- 233 -
Accordingly, we accept Mr. Gustavson’s gross asset value of
$34,600,000 (rounded) and subtract the corrected amount of
shareholder debt of $15,915,350, to arrive at respondent’s
marketable controlling value on a net asset value basis of
$18,684,650 as of June 4 and June 30, 1994.
A comparison of the parties’ adjusted marketable values for
Belle Fourche follows:
Kimball reports’ Respondent’s Respondent’s
guideline company net asset value net asset value
method (adjusted)method (adjusted) method (adjusted)
Valuation marketable marketable marketable minority
date minority value controlling value value
June 4, 1994 $21,325,000 $18,684,650 N/A
June 30, 1994 $21,325,000 N/A $16,816,185
Again, we believe that some combination of both parties’
valuation methods would most accurately measure Belle Fourche’s
marketable value. However, because respondent’s marketable
values (shown above) are less than Mr. Kimball’s on both
valuation dates, we accept respondent’s values and treat them as
concessions.
2. Marketability Discounts
a. Kimball Report
In the True Oil section of this opinion, see supra p. 203,
we described the Kimball report’s general discussion of empirical
studies on marketability discounts. This information seems to
have informed Mr. Kimball’s choice of marketability discounts for
Page: Previous 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011