FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2016

Similar documents
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF APPRAISERS. Procedural Guidelines. PG-2 Valuation of Partial Ownership Interests

ESOP Feasibility and Valuation Basics

ANZVGN 7 THE VALUATION OF PARTIAL INTERESTS IN PROPERTY HELD WITHIN CO-OWNERSHIP STRUCTURES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Intangible assets have continually grown in their importance as a driver of value in businesses, in particular over the past thirty years.

Business Valuation More Art Than Science

Valuation Issues and Divorce

Impact of lease accounting changes to corporate real estate

Topic 842 Technical Corrections Summary of Comments Received

REAL ESTATE INVESTING GUIDE. Combine IRA tax advantages with real estate investment opportunities.

Definitions. CPI is a lease in which base rent is adjusted based on changes in a consumer price index.

Your Guide to Real Estate in an IRA

Technical Line FASB final guidance

The Valuation of Undivided Interests in Real Property and Factors that Influence the Discount Applied by Business Appraisers

EITF ABSTRACTS. Title: Applying the Conditions in Paragraph 42 of FASB Statement No. 144 in Determining Whether to Report Discontinued Operations

Provided Courtesy of:

Risk Management Insights

DETERMINING AGENCY VALUE PART 2

3 things about Livingstone s Guide to Business Valuation

Lease & Finance Accountants Conference. September The Westin Charlotte Charlotte, NC

2018 Tennessee Judicial Conference March 7, 2018 Montgomery Bell State Park

I. FRACTIONAL INTERESTS IN GENERAL 1 II. CONTROL/DECONTROL DISCOUNTING 6

roots The Substance of the Standard Contents Changes to the Accounting for Goodwill for Private Companies

Great Elm Capital Group, Inc. An Introduction to the Fort Myers Transaction & GEC s Real Estate Strategy

Technical Line FASB final guidance

AVA. Accredited Valuation Analyst - AVA Exam.

REAL ESTATE PERSPECTIVE ON NEW LEASE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

Valbridge Valuation Advisory

Delaware Statutory Trust

Paragraph s 8, 9, and 10 from NACVA. Letter of October 27, 2016

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHAPTER 7 PROPERTY TAX VALUATION METHODOLOGY AND ASSESSMENT (DEPARTMENT ASSESSMENTS)

The entity that obtains control of the acquiree. The business or businesses that the acquirer obtains control of in a business combination.

Business Valuations in the Planned Giving Context

Business Combinations

EN Official Journal of the European Union L 320/373

EN Official Journal of the European Union L 320/323

Classify and describe basic forms of real estate investments.

2016 Association of Accredited Small Business Consultants. All rights reserved.

FASB Emerging Issues Task Force

EITF ABSTRACTS. [Nullified by FIN 46 and FIN 46(R) for entities within the scope of FIN 46 or FIN 46(R)]

IFRS - 3. Business Combinations. By:

FASB/IASB Update Part II

THE ART OF BUSINESS VALUATION

Sri Lanka Accounting Standard-LKAS 40. Investment Property

Sri Lanka Accounting Standard LKAS 40. Investment Property

Tennessee Bar Association Webcast August 23, 2018

Economic Impact of Commercial Multi-Unit Residential Property Transactions in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver,

PURCHASE PRICE ALLOCATION IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS: Does A + B + C Always Equal Value?

LEASE ACCOUNTING UNDER IFRS 16 AND IAS 17 A COMPARATIVE APPROACH

Please find attached a brief overview of our services and an informative review of Chase Group s SBA-compliant business valuation services.

International Accounting Standards Board 30 Cannon Street London EC4M 6XH United Kingdom. September 13, 2013

Center for Plain English Accounting AICPA s National A&A Resource Center available exclusively to PCPS members

BUSI 452 Case Studies in Appraisal II

Chapter 6: Auto and RV Dealership Asset Valuation (Equipment)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C FORM 10-Q

Thoughts on the Future of the Appraisal Industry Collateral Risk Network, April 8, 2015 Joseph Tracy

Taking Advantage of the Wholesale Discount for Large Timberland Transactions

Technical Line SEC staff guidance

Topic 4A: Developer Fee Recognition. Issue: Developer Fee Recognition for Unconsolidated Developers. Analysis/Input GAAP

Leases: Overview of the new guidance

WHAT EVERY ATTORNEY NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT BUSINESS VALUATION AND WHY

Topic 4B: Developer Fee Elimination During Consolidation or Combination

Real Estate Principles Chapter 17 Quiz

Applying IFRS in Financial Services

GENERAL ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

Revenue / Lease Standard

Route des Morillons Grand-Saconnex Geneva Switzerland

Real Estate Syndication Income 19,451 NOTE

Special Purpose Properties. Special Valuation Considerations

Leases. (a) the lease transfers ownership of the asset to the lessee by the end of the lease term.

