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.
Magistrate Judge Recommends That the Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Defendant’s Experts Be Denied and That the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts Be Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Harrison v. Envision Mgmt. Holding, Inc.
The U.S. District Court (Colorado) denied a motion to compel arbitration the defendants brought in a case the plaintiff participants brought (a purported class action) in an ESOP the defendant company, et al. established. “The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ actions related to the sale caused him and all other ESOP participants to suffer significant losses to their ESOP retirement savings.” The court denied the motion.
U.S. District Court Denies Motion of Defendants in an ESOP Case to Compel Plaintiff Into Arbitration
The U.S. District Court (Colorado) denied a motion to compel arbitration the defendants brought in a case the plaintiff participants brought (a purported class action) in an ESOP the defendant company, et al. established. “The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ actions related to the sale caused him and all other ESOP participants to suffer significant losses to their ESOP retirement savings.” The court denied the motion.
Stout Risius Ross, LLC v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co.
Stout Risius Ross LLC asked for a declaratory judgment to require Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. to defend Stout Risius Ross in a lawsuit brought against it by its former client, Wilmington Trust, in an ESOP matter. Stout Risius Ross performed a valuation for an ESOP transaction that the court later criticized in that matter (Brundle). After being sued by Wilmington Trust, Stout Risius Ross filed a claim with Aspen, which was denied by Aspen, citing the “prior knowledge” clause. The court denied Stout Risius Ross’ motion for declaratory judgment and did not allow Stout Risius Ross to amend its motion.
U.S. District Court Dismisses Accounting Firm’s Plea to Require Insurance Company to Defend a Lawsuit Against It
Stout Risius Ross LLC asked for a declaratory judgment to require Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. to defend Stout Risius Ross in a lawsuit brought against it by its former client, Wilmington Trust, in an ESOP matter. Stout Risius Ross performed a valuation for an ESOP transaction that the court later criticized in that matter (Brundle). After being sued by Wilmington Trust, Stout Risius Ross filed a claim with Aspen, which was denied by Aspen, citing the “prior knowledge” clause. The court denied Stout Risius Ross’ motion for declaratory judgment and did not allow Stout Risius Ross to amend its motion.
Sproule v. Johnson
In this partnership dissolution case, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to use an appraisal of the Canadian entity as of 2019 instead of a value from an earlier agreement in principal. The later date was within the purview of the district court’s flexibility. Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision not to reduce the value of a partnership asset of stock in a Canadian corporation for taxes.
North Dakota Supreme Court Affirms Valuation Date, Affirms No Deduction for Taxes in Determining Stock Value
In this partnership dissolution case, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to use an appraisal of the Canadian entity as of 2019 instead of a value from an earlier agreement in principal. The later date was within the purview of the district court’s flexibility. Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision not to reduce the value of a partnership asset of stock in a Canadian corporation for taxes.
Dettloff-Meyer v. Meyer
The husband in this divorce case appealed the circuit court ruling that relied on the purchase price of the business less than a year before the valuation date. The purchase was made from the wife’s parents at a price the parents determined of $500,000, most of which was goodwill. After an initial ruling from the circuit court accepting the value less debt of the husband’s expert, the wife asked for a reconsideration. The Circuit Court granted the reconsideration and found a value of the business of $45,230. The husband appealed the reconsidered decision of the circuit court. The appellate court determined that the circuit court’s use of the purchase price was not erroneous.
Wisconsin Appellate Court Affirms Purchase Price as Value of the Business in a Divorce Matter
The husband in this divorce case appealed the circuit court ruling that relied on the purchase price of the business less than a year before the valuation date. The purchase was made from the wife’s parents at a price the parents determined of $500,000, most of which was goodwill. After an initial ruling from the circuit court accepting the value less debt of the husband’s expert, the wife asked for a reconsideration. The Circuit Court granted the reconsideration and found a value of the business of $45,230. The husband appealed the reconsidered decision of the circuit court. The appellate court determined that the circuit court’s use of the purchase price was not erroneous.
Auto Konnect, LLC v BMW of North America, LLC
The U.S. District Court (Michigan) denied motions to exclude the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expert witnesses and granted motions from both parties to exclude “expert” testimony from lay witnesses. The case involved alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants regarding raiding of the plaintiff’s employees, and damages related thereto.
