- 47 -
On the other hand, the approach petitioner’s expert used in
his report is more apropos of the circumstances we consider and
was contemporaneously used by petitioner in connection with its
evaluation and acquisition of Rose and reporting of the
transaction. In addition, Mr. Knoblick’s methodology was based
on brokerage industry experience. Under those circumstances, we
find Mr. Knoblick’s report to be more appropriate and reliable.
We were also influenced by the fact that Mr. Knoblick’s approach
and report do not appear to inflate or reach merely to favor
petitioner’s position. Conversely, Mr. Shepard’s approach
appears to ignore the realities we consider and inappropriately
attempts to focus on a going-concern value to establish value for
assets which petitioner (as well as any other “willing buyer”
would have) abandoned.
Frequently, valuation cases engender intermediate results
where the opinion of each party’s expert is brought to bear.
This instance, however, is one where full faith and credit should
be given to the expertise proffered by one of the parties. We
accept Mr. Knoblick’s report and hold for petitioner on the
question of value. In a like manner, the reliability of the
results reached by Messrs. Shepard and Knoblick is repeated with
respect to the valuing of the remaining customer accounts and
assets.
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011