where using price that had been allocated for tax reasons to the property in question would result in an unduly low option exercise price with "windfall” effect, declining to regard allocated price as conclusive); Wilber Lime Products, Inc. v. Ahrndt, 268 Wis.2d 650, 673 N.W.2d 339, 343 (2003) (exercising a fair market value methodology and "recogniz[ing] the possibility that the acres being sold are not all of equal value”). 41 . Consortium Brief at 17. 42 . Consortium Reply Brief, filed August 29, 2006, at 3 (ECF # 11889) (explaining that the price increase was due to adjustments that Time Warner had provided). 43 . Responsive Brief of Time Warner, filed August 29, 2006, at 7 (ECF # 11890). 44 . Id. at 15-16. 45 .See Gleason v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 243 F.3d 130, 140 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Pantry Pride, 806 F.2d at 1231 (holding in a
holding gratuitous transfer of real property to hospital did not trigger right of first refusal holding in a package deal case that a right of first refusal  empowers the rights holder with a preferential right to repurchase the property subject to the right of first refusal on the same terms offered by a bona fide purchaser holding that transfer of property from an individual to a corporation wholly owned by the same individual was not a sale triggering a right of first refusal holding that when determining the proper amount for a burdened property that was purchased in a package only two methods suggest themselves as arguably appropriate 1 a determination of the fair market value of the  property burdened by the right of first refusal or 2 a determination of the portion of the  purchase price which based on the percentage of the fair market value of the entire package represented by the  property burdened by the right of first refusal should be allocated to the  property burdened by the right of first refusal holding right of first refusal only applied to a voluntary sale and taking of property by condemnation is involuntary therefore right of first refusal not triggered