Estate of Beatrice Ellen Jones Dunn - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          Approximately 26 to 33 percent of Dunn Equipment’s gross                    
          operating revenues was earned from labor, parts, and equipment              
          rentals (including the supplying of operators), and Dunn                    
          Equipment had 134 employees at this time.  Thus, even though Dunn           
          Equipment’s primary business was the leasing of heavy equipment,            
          there were significant active operational aspects to the company            
          as of the valuation date.                                                   
               Certainly neither Ms. Eggleston in her report nor respondent           
          on brief has provided an explanation as to why the existence of a           
          large disparity between earnings value and net asset value is, by           
          itself, a sufficient basis for disregarding the earnings                    
          approach.  We do not believe that the disparities in this case              
          indicate the appropriateness of one approach to the exclusion of            
          the other.  Respondent and Ms. Eggleston repeatedly criticize Mr.           
          Frazier for failing to “reconcile” the disparate values obtained            
          in his report.  But they are far more guilty of this than Mr.               
          Frazier.  Rather than reconcile the two values, both respondent             
          and Ms. Eggleston simply assume that with proper adjustments the            
          greater value, i.e., the asset-based value, is the correct one.             
          Although we found her report useful with respect to certain                 
          issues, we note that Ms. Eggleston is not an appraiser, but                 
          instead works in the dispute analysis and corporate recovery                
          division of Price Waterhouse LLP and further that she did not               
          perform an independent appraisal of the stock in issue.  We                 






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