gouldinglist

The Nutmeg Group, LLC – Mercury Fund

Fair Value Report

As of December 31, 2008

Case: 1:09-cv-01775 Document #: 297 Filed: 06/06/11 of 26 PageID #:5175

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW 2 NATIONAL ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 5 FAIR VALUE ANALYSIS 8 FAIR VALUE OF SUBJECT INTEREST 12 CRITIQUE OF CROWE HORWATH’S REPORTS 13 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 16 CERTIFICATION OF THE REPORT 18 STATEMENT OF APPRAISER’S QUALIFICATIONS 19


Table of Exhibits

EXHIBITS I Fair Value of Subject Interest 23


1

Executive Summary

Corporate Valuation Services, Inc. (“CVS” or “We”) was retained to perform an analysis and submit a fair value report (“Report”)

concerning The Nutmeg Group, LLC’s Mercury Fund (the “Fund” or the “Subject Interest”) as of December 31, 2008.

The fair value of The Nutmeg Group, LLC’s Mercury Fund as of December 31, 2008 is:

Seven Million Fifty-One Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Two Dollars

$7,051,642

The findings of this Report are bound by the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and Certification of the Report, both of which are found towards the

end of this Report.


2

Engagement Overview

Engagement We were retained to by Mr. Randall Goulding, Esq. (or “Client”) to provide a

fair value opinion and write a report presenting our analysis concerning fair

value calculation report of The Nutmeg Group, LLC’s Mercury Fund as of

December 31, 2008.1 We understand this Report will be used in the matter of

Securities and Exchange Commission v. The Nutmeg Goup, LLC, Randall

Goulding, David Goulding, Case No. 09-CV-1775. 2

1 The date of valuation is 12/31/2008. Per the Client, this was the last date that the Fund assessed fees for its management of the investments. 2 Calculation reports are permissible under both the Uniform Starts of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”) of the Appraisal Foundation and Statement of Standards of Valuation Services 1 (“SSVS 1”) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Standard of value

The standard of value is fair value under the premise of a going concern3 and

the highest use of the Company’s assets.

Our analysis is in conformance with various administrative pronouncements,

including FAS 157, which is now referred to as ASC 820. ASC 820 defines

fair value as:

the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (i.e., the exit price) in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

Some assets are readily valued, while others are more difficult and in some

cases, no current market price may be available. ASC 820 establishes a

hierarchy of three levels for assets. This hierarchy ranks the quality and

3 The International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms defines "Going Concern" as "an ongoing operating business enterprise," and "Going Concern Value" as "the value of a business enterprise that is expected to continue to operate into the future. The intangible elements of going concern value result from factors such as having a trained work force, an operational plant, and the necessary licenses, systems, and procedures in place." The International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms has been jointly adopted by the AICPA, American Society of Appraisers (or “ASA”), Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators and National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts.


3

Engagement Overview

reliability of the information (i.e. observable and unobservable inputs) used

to determine fair values. Inputs to fair value determinations refer broadly to

the assumptions that market participants would use to price an asset or

liability and its risk. ASC 820 describes inputs as observable or

unobservable, and directs statement preparers to “maximize” the use of

observable inputs and “minimize” the use of unobservable inputs. Below is a

description of the difference between these two inputs:

1. Observable inputs: reflect market participants’ assumptions in pricing the

asset or liability based on market data obtained from sources independent of

the reporting entity.

2. Unobservable inputs: reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about

the market participants’ assumptions that they would use to price an asset or

liability based on the best information available under the circumstances.

Additionally, ASC 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy with three levels for

these input valuations. The three levels are defined below:

Level I: Valuations are based on quoted prices in active markets for identical

assets or liabilities. Since valuations are based on quoted prices that are

readily and regularly available in an active market, valuation of these

products does not entail a significant degree of judgment. ASC 820 defines

active markets as that which trades at least enough “to provide pricing

information on an ongoing basis.” Examples would be securities with prices

derived from the major exchanges.

Level II: Valuations are based on quoted prices for similar instruments in

active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets

that are not active and model-based valuations for which all significant

assumptions are observable or can be corroborated by observable market

data. Examples would be securities with prices derived from market

corroborated sources such as indices and yield curves; and matrix pricing,

such as for most debt securities.

Level III: Valuations are based on unobservable inputs that are supported by

little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the

assets or liabilities. Values are determined using pricing models and

discounted cash flow models and includes management judgment and

estimation which may be significant. Examples would be prices derived

from investment managers or other advisors for securities such as private

equities, hedge funds, and private placements. Our conclusion of value


4

Engagement Overview

reflects these findings, our judgment and knowledge of the marketplace, and

our expertise in valuation.4

In performing our work, we were provided with and/or relied upon various

sources of information, including, but not limited to:

� Assets and securities statements supplied from The Nutmeg Group

LLC, as of December 31, 2008;

� Reports to Leslie Weiss as submitted in the matter of Securities and

Exchange Commission v. The Nutmeg Group, LLC, Randall

Goulding, David Goulding et al, - dated: September 28, 2010,

October 20, 2010 and November 16, 2010;

� Volume and trading prices for the Fund’s assets as of December 31,

2008 as provided by Aegis Capital;

� US Economic Outlook;

� Speeches and presentations by members of the Securities and

Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding Fair Value.

� Data on publicly traded securities similar to those held within the

Fund; and

� Other miscellaneous information. 4 See Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and Certification of the Report sections at the end of this Report.