Re: FASB Exposure Draft, Proposed Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, "Business Combinations, a replacement of FASB Statement No.

In December 2003 the Board issued a revised IAS 40 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects.

This version includes amendments resulting from IFRSs issued up to 31 December 2009.

Contract-Related Intangible

GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING CHANGES ON THE HORIZON: WHY TRIBES NEED TO BE PROACTIVE

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Procedures Used to Calculate Property Taxes for Agricultural Land in Mississippi

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM 424B3. Prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)

Industry Focus: Agriculture ~ James L. Turner

Carter Validus Mission Critical REIT, Inc. Reports Second Quarter 2016 Results

Typical Valuation Approaches and How to Deal With Them

EXPOSURE DRAFT. Hong Kong Accounting Standard 40. Investment Property

60-HR FL Real Estate Broker Post-Licensing Learning Objectives by Lesson

Presentation to The New England Graduate Accounting Studies Conference June 18, 2014 Roger Winsby, President Axiom Valuation Solutions

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, DC FORM 8-K/A

LOUISIANA HOUSING CORPORATION QUALIFIED CONTRACT PROCESSING GUIDELINES

The Positive Externalities of Historic District Designation

September 13, Mr. Russell Golden, Chairman Financial Accounting Standards Board 401 Merritt 7 PO Box 5116 Norwalk, CT 06856

PROPERTY TAX IS A PRINCIPAL REVENUE SOURCE

Technical Line FASB final guidance

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

Proposed FASB Staff Position No. 142-d, Amortization and Impairment of Acquired Renewable Intangible Assets (FSP 142-d)

will not unbalance the ratio of debt to equity.

March 20, TO: All MAAO Members FROM: MAAO President Stephen C. Behrenbrinker, CAE, RE: MAAO-DOR Foreclosure Advisory Document

Partner s Share of Partnership Debt

WESTFIELD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST

Technical Line FASB final guidance

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

CHAPTER 18 Lease Financing and Business Valuation

In December 2003 the IASB issued a revised IAS 40 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects.

Transcription:

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2016 04:59 PM INDEX NO. 159020/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2016 APPRAISAL OF A 4.5% INTEREST IN AN ENTITY OWNING ONE PROPERTY 241 W. 14th Street New York, NY 10011 IN AN APPRAISAL REPORT As of June 30, 2016 Prepared For: 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Prepared By: Valuation & Advisory 1290 Avenue of the Americas, 9 th Floor New York, NY 10104 C&W File ID: 16-12002-902620

1290 Avenue of the Americas, 9 th Floor New York, NY 10104 (212) 713-6956 timothy.barnes@cushwake.com Andrew T. Solomon, Esq. 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Re: APPRAISAL OF A 4.5% INTEREST IN AN ENTITY OWNING ONE PROPERTY 241 W. 14th Street New York, NY 10011 C&W File ID: 16-12002-902520 Dear Mr. Solomon: At your request, we have estimated the value of a 4.5% interest in the entity owning the captioned property effective June 30, 2016. The market value of the real estate was previously estimated under separate cover at $17,300,000 in an appraisal made by Marc J. Nakleh, MAI, and the undersigned of our New York office. The standard of value is fair value which is the amount at which a property interest would change hands between a willing seller and a willing buyer when neither is acting under compulsion and when both have reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts, but without regard to a lack of control due to it being a minority interest Our analysis incorporated a review of relevant court cases, a review of empirical studies, and a study of economic and financial market conditions prevailing as of the valuation date. The fractional interest discount reflects a lack of marketability. A marketability discount generally reflects the loss of liquidity experienced by holding an interest that is typically difficult to market. No consideration is given to lack of control, if any. There is compelling evidence that fractional interests in partnerships and corporations sell at a discount to value. 1 The existence of such discounts is recognized not only in valuation literature and case law, but has been historically reflected in the relatively rare sales of such interests. Some authorities contend that lack of control and liquidity are not necessarily separate and distinct issues (Simpson, 1991). Nevertheless, when considered individually lack of liquidity is highly significant in determining marketability discounts. Other relevant influences include: 1 Please refer to a list of partial interest references that follows.

