Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Showing 353–368 of 385 results
-
“Fair value” in a troubled economy
May / June 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 957
Abstract: Last year, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 157 took effect. The statement, entitled Fair Value Measurements, provides guidance on measuring fair value for purposes of several accounting standards, and establishes a “fair value hierarchy” that emphasizes market-based valuation methods. This article explains how it works. A sidebar discusses a few opportunities to explore in this down economy.
-
Valuations should assume reasonably prudent management
March / April 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 503
Abstract: This brief article discusses a recent case that held that a going-concern valuation should assume a business will be managed reasonably prudently going forward, regardless of how poorly it may have been run in the past. Case citation: Cox Enterprises Inc., v. News-Journal Corporation, No. 06-16190 (11th Cir. 12/21/2007).
-
Constructing a claim for lost productivity damages
March / April 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 671
Abstract: Quantifying the cost of lost productivity when a construction project is disrupted through no fault of the contractor is a difficult challenge. An unanticipated disruption of the project typically causes the contractor to work less efficiently, which can lead to additional labor, equipment and material costs. This article explains that appraisers can use several methods when quantifying lost productivity damages, depending on the particular job’s facts and circumstances. The article also notes that lawyers and damages experts need to work together closely to establish lost productivity and measure it appropriately.
-
Are valuations recyclable?
March / April 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 896
Abstract: The paper a valuation report is printed on may be recyclable, but in most cases the content is not. This article points out that recycling valuations poses two major problems: First, the value of a business or other asset can change dramatically over time — in some cases, overnight. Second, a valuator’s methods depend to a large extent on the valuation’s purpose. The article discusses the problems that can ensue when business owners are tempted to stretch their valuation dollars by using a single valuation for several different purposes.
-
Measuring the intangible – Valuation issues in health care transactions
March / April 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1305
Abstract: In the highly complex and heavily regulated world of health care, business valuations can be particularly challenging. This article looks at a recent U.S. Tax Court decision, Derby v. Commissioner, that illustrates this point. The case involved the sale of a medical group to a not-for-profit health care organization. The group claimed charitable tax deductions resulting from the transaction but the Tax Court denied the deductions, concluding that the physicians were unable to show that the value of what they received was less than the value of what they transferred. The article discusses the ins and outs of the case, noting that the court’s decision demonstrates that valuation in the context of a health care transaction requires a valuator to look at intangible benefits and other relevant terms of the deal. Case citation: Derby v. Commissioner, (T.C. Memo 2008-45).
-
No time like the present – Discounting future damages
January / February 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 597
Abstract: In commercial cases, plaintiffs often recover lost profits they would have earned in the future but for the defendant’s wrongful conduct. In those contexts, experts typically discount future damages to present value. This article explains the importance of recognizing the impact discounting can have on a damage award — and the dangers of overlooking it. The article explains how valuation experts approach their calculations of lost profits damages.
-
Occupational hazards: An internal fraud update
January / February 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1149
Abstract: This brief article highlights some recent trends found in the Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud & Abuse published in 2008 by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE). These trends include a rise, since 2006, from 5% to 7% in occupational fraud in U.S. organizations. In addition, the report notes that small businesses continue to be more vulnerable to fraud and that the industries most often hit include banking and financial services, government and health care.
-
What are the options when valuing share-based compensation?
January / February 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1156
Abstract: Recently, employee stock options (ESOs) have lost some of their allure as a compensation tool. New mandatory expensing of ESOs highlights the importance of choosing an appropriate option-pricing model as well as the challenge of valuing these options in closely held companies. This article explains that selecting the wrong model can significantly distort stock option value and, therefore, the company’s reported net income. The article points out that the traditional Black-Scholes approach may not adequately reflect outstanding ESOs’ impact on the value of a closely held company.
-
Before and after – Court paints picture of lost profits and other calculations
January / February 2009
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1150
Abstract: In Floorgraphics Inc. v. News America Marketing In-Store Services Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey provided valuable insight into the “before-and-after” method, guideline company use, and marketability discount availability. This article discusses the ins and outs of the case, noting the importance of demonstrating in court that financial experts’ methods are reliable in order to better defend them against attacks on their reliability in the form of Daubert challenges. Case citation: Floorgraphics Inc. v. News America Marketing In-Store Services Inc., No. 04-3500 (D.N.J. 02/04/2008).
-
Unemployment compensation – Calculating damages for lost earnings
November / December 2008
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 858
Abstract: At first glance, calculating lost earnings damages may appear simple, but in many cases it’s deceptively complex. This article discusses how a valuation expert estimates these damages and notes the many factors he or she considers in establishing or opposing lost earnings damages. The article points out that experience and expertise are key to ensuring all the bases are covered.
-
FLP and FLLC updates – Taxpayers enjoy some important victories
November / December 2008
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 882
Abstract: Family limited partnerships (FLPs) and family limited liability companies (FLLCs) have long been popular business and estate planning vehicles for transferring minority interests. The IRS has frequently challenged these vehicles. But two recent cases have shown that properly structured FLPs and FLLCs can withstand IRS scrutiny. This article summarizes these two cases, Estate of Mirowski and Astleford v. Commissioner, which provide valuable guidance on the type of facts that can support a taxpayer’s position.
-
Valuing IP assets: A team approach
November / December 2008
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 373
Abstract: IP rights — especially patents and copyrights — encourage innovation and creative pursuits by giving owners exclusive rights to exploit the economic benefits of their work for a specific period of time. This brief article explains how valuators estimate an asset’s remaining useful life by studying the historical life cycles of comparable IP assets.
-
It ain’t over ’til it’s over – Postclosing disputes in M&A transactions
November / December 2008
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1200
Abstract: Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are complicated transactions, and getting from letter of intent to closing takes time — sometimes several months or longer. During that time, things can — and usually do — change, leading to potential disputes concerning the purchase price or the target company’s financial position. This article explains the types of disputes that can arise and the covenants used to address potential conflicts. The article shows how bringing financial experts in early can help avert disputes or resolve matters to help the deal go through without a hitch. (Updated 8/29/12)
-
How the latest USPAP revisions affect business appraisals
September / October 2008
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 538
Abstract: One of the first sets of comprehensive business valuation standards was the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), published in the late 1980s by the Washington, D.C.-based Appraisal Foundation. Today, USPAP is widely considered to comprise the generally accepted standards for professional appraisal practice in the United States, particularly in the federal courts. This brief article notes some recent changes to the standards, including clarification of the question of appraiser advocacy and guidance on record-keeping, signature and certification requirements in assignments involving multiple appraisers.
-
What’s the “real” value of a business?
September / October 2008
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 910
Abstract: The impact of real estate value on business value depends on several factors, including the type of business, the nature of the real estate, the purpose of the valuation and the valuation methods used. If real estate is a significant asset for a business being valued, valuing it separately often results in a more accurate enterprise value. This article explains that, although real estate appraisers and business valuators use similar methods, there are important distinctions between the two.
-
Mitigating circumstances – Reasonable damages and the plaintiff’s duty
September / October 2008
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 816
Abstract: Attorneys and their financial experts often focus on quantifying a plaintiff’s economic losses. But it’s equally important to examine measures the plaintiff took, or reasonably could have taken, to mitigate its damages. A plaintiff isn’t entitled to recover damages for a loss that he or she reasonably could have avoided. When an expert evaluates the plaintiff’s opportunities to mitigate damages, the key term is “reasonable.” This article refers to a recent case, Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, to explain some issues that arise in determining the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate damages. Case citation: Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2001).