The procedures employed in valuing the Subject Interest included such steps

as we considered necessary, including, but not limited to:

� An analysis of the financial performance of the Fund;

� Assessment of the trading price as of December 31, 2008 and

average trading volume for the fourth quarter of 2008 for each

publicly traded security;

� Determination of whether the asset is categorized as a Level I, Level

II or Level III per FASB 157 / ASC 820.

� Assessment of discounts allowable under Fair Value / ASC 820 and

apply where determined;

� An analysis of the general economic environment as of the valuation

date; and

� An analysis of other pertinent facts and data resulting in our

conclusion of value.


5

National Economic Outlook

In fourth quarter 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research

(“NBER”) officially announced the U.S. was in a recession. Citing

continued deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 ─ an estimated

three million jobs lost ─ the NBER stated the recession began in December

2007; making it one of the longest downturns in the post-World War II era.

Exact reasons or causes for the recession were not given, although the

housing market crisis, which started in 2006, is widely accepted as the

primary cause of the broader economic downturn.

In the latter part of 2008, credit markets in the U.S. and worldwide froze,

financial markets began a series of free-falls, and governments and central

banks scrambled to respond to the growing instability. A $700 billion

financial rescue plan, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

(“EESA”), passed both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by

President Bush on October 3, 2008. The primary focus of the EESA was to

be the purchase of “troubled assets” from financial institutions, through the

Troubled Assets Relief Program (“TARP”). Two weeks after EESA became

law, the program’s focus was revised to allow the Treasury Department to

purchase equity stakes in banks, rather than purchasing troubled assets

outright. Through the end of December 2008, approximately $300 billion

had been authorized and spent by the Treasury Department under TARP.

In a December 2008 press release, the Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve (“Committee”) made the following statements with regard to the

overall condition of the U.S. Economy:

Labor market conditions have deteriorated, and the available data indicate that consumer spending, business investment, and industrial production have declined. Financial markets remain quite strained and credit conditions tight. Overall, the outlook for economic activity has weakened further. Meanwhile, inflationary pressures have diminished appreciably. In light of the declines in the prices of energy and other commodities and the weaker prospects for economic activity, the Committee expects inflation to moderate further in coming quarters. The Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth and to preserve price stability. In particular, the Committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time.

A summary of major points concerning the nation’s economic condition as of

December 31, 2008, follows:

• In fourth quarter 2008, the NBER officially announced the U.S. was

in a recession. Citing continued deterioration in the labor market


6


throughout 2008 ─ an estimated three million jobs lost ─ the NBER

stated the recession began in December 2007; making it one of the

longest downturns in the post-World War II era. Exact reasons or

causes for the recession were not given, although the housing market

crisis, which started in 2006, is widely accepted as the primary cause

of the broader economic downturn.

• In the latter part of 2008, credit markets in the U.S. and worldwide

froze, financial markets began a series of substantial selloffs, and

governments and central banks scrambled to respond to the growing

instability. A $700 billion financial rescue plan, the EESA, passed

both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Bush

on October 3, 2008. Through the end of December 2008,

approximately $300 billion had been authorized and spent by the

Treasury Department under TARP.

• Fourth quarter 2008 real GDP decreased at an annual rate of 3.8%,

compared to 0.2% a year earlier. The decline reflected negative

contributions from exports, personal consumption expenditures,

equipment and software, and residential fixed investment. The

negative contributions were partly offset by positive contributions

from private inventory investment and federal government spending.

For the year GDP growth was 1.3%. GDP is projected to contract

sharply in 2009, with growth declining by as much as 2.0%. Weak

growth was projected for 2010; estimates for GDP growth ranged

from 0.6% to 1.4%.

• Energy prices at both the consumer and producer levels fell sharply

in 2008, while food prices increased for the year. Core consumer

inflation decelerated in 2008. Inflation at the consumer level was

expected to slow in 2009 before accelerating in 2010, while producer

price inflation was expected to decline in 2009 before rising in 2010.

• Fourth quarter 2008 consumer spending dropped by a record 8.9%,

making it the worst quarter for spending since 1947. December 2008

marked the sixth-straight month that consumers reduced spending, a

decline that increased dramatically in the final months of the year.

Spending on durable goods fell by 4.4% for the year, and spending

on nondurable goods fell by 0.4%. Consumers remained very

concerned about the short-term outlook and employment, as well as

future expectations.


7


• Interest rates fell in fourth quarter 2008, with both short-term rates

and long-term rates declining. Both the federal funds rate and the

discount rate were lowered by 4.0% in 2008, to 0.25% and 0.5%,

respectively.

• Financial markets declined on a year-over-year basis in 2008, with

investors reacting to increasingly negative economic news. The

financial bail-out package failed to ease investor concern and stocks

fell sharply in the fourth quarter. For the year, the Dow was 33.8%

lower, the NASDAQ was down 40.5%, and the S&P 500 was 38.5%

lower.

• Housing continued to decline in 2008, with housing starts and new-

home sales down 45% for the year. The value of nonresidential

construction increased in 2008. Monthly average mortgage rates

were somewhat lower than a year earlier. Rates were expected to

remain the same or increase slightly in 2009 and 2010.

• In December 2008, the unemployment rate increased, to 6.9%,

approximately 2.3% higher than a year earlier on a seasonally-

adjusted annual basis. Employment declined in most major industry

sectors in fourth quarter 2008, as well as for the year. Overall, an

estimated 3.0 million jobs were lost in 2008.

