- 72 -
refinancing.” In a similar vein, his report assumes a
comparatively minimal cleanup cost but does recognize the factor
as a contingency detracting from the value of the note.
On this record, we believe that Mr. Thomson has taken the
better supported and more convincing position on environmental
issues. He reviewed objective materials and was able to offer
specifics relating to the physical condition of the property.
Mr. Cronkite relied almost exclusively on the generalized opinion
of Mr. Marsh. While we understand that Mr. Marsh was the
beneficiary of the $1 million note secured by the park, we are
uninformed as to the nature, extent, or basis of his knowledge
regarding the park’s environmental profile. Additionally,
although both sides acknowledge a delay in refinancing that could
have been attributable to environmental problems, we saw before
us no evidence confirming the degree to which environmental
concerns figured in financing negotiations. We therefore
conclude that Mr. Thomson appropriately took environmental issues
into account as one of several factors affecting value and was
not compelled to give greater emphasis to this feature.
The foregoing evaluation thus results in a scenario
comprising one factor tending to decrease and two tending to
increase any applicable discount, with the other two factors
being either neutral or irrelevant. Mr. Thomson used these five
factors to place the discount for the Marsh note within a 5- to
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011