- 32 -
Seminole was an attractive investment from both an income
and growth point of view. Seminole's industry was very
competitive, and Seminole was a firmly based, prosperous company
that was a leader in its industry and projected to continue its
profitability. Seminole's industry also was thriving as a result
of business acquisitions. Given the added fact that some of
Seminole's shareholders (e.g., Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Branch) were
contemporaneously interested in selling their Seminole shares, it
is reasonable to conclude that a hypothetical buyer could have
anticipated as of the applicable valuation date that an investor
would buy the hypothetical buyer's shares to allow the investor
to place itself in position more suited to acquiring the company
in full. We bear in mind that the estate's shares were not
merely growth shares as Mr. Tack assumed. Seminole had budgeted
and was expecting to pay dividend income of $59,580, $71,496, and
$95,328 in 1994 through 1996, respectively, with respect to the
shares held by the estate.
Mr. Tack assumed that the estate's shares lacked any market.
We disagree. The shares were marketable in that a hypothetical
holder thereof could most likely sell his or her large block of
stock to a suitor of the company, to a member of the
Weitzenhoffer family (such as Max Weitzenhoffer, who was actively
seeking to increase his interest therein), or to Seminole itself.
13(...continued)
reducing this price by a minority interest discount. See Woolf
v. Universal Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 849 P.2d 1093, 1095 (Okla.
Ct. App. 1992).
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011