• Agricultural conditions were mixed in fourth quarter 2008, due in

part to widely-varied weather conditions across the country. Prices

received by farmers were down in 2008, as decreases for fruits and

nuts, commercial vegetables, food grains, feed grains and hay, and

oil-bearing crops more than offset the increase for cotton and

potatoes and dry beans. Year-over-year, prices paid by farmers for

fuels and livestock and poultry were lower, while prices increased

for feed, fertilizer, chemicals, and machinery.

The national economic outlook appears to mirror the performance of the

Fund’s investments. It reflects high volatility and a slower growth

environment with less volatility and a very gradual recovery hoped for in

the future. We view the downward volatility as being magnified in the

Fund’s assets which comprise mostly of lower capitalized equities.


8

Fair Value Analysis

We were provided a listing of the securities held within the Fund.

Additionally, we were supplied average trading volumes and pricing for each

asset held within the fund. We then analyzed each security to determine if

under ASC 820 the asset held was a Level I, Level II or Level III. We then

assessed for possible discounts from the stated prices based on the following

assumptions:

1. Level I assets were to be assessed no discounts per the Fair Value

definition within ASC 820. Blockage discounts are expressly

forbidden in ASC 820.5

2. Level II assets were assessed for possible discounts. Any such

discounts should be in good faith and as a result of not finding a

5 See November 2010 Presentation SEC Staff Review of Common Financial Reporting Issues Facing Smaller Issuers , Wayne Carnall, Chief Accountant Steven Jacobs, Associate Chief Accountant Andrew Mew, Accounting Branch Chief Ryan Milne, Accounting Branch Chief Brian K. Bhandari, Accounting Branch Chief Jennifer Thompson, Accounting Branch Chief Joel Parker, Accounting Branch Chief Cicely LaMothe, Accounting Branch Chief Kevin Woody, Accounting Branch Chief Division of Corporation; November 13, 2008 letter from Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090; April 11, 2001 letter from Mr. Mark V. Sever - Chair, Accounting Standards Executive Committee American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-8775

comparable determinate of value and a lack of recovery of value

under the Fair Value premise.

3. Level III assets are assessed for discounts to compensate for

recovery to Fair Value. These assets are are based on unobservable

inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are

significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.

Discounts and Fair Value

For Level I and Level II assets, where there is a quoted price equivalent,

discounts are forbidden under Fair Value. This includes blockage discounts,

illiquidity discounts, marketability discounts and discounts for minority

positions. Fair Value tries to approximate the market stated value regardless

of other equity factors; whereas, Fair Market Value, as defined by Revenue

Ruling 59-60, makes adjustments and compensation for factors that lie

outside the market quoted price.

With the data supplied to us, we analyzed each security and ascertained

whether it was market quoted or had a quotable equivalent. If it was market

quoted with trades then it is deemed a Level I asset. If it has a market quoted

equivalent, then the security is a Level II asset. Lastly, for those securities

that did not have a market quote or market quote equivalent, then those


9

Fair Value Analysis

securities were deemed to be Level III assets. Most privately held

companies’ equities are Level III assets.

For each security we also analyzed their trading volume, too. While Fair

Value does not allow for blockage discounts, we thought it would be

appropriate to analyze the securities absorption rate. For most of the equities

that were debentures we applied the underlying market pricing to assess their

value. However, these securities often trade at a premium to their common

stock equivalents due to the liquidation preferences that are usually inherent

in the convertible equity status.

In our analysis we discounted all the privately held securities by 45% for

marketability. These Level III assets would be appropriately discounted to

account for their lack of liquidity. Since there is not a quoted market to sell

these securities they are essentially illiquid. There are numerous studies

regarding restricted stock and pre-IPO equities that have consistently

demonstrated discounts between 18% and 74% for lack of marketability. For

these current issues we determined a 45% discount is appropriate for these

level III assets.6

6 A complete write-up of our discount for lack of marketability asserted here in is in our workfile.

The remaining assets were discounted due to clear and objective non-

performance. For example, out of the money warrants and loans that were

not receiving timely payments and therefore were completely written

off.Based on our analysis and review of the securities held within The

Nutmeg Group LLC’s Mercury Fund, we determined the Fair Value of that

fund’s assets on December 31, 2008 is $7,051,642.

In assessing this level of fair value we believe that the valuation previously

submitted by The Nutmeg Group, LLC was in object and in good-faith but

may have unnecessarily discounted their assets too much. Any discounts

above the spirit of the objective quoted price is not allowable under Fair

Value. It is only under Level III assets or under a different valuation

premise, such as Fair Market Value, that discounts are utilized to adjust the

value indication. To illustrate the differences between Fair Value and Fair

Market Value we have inserted discounts that we would assert under a Fair

Market Value premise.7

7 In reviewing the documentation the Gouldings submitted and the reports submitted by Crowe Horwath, it appears that both parties either simply didn’t understand Fair Value or employed discounting from a fair market value premise. The Gouldings’ valuation, however, seemed reasoned, objective and appropriate but still in certain instances too conservative as they too did apply certain unwarranted discounts. Crowe Horwath’s valuation, which will be commented on in a later section, aggressively discounted on what we can only conclude was from a Fair Market Value premise and with no understandable basis per their limited discussion of their discounting of these fair value assets.


10

Fair Value Analysis

Fair Market Value Analysis (For Comparison to the Fair Value Premise)

We also assessed the securities for Fair Market Value premise. Under Fair

Market Value blockage discounts are allowable for all securities.

Additionally, discounts for lack of marketability and lack of control are also

permissible. To approximate a Level I or Level II asset’s blockage discount

and lack of marketability we used put option pricing modeling. Utilizing

Black Scholes option modeling we computed these discounts. For each

security that was Level I or Level II we used the following inputs within our

Black Scholes calculation.

