- 37 -
assigned to the intangibles, including the customer accounts that
were acquired from Rose:
Respondent’s Life Petitioner’s Life
Account Expert’s Value Years Expert’s Value Years
Cash $610,000 5.0 $4,014,000 4
Cash management 830,000 10.3 1 1
Margin 500,000 4.3 6,522,000 6
Pension 410,000 2 2,051,000 15
Vendor agreements 50,000 5.0 575,000 5
Marketing 250,000 3.0 671,000 3
agreements
Exchange seats 750,000 2 661,000 2
Trademark 600,000 2 3 3
Software 775,000 5.0 3 3
Total 4,775,000 14,494,000
1 Respondent’s expert separated the cash accounts into cash
and cash management accounts to comport with Rose’s business
approach. However, petitioner’s expert retained petitioner’s
classifications, which had no separate breakout for “Cash
management” accounts.
2 Respondent’s expert opined that the useful lives of these
intangible assets could not be determined.
3 Petitioner’s expert did not value or assign lives to these
intangibles on the premise that they had no value and, as
evidenced in the record, petitioner discarded or abandoned them.
Respondent’s expert valued Rose’s tangible and intangible
assets (other than goodwill) at $146,280,000 on March 31, 1989,
whereas petitioner’s expert’s value was $181,837,000.
Petitioner’s fair market value was close to the $181,376,869
MADSP that petitioner allocated to its acquired assets, leaving
no residual amount of “goodwill”. Respondent’s expert’s value of
17(...continued)
goodwill. For purposes of comparison, this chart reflects the
spread between the parties’ and their experts’ positions.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011