Page 2 restrictions on sale deadlock provisions rights of first refusal alignment of interests financial condition of the entity quality of underlying assets history of distributions reputation of other members leverage level of overall risk Healy (1998) reported that the average rates of discount were 25% for publicly traded partnership units and 35% for private offerings. The range of the price-to-value discount in the public market was 17% to 45%. The reported range of discount of privately traded partnership units was 20% to 50%. Humphrey (1997) presented several case studies demonstrating that the market for fractional interests is far from perfect. Nevertheless, the discounts cited were significant for the debt and equity offerings surveyed. Hall (1989) refers to a study conducted by the SEC in 1971 and one that he performed concerning transactions between 1983 and 1988. Hall s work also indicated substantial discounts, which he attributed to the lack of control and a lack of liquidity. Available literature suggests that price-to-value discounts in the aggregate generally range from 15% to 67% with many transactions in the 20% to 50% range. The applicable discount consists of a control component and a liquidity component as well as other factors enumerated earlier. It is within this context that an appropriate discount for the subject fractional interest must be considered. The magnitude of such a discount depends on the specific circumstances of each. A marketability discount reflects the difficulty a fractional interest holder faces if he or she desires to liquidate a fractional interest in real estate. The ability to sell is hindered by the relative unattractiveness of the interest to outside parties, as well as the hesitancy of banks to lend funds to purchasers of fractional interests. The limited number of fractional interest transactions that have occurred historically illustrates this lack of liquidity. The ability to sell an interest is further hindered by a potential investor s reluctance to enter into an arrangement with an unrelated party. To estimate an appropriate marketability discount for the entities, we looked at various published studies that examined the discounts associated with common stock that is restricted from immediate sale. In 1977, the Internal Revenue Service issued Ruling 77-287, Valuation of Securities Restricted from Immediate Resale. This ruling and its conclusions were consistent with the SEC s earlier study that recognized that a marketability discount was associated with shares that did not have immediate access to an active public market. Following adoption and revision of SEC Rule 144, which regulates the public sale of restricted shares by requiring a minimum holding period of one year (previously two years) before such

Page 3 shares can be sold in a public market, various experts re-examined the price relationships between restricted and non-restricted shares. In the Spring of 1983, Standard Research Consultants (SRC) published, Revenue Ruling 77-287 Revisited in its SRC Quarterly Reports (Volume 10, No. 1). The article reviewed an analysis based on 18 private placements of restricted common stock from October 1978 through June 1982. The study found that discounts from the price of the publicly traded stock ranged from 7 percent to 91 percent, with a median of 45 percent. Additionally, SRC concluded that the earnings pattern of the issuer was an important factor associated with the size of the discounts. Companies that displayed five or more years of successive profits were able to sell their securities at substantially smaller discounts (a median of 34 percent) than companies with one or more years of losses in the five years prior to sale. Furthermore, companies with the largest revenues were accorded the smallest discounts (a median of 36 percent). In another study, the results of which were published in The Value of Marketability as Illustrated in Initial Public Offerings of Common Stock (Business Valuation Review, September 1997), John Emory analyzed 46 initial public offerings in order to determine the relationship between the price at which the stock was originally offered to the public and the price at which private sales had been transacted within five months prior to the initial public offering. The results of this study were that the private buyers paid, on average, 45 percent less than the price at which the stock subsequently came to market. The private sale prices reflected a range of discounts from 6 percent to 79 percent, with a median of 45 percent. The studies mentioned above suggest that marketability discounts for interests in the equity of publicly traded companies range from 30 to 45 percent. This range must be adjusted appropriately to reflect specific characteristics of the subject interest. I have specified certain characteristics that will be utilized to derive a discount for lack of marketability. The specific attributes are as follows: The ease or difficulty of selling; Any restrictions on the ability to sell or transfer the property; The difficulty of a prospective purchaser to obtain financing; and The type of property. Ease/Difficulty of Selling The real estate market has proven very robust. In the appraisal of the real property it was concluded that the implicit marketing time would be 12 months. Therefore, the marketing time for a fractional interest could easily range from 12 to 18 months. Restrictions on the ability to sell or transfer the property The need to secure a majority of the other members consent could protract the sale process, as could the responsibilities of the Managing Member. Difficulty of Prospective Purchaser Obtaining Financing The ability to sell an undivided fractional interest in real estate may be hampered by the difficulty of potential investors to obtain financing. Lending institutions are hesitant to lend to fractional interest holders, largely due to the difficulties in selling these interests to cover mortgage liability and the inability to obtain a primary security interest in the property. A fractional interest in this entity would likely be difficult to finance under prevailing conventional underwriting standards.

