- 15 -
discounts applied. For instance, he discounted for the loss of
Harvey Leichter in all three methods and after weighing all
three, he discounted again for lack of marketability. We found
this to be an attempt to discount for the same reasons he
discounted the values initially. For that reason among others,
we question whether his report can be relied upon.
Significantly, Mr. Garvin fails to explain his reasons for
not including a pure liquidation analysis as part of his report.
In effect, Mr. Garvin is opining that Harlee is worth
substantially less than its liquidation value. He fails to
explain why the hypothetical seller would choose not to liquidate
when he concludes that the going concern value is less than the
value of its assets.4
Mr. John McCallum was hired by the estate for litigation
purposes and opined that the value of Harlee was $400,000 as of
December 31, 1995. In reviewing Mr. McCallum’s report, we find
that his conclusions and analysis are brief and cursory in
nature. For instance, while acknowledging in the appraisal that
his date of valuation was 2 months after decedent’s date of
death, Mr. McCallum merely states that “this date is
appropriate.” Mr. McCallum’s “Observations as to Conditions” of
Harlee is less than 10 sentences. Mr. McCallum provides no
4 The estate points out that Steven Leichter wanted to
continue the family business and felt an obligation to the
employees. However, we can only consider the motivations of a
hypothetical seller or buyer, not those of Steven Leichter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011