Black Scholes Input Type Input

Stock Price $100

Strike Price $100

Risk Free Rate 3.05%

Volatility 80%

Years (duration) Absorption Time

The modeling assumes both a stock price and a strike price of a $100 a share

which makes the modeling “at par.” The risk free rate of 3.10% was the 20

year U.S. Treasury rate as of December 31, 2008 per the Federal Reserve’s

H.15 statistical release.

The volatility is assumed to be 80% which is normally a very high level of

volatility but these smaller, penny-stocks can have extremely high volatility.

In reviewing data we observed volatility between 40% to over 100% in

certain instances. In modeling all of the Fund’s securities we have assumed a

80% volatility in our put option modeling analysis.

The duration is specific to the absorption time for each security.

The European put option price expressed from this modeling equates to a

percentage of value (since it is based on a $100 strike price) to hold the

security though sale. The range of value derived was from 0% to 80% for

those securities that had an extremely long absorption time.

For Level III assets we added a 15% discount for lack of control to the 45%

discount for lack of marketability asserted in our Fair Value determination.

The result of our analysis was an imputed combined discount of 40.5% of the

Fund’s securities based on fair market value premise as compared to the

12.0% discount we determined under a Fair Value premise.


11

Fair Value Analysis

Conclusions

Based on our analysis we believe that there was an unacceptable discounting

in The Nutmeg Group LLC’s previous Fair Value determination and even

more so Crowe Horwath’s analysis. By demonstrating the difference in

discounting under the Fair Value premise versus the Fair Market Value

premise we have demonstrated the narrow width of allowable discounting

under Fair Value and the wide breath of latitude of discounting under Fair

Market Value.

On balance our valuation is closer to the values submitted by The Nutmeg

Group LLC. Further we view their analysis as having been reasonably

objective and approximate of the Fair Value of the assets, with certain

unnecessary discounting aside.


12

Fair Value of Subject Interest

Corporate Valuation Services, Inc. was retained to perform an analysis and submit a Fair Value Report concerning The Nutmeg Group, LLC’s Mercury Fund as of

December 31, 2008.

The Fair Value of The Nutmeg Group, LLC’s Mercury Fund as of December 31, 2008 is:

Seven Million Fifty-One Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Two Dollars

$7,051,642


13

Critique of Crowe Horwath’s Reports

We were supplied three reports that Crowe Horwath furnished Leslie Weiss,

as Court-appointed receiver for the Fund. These reports are dated September

28, 2010, October 20, 2010 and November 16, 2010. We have reviewed

these reports and analyzed the valuation methodologies therein and have the

following comments and critiques on these reports:

In terms of valuation conclusions and reporting, the report on October 20,

2010 is not in conformity with The Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

� Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B) lists required disclosures that an expert

witness is bound to submit. Ms. Reidy, the reports signatory

professional failed to show the analysis where she concluded a 59%

weighted variance discount on seven of the Fund’s securities.8

Further there were no exhibits detailing this analysis nor her attached

curriculum vitae or compensation in this matter – all of which are

required under Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

� From our perspective, Ms. Reidy’s approach of not revealing how

she arrived at a 59% discount provides no opportunity to analyze

8 October 20, 2010 Report to Leslie Weiss submitted by Crowe Horwath, pages 31 – 32. Ms. Reidy, the sole signatory to the reports, is not accredited to perform valuations and the report improperly fails to reference any germane Standards or valuation premises for her conclusions.

whether there is any basis, consistent with the Fair Value Standard,

to assert so substantial a discount. Additionally, this is why we also

showed our analysis of Fair Market Value. Without any specifics

we believe that the level of discounting asserted by Crowe Horwath

is more indicative of Fair Market Value rather than Fair Value. Fair

Value is the appropriate Standard in this matter.

In terms of valuation conclusions and reporting, the report on October 20,

2010 is neither in conformity with the Appraisal Foundation’s Uniform

Standards of Professionl Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”) nor American

Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Statement of Standards of

Valuation Services (“SSVS 1”)

� USPAP, which is the standard for appraisal reporting of equities

adopted in most federal and state courts, states clearly in Standards

Rule 10-1 (c): “Clearly and accurately disclose all assumptions,

extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions and limiting

conditions used in the assignment.” [Emphasis added].

� SSVS 1, which is a required reporting Standard for all Certified

Public Accountants, states in paragraphs 40 – 46 and paragraphs 73 -

76 that calculation engagements should have a clear articulation of

the standard of value, describe the calculation procedures involved


14


and the valuation premise. Crowe’s analysis appears to contain none

of these elements.

Notably, on page 31 of Crowe’s October 20, 2010 report, it states:

Based on Crowe’s preliminary valuation, Nutmeg significantly over-valued these investments. [Emphasis added].

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that Crowe understood they were applying

valuation concepts that would necessarily be bound by the nationally

recognized standards of USPAP and SSVS1 but yet nowhere in our review

do we see the set of calculations or assumptions displayed in arriving at a

59% discount from the values originally reported by the Fund.9

9 Should those calculations exist or should we have missed them in our analysis of the three reports provided, we would like to have the opportunity to analyze and understand them better. Absent our missing these calculations in these reports or other court furnished documents, we strongly feel that any trier of fact should have been furnished these calculations and assumptions in compliance with Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B), USPAP and SSVS 1.

Crowe’s report analysis does not appear to be in compliance with Fair Value

Standards.

