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
Boomj.com 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