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.
H.W. Johnson v. Commissioner
Tax Court says compensation paid to company owners for managing entity’s daily operations was reasonable; officers were “absolutely integral” to company’s success and company’s rate of return on equity after compensation accorded with industry average.
Grove US LLC v. Sany America Inc.
In Daubert case centering on misappropriation of trade secrets, court says plaintiff expert’s valuation of trade secrets based on defense projections of sales and profits derived from offending product is admissible; defendant failed to show this approach to determine asset’s value is improper.
In re PetSmart, Inc.
In statutory appraisal, Chancery decides to “defer” to deal price, citing a robust sales process and well-functioning market; petitioners’ DCF analysis was not a useful valuation tool where it was based on, “at best, fanciful” management projections.
In re Horsehead Holding Corp.
In a rare nod to shareholder concerns, Bankruptcy Court approves formation of equity committee based on “dramatic adjustment in valuation” and inconsistent management positions as to financial health of debtors pre-Chapter 11 and post-petition filing.
Alkayali v. Boukhari
Appeals court upholds valuation of plaintiff’s interest in dissolved company and jury award; plaintiff expert’s analysis of sales transactions of comparable companies was admissible; Pratt’s Stats/DealStats database provided a reliable basis for expert to identify relevant sales, court says.
Fir Tree Value Master Fund v. Jarden Corp., (Jarden III)
High court affirms trial court’s use of unaffected market price as fair value in statutory appraisal involving merger of publicly traded company; high court rejects petitioners’ late argument that, where sale process was flawed and company failed to prove synergies, deal price should act as floor.
Herremans v. Fedo (In re Herremans)
This case involved a hotly contested battle over the fate of a Ponderosa restaurant in Michigan. The two owners, having had a falling out, pursued contentious litigation to wrest control of the restaurant from each other. Having no business valuation available to the court, the court was left with a real estate appraisal and limited evidence of assets and liabilities to determine the fair value of a 50% interest in the restaurant to be used in the buyout of one of the shareholders by the other shareholder.
Cont'l Investors Fund LLC v. TradingScreen Inc.
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Manichaean Capital, LLC v. SourceHOV Holdings, Inc.
In appraisal proceeding, Court of Chancery adopts petitioner expert’s DCF-based model for calculating fair value, making slight adjustment to expert’s size premium; on beta calculation, court finds respondent expert’s novel approach “does not survive judicial scrutiny” and raises Daubert issues.
Smith v. Promontory Financial Group, LLC
In buyout dispute, court says parties’ letter of intent states buyout conditions; court relies on amount stated in plaintiff’s debt/equity deal proposal to value subject company, finding parties’ trial experts used methods (DCF and asset accumulation) not suited to valuing subject company.
Hollis v. Hollis
One of the main issues in this appeal was how to classify the husband’s “book of business,” i.e., his client relationships, assets under management, and related income. The husband was a financial advisor for UBS. The wife contended the book of business had value that constituted a marital asset. The husband pointed out that UBS now took the position that a financial advisor who left the company cannot take any information with him or her. The court also noted that “deferred cash agreements” were actually bonuses that were marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude the book of business from marital assets. The court also affirmed the trial court decision on payment of alimony to the wife “in futuro.”
In re Marriage of Johnson
Appeals court strikes divorce ruling adopting income-based valuation of enterprise value of owner’s financial services business, valuation conflicts with data from similar transaction that occurred close to valuation date and involved owner-spouse.
Cargotec Corp. v. Logan Industries
Appeals court majority strikes down lost profits and diminished business value awards, finding plaintiff failed to show causation and its damages expert based his calculations on management’s business plan without substantiating the plan’s underlying (unreasonable) gross profit goals.
Burtch v. Opus, LLC (In re Opus East, LLC) (II)
In Chapter 7 case, district court upholds Bankruptcy Court’s insolvency determination, which was a predicate to many of trustee’s claims; reviewing court says evidence supports use of going-concern valuation and rejection of liquidation discount.
Merion Capital LP & Merion Capital II LP v. BMC Software
Chancery favors merger price, without synergy adjustment, over DCF-generated value, noting uncertainties over key inputs such as projections, equity risk premium, terminal growth rate as well as the “wildly divergent” DCF results of the parties’ experts.
Koch v. Koch
This shareholder dispute case involved two businesses three brothers in Minnesota owned. One of the brothers, Jim Koch, had a falling out with the other two, Randy and Dave Koch. A temporary agreement was made among them in 2006, but subsequently the relationship and actions of the parties deteriorated. In particular, an IRS audit of the two businesses triggered a disagreement as to whether required payments under the agreement had to be tax deductible. Certain actions by the defendants breached the 2006 agreement as determined by a jury resulting in a damages award of $12 million. The court then held a bench trial to determine the value of the two businesses for determining the buyout amount for Jim’s interest in both businesses. Experts for each side testified as to value. The opinion provided a good analysis of the various issues in the methodologies each of the experts used.
Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. (Aruba I)
In statutory appraisal proceeding, Court of Chancery says unaffected market price provides “direct evidence of the collective view of market participants” as to target’s fair value whereas deal-price-minus-synergies is a less reliable “indirect measure.”
In re Ancestry
In an appraisal action, Chancery says merger price stemming from robust sales process is best indicator of value; court’s own DCF valuation “is close to the market,” but problematic projections make it more suitable as a check on the sales-derived price.
Coster v. UIP Companies, Inc.
In breach of fiduciary duty action, court says stock sale passes enhanced fairness review; appraiser valuing real estate investment services company before sale is eminently qualified and knowledgeable about industry; capitalized cash flow method “generated a reliable indicator” of company’s value.
DFC Global Corp. v. Muirfield Value Partners, L.P. (II)
State Supreme Court declines to create presumption for appraisal actions that deal price is best indicator of value when merger was arm’s-length transaction, but court finds Chancery’s valuation approach lacked support in record and requires revaluation.
In re Stillwater Mining Co. 2017 0385 JTL
In statutory appraisal of public company, court relies on deal price; presigning sale process was “suboptimal,” but post-signing market check was “effective”; there was an argument for upward adjustment to deal price based on an increase in the company’s value between merger announcement and deal closing.
In re Dole Food Co. (Dole III)
In joint fairness/statutory appraisal action, Chancery finds defendants’ fraud defeated financial advisor’s ability to produce reliable DCF, notwithstanding advisor’s “heroic” efforts to create “the most credible and reliable projections in the case.”
Perez v. First Bankers Trust Services, Inc.
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for causing plan to overpay; trustee “delegated” valuation to ESOP valuator without inquiring into valuation components, including projections, and without exploring “glaring” gaps (industry analysis) in valuation report.
Hoensheid v. Comm’r (In re Estate of Hoensheid)
The taxpayers made a valid gift of stock, but they realized and recognized gain because their right to the proceeds from the sale occurred before the gift was made. They also were not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction because they did not procure a qualified appraisal. The taxpayers were not liable for an underpayment penalty.
Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household International, Inc.
7th Circuit agrees with defendants that plaintiff expert’s leakage loss-causation model failed to account for firm-specific, nonfraud factors that could have affected stock price movement and orders new trial applying court’s burden-shifting approach.