� In analyzing the Fund’s underlying securities, nowhere did we

observe that Crowe actually understood the Fund’s assets in relation

to Fair Value premise. We did not see Fair Value be defined

anywhere in their valuation analysis or even mentioned.

Additionally none of the underlying assets were categorized into

Level I, Level II or Level III assets which is proscribed by FASB

157 / ASC 820. Without compliance to these Standards it is hard to

understand the basis, if any, for Crowe’s valuation conclusion.

However, as previously discussed, due to the large “variance” which

we view as a discount, it is hard to understand how Crowe’s premise

could be Fair Value as opposed to some other value premise

(including but not limited to a Fair Market Value premise).

Crowe’s report analysis extrapolates a conclusion on seven of thirty six

positions, or 66% of the Fund’s assets, by value, upon all of the Fund’s

securities.

� Each of the fund’s securities are unique with their own unique

attributes. Each security is an investment in a unique company with


15


different management, industries, risks and growth profiles. We see

no basis for comparison and extrapolating based on a sampling,

which is not comparable and is too small. The securities should have

been allocated by Level I, Level II or Level III assets and then

analyzed based on the proscribed valuation premise, Fair Value.

Thereafter any extrapolation should be done only by grouping of

similar securities as opposed to a simple, large extrapolation that

Crowe asserted within their October 20, 2010 report.

In sum, we find serious deficiencies in terms of compliance and analysis

disclosure in Crowe’s reports in regards to the valuation of the Fund’s asset

values. Our analysis and critique herein only applies to valuation and related

assertion of discounts on the Fund’s assets. Within the three reports

submitted we only found four pages of valuation analysis concerning

discounting of assets on pages 30 – 34 of the October 20, 2010 report.

Should additional analysis be recognized or forwarded to our attention, our

opinions expressed herein may change.


16

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

The primary assumptions and limiting conditions pertaining to this Report are

summarized below. Other assumptions are cited elsewhere in this Report.

� Financial statements and other information provided by Fund or its

representatives in the course of this engagement, have been accepted

without any verification as fully and correctly reflecting the enterprise's

business conditions and operating results for the respective periods, except

as specifically noted herein. CVS has not audited, reviewed, or compiled

the financial information provided to us and, accordingly, we express no

audit opinion or any other form of assurance on this information. The

approaches and methodologies used in our work are not an examination in

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the objective of

which is an expression of an opinion regarding the fair presentation of

financial statements or other financial information, whether historical or

prospective, presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting

principles.

� Public information and industry and statistical information have been

obtained from sources we believe to be reliable. We have also received

information from Company management or their representatives that we

believe to be reliable. However, we make no representation as to the

accuracy or completeness of such information and have performed no

procedures to corroborate the information.

� Unless stated otherwise in this Report, we express no opinion as to: 1) the

tax consequences of any transaction which may result, 2) the effect of the

tax consequences of any net value received or to be received as a result of a

transaction, or 3) the possible impact on the market value resulting from any

need to effect a transaction to pay taxes. We express no opinion on matters

that require legal or other specialized expertise, investigation, or knowledge

beyond that customarily employed by business appraisers.

� The conclusions and opinions arrived at herein is based on the assumption

that the current level of management expertise and effectiveness would

continue to be maintained and that the character and integrity of the

enterprise through any sale, reorganization, exchange, or diminution of the

owners' participation would not be materially or significantly changed.

� This Report and the opinions herein are for the exclusive use of our client(s)

for the sole and specific purposes as noted herein. Furthermore, this Report

and opinions herein are not intended by the author and should not be

construed by the reader to be investment advice in any manner whatsoever.

The opinions herein are the considered opinion of CVS, based on

information furnished to CVS by the client(s) and their representative(s)

and other sources. This Report and opinions herein may not be used in

conjunction with any other appraisal or study. The value conclusion(s)

stated in this appraisal is based on the program of utilization described in

this Report, and may not be separated into parts.


17

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

� Future services regarding the subject matter of this Report, including, but

not limited to testimony or attendance in court, shall not be required of CVS

unless previous arrangements have been made in writing. However, CVS

may elect at its discretion to provide updated reports for the Client(s), if

such updated reports are needed and desired by the Client(s). No change of

any item in this Report shall be made by anyone other than CVS, and we

shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change(s).

� CVS is not an environmental consultant or auditor, and it takes no

responsibility for any actual or potential environmental liabilities. Any

person entitled to rely on this Report, wishing to know whether such

liabilities exist, or the scope and their effect on the value of the property, is

encouraged to obtain a professional environmental assessment. CVS does

not conduct or provide environmental assessments and has not performed

one for this Report.

� We did not make an onsite visit to the Fund’s location of business.

� This Report is issued based on an Engagement Agreement signed by the

Client(s). The Engagement Agreement may have additional rights and

restrictions.

� Any projections of future events described in this Report represent the

general expectancy concerning such events as of the Report date(s). These

future events may or may not occur as anticipated, and actual operating

results may vary from those described in our Report.

� In all matters that may be potentially challenged by a court or other party,

we do not take responsibility for the degree of reasonableness of contrary

positions that others may choose to take, nor for the costs or fees that may

be incurred in the defense of our recommendations against challenge(s).

We will, however, retain our supporting work-papers for your matter(s), and

will be available to assist in defending our professional positions taken, at

our then current rates, plus direct expenses at actual, and according to our

then current Standard Professional Agreement.

� The Report assumes all required licenses, consents, or legislative or

administrative authority from any local, state or national government, or

private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or reviewed for

any use on which the opinion contained in the Report is based.

