-327-
views are not helpful to the Court in understanding any evidence
or determining a fact in issue.224
In Mr. Shapiro’s expert report, he indicates that he was
asked to provide an expert opinion on the value of SMHC stock,
the value of the receivables that Generale Bank and CLIS
contributed to SMP, and the value of SMHC’s interest in the
Carolco securities. After reviewing Mr. Shapiro’s report and
testimony, however, we find that Mr. Shapiro has gone well beyond
the scope of his engagement, reaching conclusions on the
substance over form issues that this Court must decide.
In his expert report, Mr. Shapiro analyzed the possibility
that the $5 million put purchase price and the $5 million
advisory fee were paid as arm’s-length consideration for Generale
Bank’s and CLIS’s receivables. In scattershot fashion, he
concludes, without any elaboration, that SMP paid the $5 million
advisory fee for the EBD film rights and not the receivables;
that there is a question whether the $5 million put purchase
price and $5 million advisory fee were paid as consideration for
Generale Bank’s and CLIS’s contributions of the receivables; but
that “Considering that SMP received the Film Rights, as well as
224 Although respondent seeks to capitalize on certain
gratuitous statements in Mr. Shapiro’s expert report and
testimony, we do not construe respondent’s position to
contemplate CLIS’s contribution of the EBD film rights to SMP.
Inasmuch as CLIS’s contribution of the film rights to SMHC is not
a fact in issue, we question the relevance of Mr. Shapiro’s
economic analysis.
Page: Previous 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011