Page 4 Type of Property The empirical studies mentioned above focused on partial interests in restricted public company stock while the subject is commercial real estate with a proven recent cash flow record. Furthermore, the property has a relatively low level of debt and distributable cash flow in the long term. This fact mitigates the risk associated with the other factors. In summary, the lack of marketability (LOM) discount of a fractional interest in real estate reflects the difficulty in monetizing such an interest. Although real estate is typically quite liquid, the ability to sell a fractional interest is hampered by a prospective purchaser s concerns about such an interest, as well as the difficulty in obtaining financing. The discount studies referenced above, in conjunction with my adjustments, suggest a marketability discount of 20% is supportable, inclusive of risk associated with capital gains, if any, which, in the case of a partial interest, may not be deferred by means of a 1031 exchange. The indicated value of a 4.5% interest in the property in question comes to $330,000, rounded, including pro rata cash on hand. The calculations of value are shown on the following page. Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC. Timothy Barnes, CRE, FRICS Senior Managing Director NYS Certified General Appraiser License No. 46000006137 timothy.barnes@cushwake.com (212) 713-6956 Office Direct

Page 5 BURNTISLAND, LLC 06/30/16 PARTAIL INTEREST VALUATION PROPERTY ADDRESS/ MARKET OUTSTANDING INDICATED OWNERSHIP PRO RATA MARKETABILITY CASH DISCOUNTED MEMBER VALUE OBLIGATIONS EQUITY INTEREST VALUE DISCOUNT VALUE VALUE 241 W. 14th Street $17,300,000 $8,230,539 $9,069,461 4.50% $408,126 20.00% $4,483 $330,984 New York, NY/ Falkland, LLC ROUNDED $330,000

Partial Interest References IRS Revenue Ruling 93-12 IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60 Internal Revenue Service Ruling 77-287, Valuation of Securities Restricted from Immediate Resale. Standard Research Consultants (SRC) published, Revenue Ruling 77-287 Revisited in its SRC Quarterly Reports (Volume 10, No. 1), Spring of 1983 Davidson, Brad, Valuation of Fractional Interests in Real Estate Limited Partnerships--Another Approach, The Appraisal Journal, 1992, 184-194. Emory, John, The Value of Marketability as Illustrated in Initial Public Offerings of Common Stock (Business Valuation Review, September 1997)````` Hall, Lance S., Valuation of Fractional Interests: A Business Appraiser s Perspective, The Appraisal Journal, 1989, 173-179. Hall, Lance S., Minority Interests in Closely Held Real Estate: Lessons from the Estate of Berg, Journal of Real Estate Taxation, January 1993, 170-177. Harper, Jr., John S., and J. Peter Lindquist, Quantitative Support for Large Minority Discounts in Closely Held Corporations, The Appraisal Journal, 1983, 270-277. Healy, Jr., Martin J., Valuation of Partial Interests, The Appraisal Journal, 1988, 293-298. Humphrey, Walter H. and Bruce B. Humphrey, Unsyndicated Partial Interest Discounting, The Appraisal Journal, 1997, 267-274. Keating, David Michael, Appraising Partial Interests, Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 1998. The Valuation of Partial Interests In Real Estate (ASA Valuation, December 1983) Oliver, Robert P, Valuing Fractional Interests in Closely Held Real Estate Companies, Real Estate Review, 1986, 44-46. Quan, Daniel and Chang N. Xuan, Pricing Limited Partnerships in the Secondary Market, Journal of Real Estate Research, May-June 2002, 215-233. Schoenfeld, John A. and William Epstein, A Partial Interest in Real Estate: How Is It Valued?, The Real Estate Finance Journal, 1996, 34-40. Simpson, David W., Minority Interest and Marketability Discounts: A Perspective, Part I, Business Valuation Review, 1991, 7-13. Simpson, David W., Minority Interest and Marketability Discounts: A Perspective, Part II, Business Valuation Review, 1991, 47-51. Thompson, Mark S. and Eggert Dagbjartsson, Market Discounting of Partial Ownership Interests, The Appraisal Journal, 1994, 535-541. Webb, Dennis A., Minority Interests Discounts: A Quantitative Approach for Real Estate Limited Partnerships, The Appraisal Journal, 1999, 174-179. Weil, S. Douglas and Richard J. Hindlian, Valuing Partnership Interests in Real Estate Companies, Real Estate Issues, 1994, 33-35.