� The obligations of CVS are solely corporate obligations, and no officer,

director, employee, agent, contractor, shareholder, manager, member, owner

or controlling person shall be subject to any personal liability whatsoever to

any person, nor will any such claim be asserted by or on behalf of any other

party to this agreement or any person relying on the Report.


18

Certification of the Report

Valuation Representation/Certification

� The statements of fact contained in this Report are true and correct. � The reported analyses and opinions are limited only by the reported

assumptions and limiting conditions, and is my personal, impartial, independent, unbiased, objective professional analyses, opinions and conclusions.

� I have no present or prospective/contemplated financial or other

interest in the business or property that is the subject of this Report, and I have no personal financial or other interest or bias with respect to the property or the parties involved.

� My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon

developing or reporting predetermined results. � My compensation for completing this assignment is fee-based and

is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined opinion or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the outcome of the analysis, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. I was paid at a rate commensurate with my billable rate of $375 an hour.

� The economic and industry data included in the valuation Report

have been obtained from various printed or electronic reference sources that the valuation analyst believes to be reliable. The valuation analyst has not performed any corroborating procedures to substantiate that data.

� The analyst has no obligation to update the Report or the opinions

herein for information that comes to our attention after the date of the Report.

I represent and certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, under penalties of perjury, executed May 26, 2011

Tony Garvy, ASA, CPA/ABV/CFF, CVA, FCPA Corporate Valuation Services, Inc.


19

Statement of Appraiser’s Qualifications

TONY GARVY, ASA, CPA/ABV/CFF, CVA, FCPA

Mr. Garvy is President of Corporate Valuation Services, Inc. (“CVS”). Prior to forming CVS, he was Managing Partner for valuation and litigation support services at the firm Chadwick & Garvy LLC. He has appraised billions of dollars of equity interests throughout the country and given court testimony in taxation, partnership disputes, divorce matters, intellectual property litigation, rendered fairness opinions and solvency opinions. Mr. Garvy is a Director for several corporate and charitable institutions. Notably, Mr. Garvy was Chair of the Board of Directors for Vegetable Juices, Inc., a closely held food ingredients manufacturer. Recent Engagements: In 2010, Mr. Garvy was the lead appraiser and / or expert witness in the following engagements:

- An appraisal of a futures and commodities trading company which had $250 Million in annual revenue and gross assets of $35 Billion. The report was submitted to the Company’s Board of Directors for corporate planning purposes.

- An appraisal of a worldwide logistics company. The solvency report of this $215 Million company was used as part of an equity recapitalization.

- Subject to two Motion in limine (Daubert challenges) both which failed and the cases were settled prior to his testimony.

- A $40 Million estate holding 16 different partnerships and companies involving discounts for lack of control, lack of marketability and trapped capital gains.

- An appraisal that was submitted in a U.S. Tax Court dispute regarding the personal versus enterprise goodwill arising out of the sale of a $80 Million propane company sold to a publicly traded acquirer.

- An appraisal of a large 13 member Orthopaedic surgical practice in family law court.

- An appraisal of a $5 Million executive recruiting firm. Notably, Mr. Garvy was retained as a post-closing appraiser as an arbiter of the Company’s value that settled the parties’ litigation. The settlement was executed on the value that Mr. Garvy opined.

Recent Articles Published: Mr. Garvy has authored numerous articles in various publications. In the last 10 years he has published the following:

- The Evolving Role and Impact of the CPA Appraiser / Expert Witness - DuPage County (IL) Bar Association’s Brief Magazine, January 2009.

- Appraisal Opportunities and Challenges in a Down Market - Illinois State Bar Association’s Trusts & Estates Quarterly Newsletter, April 2009.

- Recent Cases Shed Light on the Use of Valuation Discounts – Estate Planning Magazine, July 2010. Estate Planning Magazine is a nationally recognized, peer-reviewed trade magazine to tax attorneys.


20


Presentations Made: Mr. Garvy has traveled nationally in presenting current issues concerning valuation concepts. In particular, Mr. Garvy has spoken to conferences of attorneys and accountants about business valuation, tax planning and their associated discounts. In the last 24 months he has given the following presentations:

- “Business Valuations and Marital Dissolution – Compounding the Fun!” – Divorce Illinois Organization, February 2010

- “Business Valuations for Tax Planning and Current Discounts” – DuPage Bar Association, Estate & Probate Committee, February 2010

- “Business Valuations for Tax Planning and Current Discounts” – CCH Tax Forums, Nashville, TN, June 2009

- “Business Valuations in Corporate and Shareholder Matters” – An internal Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for a large law firm in Chicago, September 2009.

- “Business Valuations and Current Discounts” – CCH Tax Forums, Chicago, IL, November 2009

- “Business Valuations and Current Discounts” – CCH Tax Forums, Orlando, FL, December 2009

- “Current Business Valuation Issues with a Tax & Discounts Focus” – DuPage Bar Association, DuPage County, IL February 2010

Representative Engagements: Mr. Garvy has rendered a range of appraisals in many industries for companies of less than $1 million to over $35 Billion in assets. Among the notable industries served: food processing, construction, media, financial institutions, manufacturing, professional services, technology, metal forming. Below are representative engagements that Mr. Garvy has executed on behalf of clients within the last two years: Fairness Opinions & Solvency Opinions

- Fairness opinion: $15 Million door and window installer. - Fairness opinion: $5 Million technical search firm – shareholder buy-

out - Fairness opinion: $15 Million media company – sale of assets. - Solvency opinion: $35 Million woodworking mill - management

buy-out. - Solvency opinion: $215 Million Logistics Company.

