second report in
rebuttal to respondent’s expert witness. Mr. Wilhoite was
accepted as an expert on appraisal and valuation methodology by
the Court, and his report was accepted into evidence as his
direct testimony. Respondent called Mukesh Bajaj, Ph.D., an
appraisal expert, who prepared two reports, one valuing minority
interests in G&J as of the gift date, and one in rebuttal to
Mr. McCoy’s first report. Dr. Bajaj was accepted as an expert
appraisal witness by the Court, and his reports were accepted
into evidence as his direct testimony.
The principal disagreements among the parties’ expert
witnesses are: (1) whether it is appropriate to “tax affect”
G&J’s earnings in determining the value of a G&J share, (2) the
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