-197-
units shipped between “Group 1” and “Group 2” film titles (5,000
units vs. 100 units, respectively). Mr. Wagner, on the other
hand, made his income projections by comparing data from AMR,
using IMDb database star ratings and genre categorizations.
Although Mr. Wagner relied on objective data to reach his
conclusions, his valuation fails to consider certain factors that
we find relevant to the valuation of the EBD film titles. First,
in making his projections, Mr. Wagner assumed that none of the
EBD film titles had been previously distributed.147 Mr. Medress,
on the other hand, assumed that most of the EBD film titles had
been released in video in the United States before 1996. In
making these assumptions, both experts researched existing
databases of film distribution information and other sources.
Mr. Wagner found no record of previous unit sales for the EBD
film titles in the rental market but admits that “it is not
possible to precisely ascertain whether the titles are in the
147 In his rebuttal report, Mr. Wagner claims that he treated
the EBD film titles as if they were near the middle of their
lifespan; i.e., factoring in some level of previous distribution.
Nonetheless, in making his income projections, Mr. Wagner relied
on AMR data, which provides information only for initial release
shipments and seemingly does not factor in any previous
distribution of AMR film titles. Mr. Wagner suggests that he
factored in the age of the EBD film titles by relying on the
median, rather than the higher mean, gross units shipped that he
gleaned from the AMR data. We are not convinced that Mr.
Wagner’s use of the median gross units shipped data somehow
compensates for the age of the EBD film titles. Indeed, Mr.
Wagner points out that the mean figures were higher because a few
of the AMR film titles did well, driving the mean beyond the
median.
Page: Previous 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011