Tax Planning

- Numerous appraisals for closely held businesses for gifting and estate planning with assets of over $1 Billion in certain engagements

- Dozens of discount Studies within the last two years - S-Corp conversion appraisals - Numerous S-Corp and pass-thru entity appraisals - Tax appeals before IRS on personal versus enterprise goodwill on

$80 Million asset sale to a publicly traded company (Ohio). - Appraisal of publicly traded stock options - Complex estate with 16 partnerships and holding companies - Numerous blockage studies


21


Financial Reporting Purposes & Corporate Planning

- Numerous appraisals for fair value standards - Numerous appraisals for goodwill testing - Numerous appraisals for shareholder redemption - Numerous appraisals of private equity group holdings

Forensic Accounting: Shareholder Litigation and Family Law

- Forensic accounting engagement as part of 12.56 claim to multi-million dollar construction distribution company.

- Forensic accounting yielded double the reported income and settled within two days of report being issued. Report submitted to Court in DuPage County

Litigation: Shareholder Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation & Family Law

- Shareholder litigation under Illinois Business Corporation Act 12.56 claim

- Shareholder litigation and immediate redemption under reverse merger

- Trial Testimony on intellectual property / patent claim against a venture capital firm

- Report submitted & depositional testimony in DuPage County: Orthopaedic surgical practice based in Chicago (family law).

- Report submitted & depositional testimony in Lake County: Mortgage Company (family law).

- Report submitted in DuPage County: Fertilizer Company (family law).

Recent Litigation Testimony: In the last 4 years, Mr. Garvy has been involved in the following matters of litigation:

- re Marriage of James R. Lutz and Sarah Lutz, Family Law Court, DuPage County, IL, 2009 (report testimony).

- Commissioner v. Mr. Volney L. Wright, II, Moulton Gas, Inc., U.S. Tax Court, 2010 (report testimony).

- In re the Marriage of Armen S. Kelikian v. Toula D. Kelikian No. 2009 D 267 (report testimony).

- Kuly v. Kuly 09 d 1651. Family Law Court, DuPage County, IL (report testimony).

- Mary B. McLaughlin v. Brian J. Dilger, Sr. No. 08 D 269, DuPage County, IL Family Law Court. Report and testimony was subject to failed Motion in-limine. 2008.

- Adam Kooperman v. Scott Patchett 2010 – L – 001122, Cook County, IL Law Divison. (Appointed by both sides in post-litigation binding settlement).

- Ten X Capital Partners, LLC v. Rafiq Kiswani, Al Hasan, Joel Warady and Mahmoud Ismail No. 2006 L 013179, Cook County, IL Law Division Court, (report, depositional and trial testimony), 2008

- Estate of Clara Minnis, 2007-P-008528, Cook County, IL Probate Court (report testimony), 2009.

- Bank of America v. Carpenter NOS. 1-08-2647 IL Probate Court and Appeals, financial analysis report (report testimony).

- In Re Marriage of Pevitz, Lake County (report and depositional testimony), 2007.


22


Accreditations: Mr. Garvy’s accreditations include:

- Accredited Senior Appraiser (ASA) – American Society of Appraisers

- Certified Public Accountant (CPA) / Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) / Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF) – American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

- Certified Valuation Analyst (CVA) – National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts

- Forensic Certified Public Accountant (FCPA) – Society of Forensic Certified Public Accountants

- Certified Divorce Financial Analyst (CDFA) – Institute of Certified Divorce Financial Analysts

Education: Mr. Garvy’s education includes:

- Master of Business Administration, Kellogg School of Management (Northwestern University)

- Master of Accountancy (Graduate Candidate), Kellstadt School of Business (DePaul University)

- Graduate Level Course work in Economics, Booth Graduate School of Business, (University of Chicago)

- Bachelor of Arts, History, Loyola University of Chicago

Membership in Professional & Civic Organizations: Mr. Garvy’s professional and civic participation includes:

- American Institute of Certified Public Accountants - American Society of Appraisers - National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts - Institute of Certified Divorce Financial Analysts - Chicago Planned Giving Council - Association for Corporate Growth - Business Valuation Association - Adult Congenital Heart Association, National Board Advisor


