- 23 -
He has not explained adequately why he chose as his similar
companies six corporations all of whose revenues more than
doubled the revenues of Seminole. He also fails to explain why
he did not consider RedKap, a corporation that he tells us is a
subsidiary of a publicly traded company and the main competitor
to Seminole.
Nor has Mr. Tack adequately explained how he concluded that
the industry of his similar corporations was the same as
Seminole's industry. He could have, for example, referenced the
standard industry code (or codes) that is (or are) applicable to
Seminole and his similar corporations. He did not. Corporations
which do business in a particular industry are generally
classified under the same industry code, and experts in valuation
cases typically refer to the standard industry code to verify
that the industry of the public corporations which they choose as
similar to a corporation before us is the same. Although Mr.
Tack states in his initial report that he selected as his similar
corporations those public corporations that are "most similar to
the Company [Seminole] from an investment standpoint", a phrase
of uncertain meaning, we are not persuaded that his proffered
corporations are similar to Seminole as to age, business, product
line, and gross receipts. A proper valuation report must contain
enough data on each similar corporation to allow the Court to
make an informed, independent decision as to whether the
corporations are sufficiently similar to the subject corporation
to perform a proper valuation analysis. The mere fact that a
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011