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.

Courts Agree Reasonable Compensation Is Sound Method for Calculating Spousal Support in S Corp Context

On second review, appeals court says trial court satisfied task on remand; latter’s use of reasonable compensation calculation to establish income for alimony and child support purposes was in the spirit of parties’ agreement and was based on “entirely credible” testimony by husband’s BV expert.

Marshall v. Marshall (II)

On second review, appeals court says trial court satisfied task on remand; latter’s use of reasonable compensation calculation to establish income for alimony and child support purposes was in the spirit of parties’ agreement and was based on “entirely credible” testimony by husband’s BV expert.

Precision Kidd Acquisition, LLC v. Pass

In merger-related damages case, court upholds damages based on profits lost from key client’s termination of supply agreement with seller company; trial court properly rejected buyer expert’s DCF-based loss analysis which, among other flaws, overstated value of lost contract to seller company.

Proper Damages Measure Is Lost Profits Calculation, Not DCF-Based Loss Analysis

In merger-related damages case, court upholds damages based on profits lost from key client’s termination of supply agreement with seller company; trial court properly rejected buyer expert’s DCF-based loss analysis which, among other flaws, overstated value of lost contract to seller company.

In re Happy Child World, Inc.

In an entire-fairness-cum-statutory-appraisal case involving nonoperating day care center whose facility was leased on merger date, court approves use of capitalization of earnings and NAV models and averaging results to determine fair value; business model was uncertain on merger date, court notes.

Uncertain Business Model on Merger Date Justifies Use of Income and NAV Models, Court Says

In an entire-fairness-cum-statutory-appraisal case involving nonoperating day care center whose facility was leased on merger date, court approves use of capitalization of earnings and NAV models and averaging results to determine fair value; business model was uncertain on merger date, court notes.

Boesch v. Holeman

In dispute over value of dissociated partner’s one-third interest in whiskey business, appeals court says trial court erred in adopting value determination that applied discount for lack of control; applicable partnership law requires value be based on sale of entire business as a going concern.

Partnership Statute Precludes Use of Minority Discount in Buying Out Dissociated Partner

In dispute over value of dissociated partner’s one-third interest in whiskey business, appeals court says trial court erred in adopting value determination that applied discount for lack of control; applicable partnership law requires value be based on sale of entire business as a going concern.

In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Finds Business Cannot Show Insurer’s Coverage Denial Breached Contract

In business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, court finds plaintiff chiropractic clinic failed to show insurer breached its policy; court says plaintiff did not demonstrate “tangible damage” to property and failed to overcome policy’s express virus exclusion.

Turek Enterprises, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

In business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, court finds plaintiff chiropractic clinic failed to show insurer breached its policy; court says plaintiff did not demonstrate “tangible damage” to property and failed to overcome policy’s express virus exclusion.

Rochkind v. Stevenson

In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.

Split Maryland High Court Adopts Daubert for Testing Admissibility of Expert Testimony

In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.

In a Siblings Ownership Dispute, Court Decides No Oppression and No Sums Owed by the Plaintiff, Determines the Value of the Plaintiff’s 25% Interest

In this dispute among siblings owning restaurants in Connecticut, the court determined that there was no oppression against one of the siblings whose employment was terminated and there were no wrongful acts. The court determined the fair market value of the plaintiff’s membership interests but denied discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability.

Gavrielidis v. 80 Seaview Ave., LLC

In this dispute among siblings owning restaurants in Connecticut, the court determined that there was no oppression against one of the siblings whose employment was terminated and there were no wrongful acts. The court determined the fair market value of the plaintiff’s membership interests but denied discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability.

Court ‘Sympathizes’ With Businesses Claiming COVID-19-Related Losses but Finds No Coverage Under Policy

In a business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, court dismisses plaintiff barbershops’ claims against insurance company; plaintiffs failed to show accidental direct physical loss to premises as required for coverage and did not overcome express virus exclusion.

Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds

In a business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, court dismisses plaintiff barbershops’ claims against insurance company; plaintiffs failed to show accidental direct physical loss to premises as required for coverage and did not overcome express virus exclusion.

In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Finds Business Adequately Alleges It Suffered a Physical Loss

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs, inter alia, adequately allege that they suffered a physical loss due to COVID-19.

Studio 417 v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs, inter alia, adequately allege that they suffered a physical loss due to COVID-19.

Court Finds Valuation of Debtor Entity Must Account for COVID-19 Effect on Industry

Court finds creditor’s interest in debtor’s property is “inconsequential” and says a valuation of debtor’s fitness club must account for dismal state of fitness industry due to COVID-19 shutdown; debtor’s projections related to reorganization plan are too optimistic given economic uncertainty.

In re Body Transit

Court finds creditor’s interest in debtor’s property is “inconsequential” and says a valuation of debtor’s fitness club must account for dismal state of fitness industry due to COVID-19 shutdown; debtor’s projections related to reorganization plan are too optimistic given economic uncertainty.

Rose’s 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch.

D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.

Court Says Restaurants Fail to Meet Requirements for COVID-19-Related Business Interruption Coverage

D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.

Henley Mining v. Parton

In statutory appraisal case, court denies summary judgment motion arguing opposing expert’s valuation fails to meet legal definition of fair value, i.e., “the value of the company as a whole and as a going concern”; court says controlling case law does not preclude use of net asset value method.

Fair Value Standard Does Not Preclude Use of Net Asset Approach, Court Affirms

In statutory appraisal case, court denies summary judgment motion arguing opposing expert’s valuation fails to meet legal definition of fair value, i.e., “the value of the company as a whole and as a going concern”; court says controlling case law does not preclude use of net asset value method.

Raley v. Brinkman

In LLC member buyout dispute, the Court of Appeals finds the term “fair value” does not contemplate the use of shareholder-level discounts. However, tax affecting is relevant evidence when determining the going-concern value of subject S corp. Trial court must consider evidence on tax affecting.

201 - 225 of 8,148 results