- 36 -
opinion as to the discount amounts, whereas respondent’s experts
did not. We are not persuaded by respondent’s experts’ reasoning
in determining the quantum of the discounts. The quantum of the
discount for lack of control ranged from a low of 5 percent at the
joint venture level to a high of 50 percent at the WVI level.
Moreover, we are mindful that initially respondent’s experts
believed a discount for lack of marketability was not appropriate
at the joint venture level, but eventually changed their minds and
applied a 10-percent discount. In contrast, Mr. Gampel’s discount
rates were consistent and uniform, ranging from 15 percent for lack
of control at the joint venture level (20 percent for lack of
control at the WVI level) to 30 percent for lack of marketability
at both levels. Consequently, we adopt the quantum of the
discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability at both
levels for both valuation dates as determined by Mr. Gampel. Thus,
the valuation conclusions of Ms. Maiden and Ms. Kalmar should be
adjusted (reduced) to reflect Mr. Gampel’s discount amounts. This
adjustment can be made by the parties in their Rule 155
computation.
In reaching our conclusions, we have considered all arguments
raised by the parties in their posttrial briefs. We reject, as
apparently did petitioners’ own expert, the argument (which
petitioners’ counsel alleges was conceded by Ms. Kalmar during her
testimony) that the shares of WVI stock awarded to Dr. Gow have no
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011