Shannon Pratt, Roger Grabowski, Jim Hitchner, Nancy Fannon, and the Honorable Judge David Laro of the Tax Court are just a few of valuation thought leaders dubbed by NACVA as “industry titans” who gave presentations at the organization’s 25th anniversary conference in San Diego Read more >>

John Finnerty (Alix Partners) has developed a new version of his average-strike put option DLOM model that can be generalized to accommodate a restriction period of any particular fixed length. He presented the new model during a BVR webinar and asked the audience for comments and suggestions. He would also like some real data for testing purposes. Read more >>

The case featured experts whose professional backgrounds and valuation approaches could hardly be more dissimilar. Their value determinations were light-years apart. In trying to make sense of the conflicting testimony and achieve a plausible and fair result, the court decided it could not totally trust either valuation. Although it adopted the defense expert's valuation, it made two consequential changes to it. One was getting rid of the expert's admittedly high and insufficiently explained 35% discount for lack of marketability. Read more >>

A prior post that highlighted the article “NY’s Unfair Application of Shareholder-Level Marketability Discounts,” written by Gil Matthews and Michelle Patterson (both with Sutter Securities) has sparked calls for the BV profession to speak with “one clear voice” on this issue. Read more >>

A "new note" in the hotly debated NY DLOM issue was sounded in an article in the January issue of Business Valuation Update. In the article, “NY’s Unfair Application of Shareholder-Level Marketability Discounts,” Gil Matthews and Michelle Patterson (both with Sutter Securities) write that New York “stands alone in that it favors (and some lower courts believe requires) the imposition of a marketability discount on dissenting shareholders in fair value determinations. There is broad consensus that DLOMs should seldom, if ever, be permitted in appraisal or oppression cases.” Read more >>

The parties' most recent fight focused on whether the prevailing expert's DCF analysis embedded a marketability discount to account for illiquidity. If not, the trial court had to decided what the appropriate DLOM rate was. The plaintiff-selling shareholder argued in favor of a zero DLOM, the defendants-buying shareholders presented an expert valuation that specified a 35% DLOM, based on the expert's use of a market approach. Read more >>

In terms of valuation methodology, the agreement provided that “there shall be no minority or non-marketability discount applied.” Also, “fair market value” meant an arm’s length sale to an unrelated third party. And, for purposes of calculating the “total equity value,” the value of the assets would be subject to an EBITDA collar to ensure that the value of the assets was at least 6.5 x but no more than 7.5 x the company’s “EBITDA less Maintenance Capex” for year-end 2013. The resulting number was to be reduced by the company’s obligations and liabilities. Most important, the parties agreed to be bound by the appraiser's calculation of the price of the put units. There was no provision for judicial or any other form of review of the appraiser's valuation. Read more >>