-204-
gaps; for instance, he fails to explain certain important
assumptions and conclusions. Mr. Medress’ methodology appears
highly subjective. On the other hand, Mr. Wagner’s methodology
offers an objective basis for estimating the initial gross units
shipped for the EBD film titles; however, his income projections
are highly overstated. Importantly, Mr. Wagner did not account
for any previous distribution of the EBD film titles.
Despite our misgivings about Mr. Medress’ methodology, we
are persuaded that his income projections for the EBD film titles
are more realistic than Mr. Wagner’s highly overstated
projections. If we were relying solely on the expert opinions,
we would conclude that the EBD film rights had a value as of
December 11, 1996, which did not exceed the value Mr. Medress
determined in his scenario 2; i.e., $1.5 million. Nonetheless,
we find that certain additional factors, which the experts did
not consider, indicate a much lower value.
In making their respective valuations, both experts were
hampered by the lack, or inconsistency, of information relating
to the EBD film titles. Neither expert inspected the physical
materials for the EBD film titles. Neither expert considered
whether the existing physical materials were capable of
reproduction. Neither expert considered the impact of chain-of-
title and copyright issues relating to the EBD film titles. The
record demonstrates, however, that there were significant gaps in
Page: Previous 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011