- 65 -
equivalents for its business needs, in particular to meet bonding
requirements without drawing on personal guaranties of its
owners. The record does not disclose whether the paving
contractors covered by SIC code 1611 provided personal guaranties
to meet bonding requirements, but we are satisfied from the
record herein that personal guaranties would affect cash needs.
Given the unreliability of the industry average as applied to
BCC, we are persuaded that the $1.5 million actual cash
requirement of BCC, demonstrated in the record, is a better
benchmark for determining excess cash than Mr. Hitchner’s
approximately $1,125,000 derived from an industry average. Thus,
we conclude that the proper measure of BCC’s excess cash is the
amount by which its cash and cash equivalents on hand on the
valuation date ($2,994,970 exclusive of life insurance proceeds)
exceeded $1.5 million. Accordingly, we find that BCC had excess
cash of approximately $1.5 million, not the approximately $1.9
million calculated by Mr. Hitchner. Consequently, Mr. Hitchner’s
computation of nonoperating assets, and his income-based value,
should be reduced by $400,000.
4. Conclusion
Since Mr. Fodor’s $750,000 downward adjustment to account
for the ESOP repurchase obligation was made to both his income-
and asset-based values, elimination of that adjustment would
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011