Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Showing 257–272 of 385 results
-
Why the valuation date is so critical
March / April 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 648
Abstract: Valuations are prepared for a number of reasons: estate planning, divorce settlements and shareholder litigation, just to name a few. And while the parties in these various matters may focus solely on the valuation amount, a valuation expert will also be focusing on the valuation date. This article explains why, under certain circumstances, an executor may elect to use an “alternate valuation date” rather than one that’s customarily used.
-
Proving lost profits for an unestablished business
March / April 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 431
Abstract: In damages cases, lost profits for an established business are computed by analyzing the company’s historical earnings and cash flow to predict future performance. But what about a startup or a business without a track record to work from? Today, most courts allow such businesses to recover lost profits if they can be proven with “reasonable certainty.” This article explains how that’s determined.
-
Can financial statement disclosures influence IP damages?
March / April 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 631
Abstract: In litigation involving patents, copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property (IP), financial statement disclosures regarding the fair value of these assets can have a significant impact on damages awards. This article emphasizes that companies that acquire IP assets should value them carefully, with an eye toward potential future litigation. And defendants in infringement actions should request fair value documentation in the discovery process.
-
FLP discounts: Alive and well — if planning and operation are proper
March / April 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 814
Abstract: The family limited partnership (FLP) can be a powerful tool for consolidating and managing family wealth while reducing gift and estate taxes, in part through valuation discounts. And recent court cases demonstrate that a properly planned and operated FLP can support substantial valuation discounts for transfer tax purposes. This article examines one such case, in which the court upheld 47.5% valuation discounts for FLP interests even though the decedent’s estate plan was incomplete at the time of her death. A sidebar explains how experts quantify valuation discounts. Keller v. United States, No. 10-41311 (5th Cir. 9/25/2012) Estate of Liljestrand v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2011-259 (11/09/2011)
-
In search of unreported income — A forensic expert can help find missing assets
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 730
Abstract: Getting a client a fair divorce settlement is challenging enough. But when the other spouse siphons off a business’s income, there’s double trouble. That’s why it’s critical to employ a forensic expert at the first sign of malfeasance. He or she can use several accounting methods to uncover missing income in divorce cases. This article explains some of these methods.
-
Case note: Intellectual property had zero value
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 530
Abstract: In a recent case, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court concluded that certain intellectual property received by the debtor had no value. As a result, the property didn’t constitute “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for two mortgages challenged as fraudulent transfers. This article reviews the case, in which the court found the defendants’ valuation expert’s use of the cost method and income method to be inappropriate. Citation: Holber v. M&T Bank, et al. (In re: Sheffler), Case No. 09-22088REF, Adv. No. 09-2177 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. June 5, 2012).
-
Estimating economic damages in wrongful death cases
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: Calculating economic damages in wrongful death cases is deceptively complex. It requires an expert to consider a variety of factors to ensure that none of the decedent’s financial contributions are missed or double-counted. This article looks at those factors, which might include earnings history, lost earning capacity, employer-provided benefits and household services. A sidebar discusses whether it’s appropriate to exclude personal consumption.
-
Good news! — FASB votes to abandon controversial litigation proposal
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 632
Abstract: In July 2012, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) voted to scrap its controversial proposal to heighten disclosure requirements for certain contingent losses, including potential losses from pending or threatened litigation. This article examines the objections that were raised against the FASB proposal and reviews the existing accounting requirements for loss contingencies.
-
Why financial experts should explain themselves
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 599
Abstract: In a recent personal injury case, a federal district court excluded a financial expert’s testimony regarding the plaintiff’s loss of future earning capacity, finding the expert’s methodology unduly speculative. But the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial on damages. Why? Because it found that the lower court had confused the concepts of lost earning capacity and lost earnings. This article explains why it’s critical for financial experts to provide the reasoning behind their damages calculations when they testify. Citation: Andler v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., 670 F.3d 717 (6th Cir. 2012)
-
Using regression analysis in litigation and valuation
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 709
Abstract: Financial experts often use regression analysis and other statistical techniques in calculating damages, determining causation and conducting business valuations. Regression analysis can be a powerful, persuasive tool. But it can also be dangerous in the wrong hands. This article discusses a federal court case in which a large damages award was thrown out because, according to the court, the expert’s regression analysis was so deeply flawed that it “should never have been allowed to be put before a jury.” Citation: ATA Airlines v. Federal Express, 665 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2011)
-
When a business is being valued, consider the real estate
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 684
Abstract: If a client owns an office building or manufacturing facility, or any other type of real estate for that matter, it will affect the business’s value. So, the issue at hand is how? Finding out will generally require the input of both a business valuator and a real estate appraiser. This article explains the difference between the two and discusses situations in which the skills of one or the other, or both, may be most valuable.
-
Rules of thumb: Do they have a place in business valuation?
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 912
Abstract: Business valuation rules of thumb may offer a rough indication of value that can be used to satisfy a business owner’s curiosity or to serve as a “reasonableness or sanity check” on results derived from other methods. But they fail to capture the specific characteristics of a business that drive its value, and so are no substitute for a comprehensive, formal valuation. This article explains what constitutes a rule of thumb and points out these rules’ limitations. A sidebar offers an example of a rule of thumb in action.
-
6 common procurement fraud schemes
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 490
Abstract: The terms “procurement fraud” and “vendor fraud” are often used interchangeably. But procurement fraud encompasses a broad range of schemes, some of which don’t involve vendors. This article lists six common schemes and some red flags to look for.
-
Blockage discounts: They’re all about supply and demand
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 695
Abstract: When valuing a business, an appraiser often establishes discounts for lack of control and marketability. In some instances it’s not a company but large blocks of public stock that must be valued. In such cases, the valuator is likely to employ a discount for blockage — especially if the stock has limited trading volume, for blockage discounts are based on the law of supply and demand. This article explains how appraisers determine blockage discounts.
-
Lucent v. Microsoft — Following the case of the shrinking damages
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 958
Abstract: The decade-old patent infringement litigation in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. illustrates, as the court itself observed, “the difficulty of properly valuing a small patented component, without a stand-alone market, within a larger program.” Lucent won “reasonable royalty” damages against Microsoft, but the award was reduced repeatedly until, in January 2012, the parties settled their dispute for an undisclosed sum. This article explains the court’s reasoning as it tried to determine damages regarding a product that contained both infringing and noninfringing components. A sidebar discusses application of the entire market value rule. Citation: Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 07-CV-2000 H (CAB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2011)
-
How capital structure affects business valuation
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 676
Abstract: A company’s capital structure — essentially, its blend of equity and debt financing — is a significant factor in valuing the business. But a question that often arises is whether the valuator should use the company’s actual capital structure or its anticipated future capital structure — or a prospective buyer’s capital structure or the company’s optimal capital structure. Which method is best depends on several factors. This article shows how valuators determine the right capital structure for valuation purposes.