This appeal in a California court involved a dispute over an appraisal of the plaintiffs’ 15% interest in a grocery store the defendant operated. The plaintiffs alleged that the award of the superior court was obtained by fraud and that the arbitrator prejudiced their rights.
View Case Digest View Case
Court Rejects Appreciation in Value Calculation, Citing SSVS Violations
In appreciation in value case, court excludes nonowner spouse’s valuation testimony under Daubert, finding expert’s calculation of “minimum marital component” is not a methodology approved under the applicable SSVS for determining fair market value and also violated other SSVS requirements.
San Bernardino Cty. Trans. Auth. v. Byun
In eminent domain case, appeals court says trial court’s exclusion of defendants’ valuation expert was justified where expert simply adopted another expert’s valuation without testing the raw financial data and being able to substantiate the other expert’s assumptions and conclusions.
‘Wholesale’ Adoption of Another’s Valuation Makes Expert Testimony Worthless
In eminent domain case, appeals court says trial court’s exclusion of defendants’ valuation expert was justified where expert simply adopted another expert’s valuation without testing the raw financial data and being able to substantiate the other expert’s assumptions and conclusions.
Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. (Aruba II)
Court of Chancery denies petitioners’ motion for reargument, finding that, in light of high court’s Dell and DFC decisions, the decision to use the unaffected market price as the fair value indicator was not so “ridiculous” or “absurd” as to indicate the Court of Chancery misapprehended the law.
Chancery Defends Use of Market Price Citing Recent High Court Rulings
Court of Chancery denies petitioners’ motion for reargument, finding that, in light of high court’s Dell and DFC decisions, the decision to use the unaffected market price as the fair value indicator was not so “ridiculous” or “absurd” as to indicate the Court of Chancery misapprehended the law.
Damages Claim Fails to Provide Yardsticks Capturing Defunct Startup’s Value
Appeals court upholds zero damages finding in dispute involving short-lived software startup, where plaintiff’s expert had no experience valuing software companies, misapprehended basic facts, and developed multimillion-dollar valuations for a company with no product, no revenue, and no investors.
Zaffarkhan v. Domesek
Appeals court upholds zero damages finding in dispute involving short-lived software startup, where plaintiff’s expert had no experience valuing software companies, misapprehended basic facts, and developed multimillion-dollar valuations for a company with no product, no revenue, and no investors.
Wiegers v. Richards-Wiegers
Alaska high court finds trial court was not required to value husband’s shares in closely held company under the liquidation approach the company historically had used in buy-out situations; trial court’s “true asset” approach was based on credible expert testimony.
Trial Court’s ‘True Asset’ Valuation Aligns With Expert’s Testimony
Alaska high court finds trial court was not required to value husband’s shares in closely held company under the liquidation approach the company historically had used in buy-out situations; trial court’s “true asset” approach was based on credible expert testimony.
Expert Qualified to Offer Unit Valuation of Telecom Property
In tax assessment case, court finds valuation expert qualified under Rule 702 despite lacking an appraiser’s license; court says rule specifically contemplates expert opinion on property valuation by nonappraisers if witness is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue
In tax assessment case, court finds valuation expert qualified under Rule 702 despite lacking an appraiser’s license; court says rule specifically contemplates expert opinion on property valuation by nonappraisers if witness is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
Lynd v. Marshall County Pediatrics, P.C.
In share redemption dispute pivoting on missing shareholder agreement, high court finds corporate bylaws show trial court’s use of book value to value separating member’s stock was error but plaintiff failed to show right to fair value determination as a matter of law; court remands.
In Share Redemption Case, Bylaws Militate Against Book-Value Valuation
In share redemption dispute pivoting on missing shareholder agreement, high court finds corporate bylaws show trial court’s use of book value to value separating member’s stock was error but plaintiff failed to show right to fair value determination as a matter of law; court remands.
Nursing Home Valuation Must Separate Real Estate From Business Activity
In tax assessment dispute involving nursing home, high court says where facility performs business activity and real estate activity, tax appraisal must separate business value from real estate value; Board of Tax Appeals failed to ensure proper allocation of sales price among assets.
Arbors East RE, L.L.C. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision
In tax assessment dispute involving nursing home, high court says where facility performs business activity and real estate activity, tax appraisal must separate business value from real estate value; Board of Tax Appeals failed to ensure proper allocation of sales price among assets.
Trustee Succeeds in Curtailing DOL Expert Testimony Under Daubert
In ESOP dispute, court partially excludes DOL expert’s damages analysis under Daubert; court finds expert’s market comparable approach to support overpayment claim is unreliable as is expert’s methodology for calculating alleged loss in stock value to existing shareholders.
Acosta v. Vinoskey
In ESOP dispute, court partially excludes DOL expert’s damages analysis under Daubert; court finds expert’s market comparable approach to support overpayment claim is unreliable as is expert’s methodology for calculating alleged loss in stock value to existing shareholders.
Atherton v. Atherton
Arkansas Court of Appeals rejects claim by owner of nonprofessional business that any value in business represents personal goodwill attributable to him; court says concept of personal goodwill has not been extended to nonprofessional business “such as the one involved here.”
Arkansas Court Clarifies What Sort of Businesses Can Have Personal Goodwill
Arkansas Court of Appeals rejects claim by owner of nonprofessional business that any value in business represents personal goodwill attributable to him; court says concept of personal goodwill has not been extended to nonprofessional business “such as the one involved here.”
Ohio Appeals Court Approves Use of Fair Value Standard in Valuing Farm Entities
Appeals court upholds valuation of minority interest in farm entities based on fair value standard of value; court notes prevailing expert specifically referenced buy-sell agreements that did not contemplate use of discounts in valuing exiting member’s partial interest.
Tate v. Tate
Appeals court upholds valuation of minority interest in farm entities based on fair value standard of value; court notes prevailing expert specifically referenced buy-sell agreements that did not contemplate use of discounts in valuing exiting member’s partial interest.
In re Marriage of Cooksey (Cooksey v. Cooksey)
In Florida divorce involving sole proprietorship, court rejects separate valuation of various intangible assets and credits owner expert’s valuation, using “with/without” method to quantify personal goodwill; court considers tax consequences even where sale of business is not imminent.
Court Credits Goodwill Determination Based on ‘With/Without’ Method
In Florida divorce involving sole proprietorship, court rejects separate valuation of various intangible assets and credits owner expert’s valuation, using “with/without” method to quantify personal goodwill; court considers tax consequences even where sale of business is not imminent.
In re Tesla Motors Stockholder Litig.
Court of Chancery says Tesla dissenting shareholders allege sufficient facts to show company CEO, Elon Musk, was a controlling shareholder, despite holding a minority interest; court allows breach of fiduciary claims concerning acquisition of related company to proceed.
Court Allows Tesla Dissenting Shareholder Suit to Go Forward
Court of Chancery says Tesla dissenting shareholders allege sufficient facts to show company CEO, Elon Musk, was a controlling shareholder, despite holding a minority interest; court allows breach of fiduciary claims concerning acquisition of related company to proceed.