U.S. District Court Denies Motions to Exclude Experts but Grants Motions to Exclude Lay Witnesses ‘Expert’ Testimony
The U.S. District Court (Michigan) denied motions to exclude the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expert witnesses and granted motions from both parties to exclude “expert” testimony from lay witnesses. The case involved alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants regarding raiding of the plaintiff’s employees, and damages related thereto.
Bostick v. Bostick
The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.
Appellate Court Reversed Decision and Treated All Goodwill as Enterprise Goodwill Includable in the Marital Estate
The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.
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.
Delaware Chancery Court Rejects Partnership Valuation in a Freeze-Out as Unfair to Minority Partners
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.
Hester v. Hester
In this Virginia divorce case, the court, among other things, did not accept the valuation of either valuator and instead determined its own value crafted from the two valuations that were submitted. The result, by chance or otherwise, resulted in “splitting the baby.”
Divorce Matter Results in the Court ‘Splitting the Baby’ to Value a 20% Interest in an S Corp. Medical Practice
In this Virginia divorce case, the court, among other things, did not accept the valuation of either valuator and instead determined its own value crafted from the two valuations that were submitted. The result, by chance or otherwise, resulted in “splitting the baby.”
Erickson v. Erickson
The Court of Appeals of Utah in this divorce case affirmed the trial court’s decisions regarding the value of the wife’s business and the exclusion of the wife’s rebuttal witness. The primary issue on appeal was whether the business value included personal goodwill and whether personal goodwill was an appropriate issue in Utah for this business, veterinary pharmaceuticals. The court also affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the wife’s rebuttal expert.
Appellate Court of Utah Affirms Judgment of Business Value Despite Assertions the Value Included Personal Goodwill
The Court of Appeals of Utah in this divorce case affirmed the trial court’s decisions regarding the value of the wife’s business and the exclusion of the wife’s rebuttal witness. The primary issue on appeal was whether the business value included personal goodwill and whether personal goodwill was an appropriate issue in Utah for this business, veterinary pharmaceuticals. The court also affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the wife’s rebuttal expert.
Buckley v. Carlock
The Tennessee appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership. The valuation of an expert utilized the “blue sky method,” a rule of thumb method, to value the dealership and ultimately the minority interest. The Chancery Court conducted a hearing on which it heard valuation expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s valuation and its methodology since it was generally accepted by the financial community.
Appellate Court Affirms Use of the ‘Blue Sky Method,’ a Rule of Thumb, to Value a Minority Interest in an Oppression Case
The Tennessee appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership. The valuation of an expert utilized the “blue sky method,” a rule of thumb method, to value the dealership and ultimately the minority interest. The Chancery Court conducted a hearing on which it heard valuation expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s valuation and its methodology since it was generally accepted by the financial community.
In re Marriage of Brown
In this Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s determination of value of the husband’s business by the husband’s expert even though evidence was presented that the expert did not follow the AICPA Business Valuation Standards. Further, the husband’s expert did not consider any enterprise goodwill and used an unorthodox method to determine the value of the business. The wife’s expert asserted that the husband’s expert did not provide a fair market value but rather did a “calculation.” The appellate court also affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to exclude the testimony of the husband’s expert witness.
Illinois Appellate Court Does Not Accept Valuation Including Enterprise Goodwill
In this Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s determination of value of the husband’s business by the husband’s expert even though evidence was presented that the expert did not follow the AICPA Business Valuation Standards. Further, the husband’s expert did not consider any enterprise goodwill and used an unorthodox method to determine the value of the business. The wife’s expert asserted that the husband’s expert did not provide a fair market value but rather did a “calculation.” The appellate court also affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to exclude the testimony of the husband’s expert witness.
Cain v. Cain
The Nebraska District Court in this case accepted the value of the wife’s expert testimony at trial as to the value of the husband’s 50% interest in his business. Both appraisers included DLOMs in determining value, and both appraisers utilized appropriate valuation methodologies. The difference in the two valuations is a matter of the difference in professional judgment.
The Nebraska District Court’s Determination of the Value of a Husband’s Business Is Affirmed—Appraisers Used Acceptable Valuation Methodology
The Nebraska District Court in this case accepted the value of the wife’s expert testimony at trial as to the value of the husband’s 50% interest in his business. Both appraisers included DLOMs in determining value, and both appraisers utilized appropriate valuation methodologies. The difference in the two valuations is a matter of the difference in professional judgment.