Select new case abstracts added to BVLaw

Here are some of the cases decided recently that have been added to the BVLaw database.  All of these cases adjudicated issues related to business valuation.

In re Nuveen Funds/City of Alameda, 2011 WL 1842819 (N.D. Cal.)(May 16, 2011) Court dismisses securities fraud complaint regarding municipal bonds due to lack of expert loss causation evidence; i.e., comparing value of underlying collateral on purchase date to subsequent liquidation sale value.

Experts:  David Sosa (plaintiffs)

Judge:  Illston

State/Jurisdiction: federal/ California

Court: U.S. District Court

Type of case: securities

H.G. Roebuck & Son, Inc. v. Alter Communications, 2011 WL 2261483 (D. Md.)(June 3, 2011) Federal district court reverses bankruptcy court’s confirmation of debtor’s exclusive reorganization plan, finding that expert valuation does not satisfy requirement for actual market valuation under new value exception to absolute priority rule.

Experts: unnamed

Judge:  Bennett

State/Jurisdiction: federal/Maryland

Court: U.S. district court

Type of case:  bankruptcy

Estate of Giustina v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-141, 2011 WL 2516168 (U.S. Tax Court)(June 22, 2011) Tax Court calculates value of a 41% family limited partnership (timberland assets) using a net asset value and DCF approach, the latter including a 25% DLOM and 16% discount rate, adjusted for unique risks.

Experts: Robert Reilly (taxpayer); John Thomson (IRS)

Judge:  Morrison

State/Jurisdiction: federal

Court: U.S. Tax Court

Type of case:  federal tax v. Pursglove, 2011 WL 2174966 (D. Nev.)(June 3, 2011) Court declines to exclude expert’s value of shares in publicly traded company, finding the expert adequately considered Rule 144 “time and quantity” restrictions.

Experts: Patrick Gannon (defendant)

Judge:  Dawson

State/Jurisdiction:  federal

Court: Nevada

Type of case:  daubert

Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. City and Co. of Denver, 2011 WL 2173997 (D. Colo.)(June 2, 2011) Court accepts expert damages calculation for breach of contract based on DCF methodology, including growth rate and discount rate assumptions, but precludes terminal value calculation that violated non-assignment clause.

Experts: Don Frankenfeld (plaintiff)

Judge:  Martine

State/Jurisdiction: federal  / Colorado

Court: U.S. District

Type of case:  contract

Christopher v. Hanson, 2011 WL 2183286 (D. Minn.)(June 6, 2011) Court denies summary judgment motion, finding that the owner of an ESOP company ‘”strong-armed” its ESOP appraiser to provide a target value for repurchasing/redeeming his shares.

Experts: Mark Sheffert and Robert Gross (plaintiffs); Lyndon Steele (defendants)

Judge:  Ericksen

State/Jurisdiction: federal/Minnesota

Court: U.S. District Court

Type of case:  ESOP

In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, LP, 2011 WL 2178825 (Del. Ch.)(June 3, 2011) DE Chancery Court finds price and process for sale of cable TV systems was fair, despite contemporaneous valuation that appraised the systems individually rather than on aggregate, and did not expressly include or quantify synergies.

Experts: Mark Thaw (plaintiffs); and Melvin Fineberg, Daniels & Associates

Judge:  Noble

State/Jurisdiction: Delaware

Court: Chancery Court

Type of case:  Dissenting shareholder

McReath v. McReath, 2011 WL 2706249 (Wis.)(July 12, 2011) Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the standard that all saleable goodwill in a professional practice, as evidenced by a non-competition agreement, is a divisible marital asset; and that it is not “double-counting” to base a maintenance award on the income produced by the practiced, which is separate from its saleable value

Experts: Craig Billings and Dennis Kleinheinz (wife); Greg Ksicinski (husband)

Judge:  Roggensack

State/Jurisdiction:   Wisconsin

Court: Supreme Court

Type of case:  marital dissolution

McRae v. McRae, 2011 WL 1991725 (Conn. App.)(May 31, 2011) Court finds that net asset value of healthcare software company includes un-deposited earnings, despite husband’s contention that the check was for future services.

Experts: Joseph DeCusatie (wife); John Kramer (husband)

Judge:  Robinson

State/Jurisdiction: Connecticut

Court: Appeals

Type of case:  marital dissolution

Wright v. Wright, 2011 WL 1832801 (Cal. App. 4 Dist.) (unpub.)(May 11, 2011) Trial court correctly applies 20% “attrition discount” to value of husband’s accounting firm when there was credible, non-speculative evidence that the firm would lose customers in the future due to natural attrition.

Experts: unnamed

Judge:  Fybel

State/Jurisdiction: California

Court: Appellate

Type of case:  marital dissolution