Recent developments have put the spotlight squarely on projected financial information (PFI). The perception is that too many valuation experts simply accept projections and forecasts they’re given without applying enough scrutiny—or any scrutiny at all. Fortunately, there is some new guidance on how to examine and substantiate PFI you get from management or other third parties in BVR’s new Guide to Management Projections and Business Valuation: Analysis and Case Law. The following is an excerpt from that chapter. Read more >>

In the long-running litigation between the estate of the late megastar Michael Jackson and the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Tax Court recently issued its opinion on the value of Jackson’s image and likeness, as well as the value of his interest in two music publishing assets. Overall, this much-anticipated decision is a major win for the Jackson estate. The court’s momentous decision includes an expansive analysis of the rivaling valuation testimony. Read more >>

In BVR’s recent webinar, Power Panel: Live Expert Answers for Today’s Tough BV Questions, experts Jay E. Fishman, Michelle Gallagher, Ken Pia, and Jeffrey Tarbell covered various hot topics that affect the business valuation profession. These questions ranged from the basics, such as “What will 2021 look like?” to “What are your thoughts on the current state of the ESOP litigation environment particularly with the new administration coming in?” Here, we summarize five of the questions and answers. For more information, be sure to check out the complete recording and transcript of the session. Read more >>

In the ongoing Brundle v. Wilmington Trust ESOP saga, which is now in the appeals stage, the Department of Labor recently filed an amicus brief in support of the district court’s $29.8 million judgment against the ESOP trustee. The case arose out of a plan participant’s claim that the ESOP trustee breached its fiduciary duties to the plan by causing the ESOP to pay more than fair market value for the employer’s stock. Read more >>

In assessing the soundness of valuations, courts in a variety of cases have been paying close attention to the management projections appraisers have used or decided not to use in performing their value analyses. If courts are scrutinizing projections for reliability and plausibility, experts hoping to prevail in the litigation context must do so as well. Read more >>

In a complex bankruptcy case involving players in the petrochemical industry, the court trained its eyes on the management projections underlying a merger that led to the formation of a company that went bankrupt only a year after the close of the transaction. Read more >>

The plaintiff is the “prevailing party,” a Minnesota district court recently decided, allowing the minority owner of a well-known family business to sell her share for over $40 million. The valuation trial featured high-caliber experts who disagreed about every input and assumption underlying their discounted cash flow analyses. Read more >>

For the second time in March 2017, a court found an ESOP trustee liable for causing the plan to overpay. The most recent decision chronicles in exhaustive detail how the trustee failed the plan in terms of ensuring that no more than fair market value would be paid for the seller’s shares. Read more >>

Inadequate trustee performance was at the center of a recent case, featuring a nontraditional ESOP structure. The court found that, if the trustee had engaged with the underlying valuation, it would have discovered numerous weaknesses and prevented the ESOP from overpaying for the company stock. Read more >>

The use of the Delaware block method in Tennessee recently came under attack in a case involving a closely held Nashville, Tenn.-based media company whose controlling shareholders had pursued a squeeze-out merger and later asked the trial court for a judicial appraisal of the dissenting shareholders' interest. Read more >>

In a statutory appraisal action, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently found the deal price did not reflect fair value because the sales process was suboptimal. Certain other methods the parties' experts used also were inadequate to the task, the court said. Read more >>