Share Equivalency Average AbsorptionCompany Name Symbol Class Owned Trade Price Extended Trading Volume in Days I II III Fair Value FMV* Fair Value FMV*Accesskey, Inc. AKYI Debenture 228,660,043 $0.00900 $2,057,940 928,797 246 X 0% 24% $2,057,940 $1,564,035Physicians Healthcare Management, Inc. PHYH Preferred 146,768,760 0.01200 1,761,225 278,959 526 X 0% 41% 1,761,225 1,039,123HotWeb, Inc. HWBI Debenture 381,054,070 0.00320 1,219,373 3,492,000 109 X 0% 29% 1,219,373 865,755Apple Rush, Inc. APRU Debenture 25,461,519 0.01100 280,077 843 30,203 X 0% 80% 280,077 56,015NuState Energy Holdings, Inc. NSEH Debenture 218,933,690 0.00120 262,720 236,000 928 X 0% 44% 262,720 147,123Niveous Intellimedia, Inc. Niveous Common 0 - 250,000 N/A N/A X 45% 60% 137,500 100,000Morrison, McClendon & Partners MM&P Preferred, LLC 0 - 200,000 N/A N/A X 45% 60% 110,000 80,000Celsia Technologies, Inc. CSAT Debenture 8,061,461 0.01300 104,799 16,129 500 X 0% 34% 104,799 68,748Physicians Healthcare Management, Inc. PHYH Debenture 16,666,665 0.01200 100,000 146,350 114 X 0% 17% 100,000 83,200GoIP Global, Inc. GOGB Debenture 9,269,658 0.00800 74,157 15 617,977 X 0% 80% 74,157 14,831Spooz, Inc. SPZI 2 Debenture 728,125,000 0.00020 145,625 4,882,500 149 X 0% 16% 145,625 122,325Startech, Inc. STHK Common 231,482 0.35000 81,019 27,096 9 X 0% 5% 81,019 77,373H3 Enterprises, Inc. HTRE Legal Claim 0 - 80,000 257,291 0 X 0% 0% 80,000 80,000ICC Worldwide, Inc. ICCW Note 389,809,995 0.00020 77,962 106,195 3,671 X 20% 20% 62,370 62,370Rushnet, Inc. RSHN Note 0.00010 70,019 N/A N/A X 20% 20% 56,015 56,015Mainstream Holdings, Inc. Mainstream Common 0 - 100,000 N/A N/A X 45% 60% 55,000 40,000Cinemaya, Inc. CNMY Common 89,372,261 0.00110 98,309 N/A N/A X 45% 60% 54,070 39,324Genesi, Inc. Genesi Common 0 - 40,500 N/A N/A X 0% 60% 40,500 16,200QPC Lasers, Inc. QPCI Note 166,679,269 - 150,000 3,932,100 42 X 75% 75% 37,500 37,500Andover Medical, Inc. ADOV Debenture 227,824 0.16000 36,452 13,429 17 X 0% 6% 36,452 34,265North Bay Resources, Inc. NBRI Debenture 823,468 0.01600 35,917 83,128 10 X 0% 5% 35,917 34,121Real American Brands, Inc. RLAB Debenture 35,852,055 0.00100 35,852 8,340 4,299 X 0% 80% 35,852 7,170Inverso, Inc. Inverso Common 0 - 34,133 N/A N/A X 0% 60% 34,133 13,653Rushnet, Inc. RSHN Common 329,615,385 0.00010 32,962 782,254 421 X 0% 32% 32,962 22,414Long E, Inc. LOGE Debenture 382,500 0.02000 31,671 14,350 27 X 0% 8% 31,671 29,137American Diversified Holdings Corp. ADHC Debenture 7,669 3.75000 28,759 0 N/A X 0% 80% 28,759 5,752American Lorain, Inc. ALRC Common 25,340 1.05000 26,607 22,500 1 X 0% 1% 26,607 26,341Premiere Mortgage Resource PMRS Common 211,711,000 0.00010 21,171 0 N/A X 0% 80% 21,171 4,234World Transport Authority, Inc. WTAI Debenture 29,471,781 0.00050 14,736 138,633 213 X 0% 23% 14,736 11,347NuState Energy Holdings, Inc. NSEH Common 7,926,700 0.00120 9,512 171,013 46 X 0% 10% 9,512 8,561Apple Rush, Inc. APRU Common 665,788 0.01100 7,324 843 790 X 0% 39% 7,324 4,497Virogen, Inc. VRGI Debenture 95,000 0.05000 4,750 4,000 24 X 0% 5% 4,750 4,513Apple Rush, Inc. APRU Restricted Stock 367,874 0.01100 4,047 843 436 X 0% 35% 4,047 2,630USA Technologies, Inc. USAT Common 1,800 2.16000 3,888 40,976 0 X 0% 0% 3,888 3,888Spooz, Inc. SPZI Common 8,500,000 0.00020 1,700 4,882,500 2 X 0% 1% 1,700 1,683American Diversified Holdings Corp. ADHC Common 298 3.75000 1,118 0 N/A X 0% 80% 1,118 224World Transport Authority, Inc. WTAI Common 985,000 0.00050 493 138,633 7 X 0% 2% 493 483IMD Companies ICBU Common 200,000 0.00200 400 390,757 1 X 0% 1% 400 396Taj Systems, Inc. TJSS Common 525,596 0.00040 210 60,665 9 X 0% 5% 210 200SEVM, Inc. SEVM Common 1,112 0.03000 33 65 17 X 0% 4% 33 32Simulated Environment Concepts, Inc. SMEV Common 90,000 0.00020 18 311,758 0 X 0% 0% 18 18American Lorain, Inc. ALRC Warrants 17,668 - 0 22,500 1 X 100% 100% 0 0Andover Medical, Inc. ADOV Warrants 428,550 0.35000 149,993 13,429 32 X 100% 100% 0 0Celsia Technologies, Inc. CSAT Warrants 800,000 - 0 16,129 50 X 100% 100% 0 0Global Resource Corp. GBRC Warrants 250,000 - 0 68,213 4 X 100% 100% 0 0Long E, Inc. LOGE Warrants 382,500 0.40000 153,000 14,350 27 X 100% 100% 0 0North Bay Resources, Inc. NBRI Warrants 625,000 - 0 83,128 8 X 100% 100% 0 0QPC Lasers, Inc. QPCI Warrants 238,087 0.95000 226,183 3,932,100 0 X 100% 100% 0 0Startech, Inc. STHK Warrants 462,963 - 0 27,096 17 X 100% 100% 0 0

$8,014,653 12.0% 40.5% $7,051,642 $4,765,495Note: *Fair Market Value is shown for illustrative purposes only.

Deternined Level of Asset:

Exhibit I

The Nutmeg Group, LLC - Mercury FundFair Value as of December 31, 2008

Discount Determined Adjusted Value

23


gouldinglist

Documents