BVResearch Pro
Stay appraised of all the latest business considerations in the jewelry industry! The report explains how jewelry stores operate, the nature of their revenue streams, value drivers, the industry environment, the risks involved, and other key factors.
Search Tips Expand the following panels for additional search options.
Exelon Corp. v. Commissioner
Tax Court says taxpayer’s transactions fail to meet Section 1031 requirements for income tax deferral; legal advisor’s ongoing interference with appraisal process compromised asset appraisals undergirding transactions to the point they became “useless.”
Rubin v. Bedford
Appeals court affirms soundness of going private merger; court says plaintiffs failed to point to better offer and their expert lacked formal accounting, economics, and valuation training and displayed a light grasp of issues related to company’s value.
Freihage v. Freihage
Appeals court acknowledges impossibility of duplicating calculations underlying trial court’s valuation of husband’s LLC owning McDonald’s franchises but surmises result hinges on treatment of funds from family trust to LLC as debt, rather than equity.
PECO Logistics, LLC v. Walnut Inv. Partners, L.P.
Court says valuation firm’s determination of value of defendants’ put units accords with agreement to which plaintiff and defendants committed themselves; since contract does not provide for judicial review, court won’t “second-guess” valuator’s judgment.
In re DFC Global Corp.
Court says uncertainty about company’s future performance and viability limits reliability of values derived from DCF and multiples-based comparable company analyses as well as deal price; court blends three “imperfect techniques” to determine fair value.
Spencer Franchise Servs. of Ga. v. WOW Café & Wingery Franchising Account, LLC
Court declines to exclude rebuttal damages testimony, noting rebuttal expert’s professional background and qualifications were similar to that of principal expert and rebuttal opinion was helpful to jury in assessing principal expert’s damages calculation ...
Davidson v. United States
Court finds USPS’s unauthorized use of image of Las Vegas Lady Liberty on stamps infringed creator’s copyright and awards damages resulting from a hypothetical mixed license; USPS’s unique licensing history does not limit damages under applicable fair market value measure of damages.
Noven Pharmaceuticals v Novartis Pharmaceuticals
In breach of contract action, court finds defendant’s valuation report is discoverable; report is relevant to an issue in dispute and not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine where valuation was not done solely in anticipation of litigation but had mixed purpose.
Bruno v. Bozzuto’s, Inc.
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Furrer v. Siegel & Rouhana, LLC
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
In re Appraisal of Dell Inc.
For statutory appraisal, Chancery says sales process related to management buyout “functioned imperfectly as a price discovery tool” and gives no weight to final merger price; court relies exclusively on DCF analysis to derive fair value of the company.
NetApp, Inc. v. Cinelli
The defendant hid improper recording of revenue from use of internal software in unaudited financial statements that were represented to be GAAP-compliant. The defendant was held to have breached the merger/sale contract in a manner that resulted in fraud. The plaintiff was awarded damages. The court accepted the expert’s GPCM as the most “responsible estimate” of the private company’s value as it was presented to the plaintiff.
HBK Master Fund L.P. v. Pivotal Software, Inc.
In a long and complex opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined the value per share of stock in a former stockholder’s appraisal action. The per-share value was reached by ascribing equal weight to adjusted versions of the comparable companies analysis (GPCM) the stockholder advanced and the discounted cash flow analysis the company advanced. The other methodologies were rejected. The use of the GPCM represented the first use of that method in some years.
Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd. (II)
High Court rejects Chancery’s decision to disregard deal price entirely in favor of court’s DCF analysis; record belies Chancery’s finding that deal price undervalued company stock, High Court says, urging adoption of deal price as fair value on remand.
Merion Capital L.P. v. Lender Processing Servs.
In appraisal action, Chancery says final merger consideration best represents fair value, noting sales process led to “meaningful price discovery”; court says with DCF too much depends on assumptions; small changes may have outsize impact on value range.
In Re Cellular Tel. P’ship Litig.
In this coordinated action involving 13 partnerships that were involved in freeze-out transactions by AT&T of minority shareholders, AT&T breached its fiduciary duties and effectuated the freeze-out through an unfair process and by paying an unfair price. The freeze-out was subject to the entire fairness standard of review. AT&T bore the burden of proving that the freeze-out was entirely fair to the minority partners. AT&T failed in that proof and thereby sought to capture future value for itself. AT&T did not employ any procedures that insured fairness to the minority partners. The lead partner of the valuation firm had a long-standing relationship with AT&T, and internal AT&T personnel influenced the outcome of the valuation. The court determined the fair value of the interest as a remedy to the situation.
Select Comfort Corp. v. Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc.
In false advertising suit, court finds plaintiff expert’s narrowly tailored disgorgement calculation is admissible under Daubert; but court rejects “high-end” damages model based on profits from sale of products not targeted by defendant’s advertising.
Wycoff v. Commissioner
In a suit over fees paid by taxpayers’ operating companies to taxpayer-controlled management company, Tax Court says IRS expert’s cost markup analysis produces most credible arm’s-length management fee; this fee represents the allowable deduction amount.
Kruse v. Synapse Wireless, Inc.
In appraisal action arising out of controller’s buyout of minority stockholders, court finds there is no reliable market evidence as to target’s fair value on merger date; none of expert valuations are “wholly reliable,” but one expert’s DCF analysis offers a “proportionately reliable conclusion.”
Exelon Corp. v. Commissioner
Appeals court upholds Tax Court’s ruling that taxpayer’s transactions do not represent section 1031 like-kind exchanges because taxpayer never assumed ownership of replacement plants; improper input from taxpayer’s law firm tainted appraisals used to show otherwise; accuracy penalty is justified.
Boston Ret. Sys. v. Uber Techs., Inc.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of 28 unredacted documents PricewaterhouseCoopers produced. The defendant, Uber Technologies Inc., asserted that the work product doctrine shielded the redacted portions of the documents from discovery. The court agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
Coca-Cola Co. v. Comm'r
Coca-Cola had been applying a transfer pricing method called the 10-50-50 since it entered into a closing agreement with the IRS in 198, covering the years 1987 to 1995. Coca-Cola had consistently followed that transfer pricing method; the IRS had audited Coca-Cola annually and “signed off” on that transfer pricing method for over a decade. Upon examination of Coca-Cola’s tax returns for 2007 to 2009, the IRS determined that Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it overcompensated the supply point and undercompensated Coca-Cola. The IRS reallocated income between Coca-Cola and its supply points employing the comparable profits method (CPM) pursuant to Reg. Sec. 1.482-5. The IRS increased Coca-Cola’s taxable income by over $9 billion assessing over $3 billion in additional taxes!
Fox v. CDx Holdings
Chancery says major accounting firm’s merger-related appraisal represents “new low”; to achieve client’s goal of zero corporate tax liability, firm abandoned sound prior approaches and simply copied another accounting firm’s report and called it its own.
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Commissioner (I)
In transfer pricing case, Tax Court says Amazon more accurately determined buy-in and cost-sharing payments by using CUT method to value separately three types of intangible assets; IRS’s DCF analysis results in improper enterprise valuation, court says.
In re Appraisal of SWS Group, Inc.
In statutory appraisal, Chancery relies solely on DCF analysis, noting the instant case involving a bank holding company raises a unique situation in terms of management projections and whether and how to account for creation of excess regulatory capital.