BVLaw

Featured Case
Court Case Digest

The plaintiffs contended the trial court erred in granting two of the defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiff’s damages. The appellate court affirmed

View Case Digest Download Case
Welcome to BVLaw
BVLaw is a central, fully searchable repository for the most important business valuation cases and case digests.Every day BVLaw legal experts track published decisions from the courts in all 50 U.S. states and federal jurisdictions - including the Delaware Court of Chancery and U.S. Tax Courts - guaranteeing that you (and your clients) stay current on the very latest valuation law.  Learn more and subscribe >>
Expand the following panels for additional search options.

In a Divorce Case, the California Court of Appeal Rejects Discount for Taxes Not Immediate and Specific But Allows a DLOM

In this divorce case, on appeal, the California appellate court rejected a discount for taxes not immediate and specific and allowed a DLOM regarding the value of the wife’s one-half interest in the jointly owned business. The court also determined that “the [trial] court impliedly made the factual findings necessary to support its ruling regarding Cynthia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Finally, the appeals court determined that the trial court had the authority to set its own terms for payment of the equalization amount to the wife.

Court Affirms Violation of ERISA but Allows Offset of Debt Forgiveness in Determining Damages

This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (I)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Goes to the Weight and Not the Admissibility

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

Walsh v. Vinoskey

This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.

Guttman v. Guttman

The one-third partner of a real estate partnership, Bruce Guttman (Bruce), sued for dissolution. The two majority partners initiated a statutory procedure to buy out Bruce. All three appraisals were very close to $38 million. Feeling the valuations to be too low, Bruce sought to withdraw his complaint without prejudice. The trial court, on a motion from the majority partners, vacated Bruce’s dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.

One-Third Partner Sued to Have Partnership Dissolved, Asked to Vacate His Dissolution Assertion

The one-third partner of a real estate partnership, Bruce Guttman (Bruce), sued for dissolution. The two majority partners initiated a statutory procedure to buy out Bruce. All three appraisals were very close to $38 million. Feeling the valuations to be too low, Bruce sought to withdraw his complaint without prejudice. The trial court, on a motion from the majority partners, vacated Bruce’s dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.

HMH Enters. v. TAG Enters.

The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.

Court Affirms Exclusion of Testimony From Witness as Being Based on Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence

The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.

Collins v. Tabs Motors of Valley Stream Corp.

In this New York business divorce case, the court held that the shareholders agreement was enforceable, as well as the stipulated value of the buyout price as determined in Schedule B of the shareholders agreement. Claims by petitioners of breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, including a years-old certificate of value, were not sufficient to overcome the unambiguous terms of the buy-sell agreement.

In a New York Business Divorce, a Petition for Dissolution Triggers Buy-Sell Agreements

In this New York business divorce case, the court held that the shareholders agreement was enforceable, as well as the stipulated value of the buyout price as determined in Schedule B of the shareholders agreement. Claims by petitioners of breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, including a years-old certificate of value, were not sufficient to overcome the unambiguous terms of the buy-sell agreement.

Dettenhaim Farms, Inc. v. Greenpoint Ag, LLC

In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.

Appeals Court Decides Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Choosing the Method of Determining Damages

In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.

V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, Ltd.

This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.

Court Reverses Its Order to Strike Expert Testimony That Utilized the Discounted Cash Flow Method in Valuing a Business

This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.

Nelson v Commr.

Taxpayer appealed a Tax Court ruling that she gifted a percentage of partnership interests and not a fixed amount of value. As a result, when the IRS determined the FMV of those interests, the Taxpayer was left with a gift tax deficiency.

Court of Appeals Upholds Tax Court—Taxpayer Gifted a Percentage of Partnership Interests, Not a Fixed Amount

Taxpayer appealed a Tax Court ruling that she gifted a percentage of partnership interests and not a fixed amount of value. As a result, when the IRS determined the FMV of those interests, the Taxpayer was left with a gift tax deficiency.

SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC

This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.

Court Denies Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Damages

This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.

Court Affirms Inclusion of Personal Goodwill in Marital Estate, Decides Trial Court Erred in Granting a Judgment Against Husband’s Business

In this divorce case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming allowed the valuation of the husband’s business, which likely included personal goodwill. It also decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it valued the husband’s business or ordered him to make an equalization payment. However, the district court erred in granting a judgment against the husband’s business for the equity payment due the wife since the business was not a party to the divorce action.

Snyder v. Snyder

In this divorce case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming allowed the valuation of the husband’s business, which likely included personal goodwill. It also decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it valued the husband’s business or ordered him to make an equalization payment. However, the district court erred in granting a judgment against the husband’s business for the equity payment due the wife since the business was not a party to the divorce action.

State Route 00700, Section 21H v. Bentleyville Garden Inn, Inc. (In re Condemnation by DOT)

The jury verdict was set aside in this Pennsylvania condemnation case for reliance on an incompetent report by the expert witness for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The report did not account for the damages the hotel incurred on the unclaimed property for loss of business due to the condemned property. Additionally, the court decided that a new trial, which the trial court did not allow, should be allowed and remanded for a new trial.

Verdict Based on an Expert’s Incompetent Report Cannot Stand, New Trial Ordered

The jury verdict was set aside in this Pennsylvania condemnation case for reliance on an incompetent report by the expert witness for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The report did not account for the damages the hotel incurred on the unclaimed property for loss of business due to the condemned property. Additionally, the court decided that a new trial, which the trial court did not allow, should be allowed and remanded for a new trial.

Paganelli v. Lovelace

This case resulted in the court issuing a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant (and counterclaimant) in a matter regarding a sale/purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The cross-allegations resulted from the defendant allegedly breaching the purchase contract, while the defendant alleged that the plaintiff first breached the contract and committed fraud in entering into the contract.

Court Issues Partial Summary Judgment in Favor of Party Alleging Breach of Contract

This case resulted in the court issuing a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant (and counterclaimant) in a matter regarding a sale/purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The cross-allegations resulted from the defendant allegedly breaching the purchase contract, while the defendant alleged that the plaintiff first breached the contract and committed fraud in entering into the contract.

76 - 100 of 8,148 results