Divorce laws vary state-by-state, but valuation mistakes are often the same

BVWireIssue #98-2
November 10, 2010

Last Sunday at the AICPA National BV Conference, Nicholas San Filippo (Lowenstein Sandler PC) informed the audience thatthe legal standards in oppression cases and valuation cases not only vary across states but are different within each state for the type of entity involved. “The distinctions are important, so when you interface with counsel you need to protect yourselves to make sure you understand what the parameters so you don’t get caught short.“

“Because valuation is not an exact science and there is no one right answer,” added Nicole Bearce Albano (Lowenstein Sandler PC), “the trial court or jury has the critical role of making the factual findings necessary for valuation.  These findings are typically afforded ‘great deference’ and will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.” In addition, expert testimony is often significant to the courts.

San Filippo, Albano and Robert Reilly (Willamette Management Associates)discussed over a dozen pitfallsmade by testifying valuation experts in business divorce cases, including:

  • Failure to define the standard of value (judges have wide latitude here) or using an inappropriate standard of value.
  • Failure to disclose sources of information contained in the valuation process.
  • Failure to prepare a comparative financial analysis with industry performance (quantitative evaluation).
  • Failure to define “earnings” adequately or to estimate a “normalized” earnings base realistically; can result in undervaluation or overvaluation.
  • Confusing capitalization rates with discount rates.
  • Failure to consider an alternative capital structure when valuing a controlling interest.

“It is easy to lose credibility and very difficult to get it back,” San Filippo added.

Please let us know if you have any comments about this article or enhancements you would like to see.