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.
Montana Supreme Court Holds Proper Date of Business Value Is the Date of Trial (2014), Not the Date of Dissolution (2017)
In this divorce case, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s use of the date of dissolution, May 2017, as the valuation date, reversed the trial court’s revaluation of the husband’s business, and reverted to the value determined to the trial date in 2014. The wife had no involvement in the business subsequent to the 2014 trial date.
Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Value of Business Where the Parties Provided No Evidence
Both parties appealed this Illinois divorce case. While several issues were appealed, we focus on the value of the business and the determination of debts against the business. Since the trial court was not given any substantial evidence as to the value of the value of the business, it determined the value on its own with limited information. The appellate court affirmed that value. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s disallowance of debts against the business.
Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. & Mes Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
In this patent infringement and validity matter, the defendants have moved for exclusion of the plaintiffs’ technical expert, who was proffered to testify as to infringement and invalidity of five patents-in-suit. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion, which included five assertions as to why the testimony should be excluded.
Patent Infringement Suit Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
In this patent infringement and validity matter, the defendants have moved for exclusion of the plaintiffs’ technical expert, who was proffered to testify as to infringement and invalidity of five patents-in-suit. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion, which included five assertions as to why the testimony should be excluded.
Lymburner v. Axhelm
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
Alaska Supreme Court Remands for Determination of Marital Property But Affirms Lower Court’s Acceptance of Wife’s Business Value
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
Doe v. Trs. of Dartmouth Coll.
The defendant in this action, trustees of Dartmouth College, moved to have the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as to lost wages and lost earning capacity excluded. The plaintiff had filed an action against the defendant for breach of contract and violation of Title IX by expelling him from Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude.
U.S. District Court Allows Expert Testimony on Lost Wages and Lost Earning Capacity in a Title IX Private Action
The defendant in this action, trustees of Dartmouth College, moved to have the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as to lost wages and lost earning capacity excluded. The plaintiff had filed an action against the defendant for breach of contract and violation of Title IX by expelling him from Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude.
Barnes v. Barnes
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Valuation and Trial Court’s Skepticism of Husband’s ‘Projections’
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Taylor Precision Prods. v. Larimer Grp., Inc.
In the damages portion of this complex suit, the court determined damages based on the plaintiff’s expert’s determination and report of same. It awarded damages on the first component of his damages calculation, the damages based on an adjusted “lost” EBITDA, but not on the second component, which the court deemed to be speculative.
Plaintiff Awarded Direct Damages But Not Speculative ‘Growth Damages’
In the damages portion of this complex suit, the court determined damages based on the plaintiff’s expert’s determination and report of same. It awarded damages on the first component of his damages calculation, the damages based on an adjusted “lost” EBITDA, but not on the second component, which the court deemed to be speculative.
Clampitt v. Clampitt
The husband appealed the family court’s valuation of the family business. In a brief opinion, the court of appeals (South Carolina) affirmed the family court’s value because the change in value during the litigation was attributable to the husband, the family court accounted for personal goodwill, and the valuation was within the range of evidence presented.
B.M. v. R.C.
The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.
South Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Value of Family Business—Within Evidence Presented
The husband appealed the family court’s valuation of the family business. In a brief opinion, the court of appeals (South Carolina) affirmed the family court’s value because the change in value during the litigation was attributable to the husband, the family court accounted for personal goodwill, and the valuation was within the range of evidence presented.
The Supreme Court of Alaska Affirms the Use of a Range of Value to Determine the Value of a Business
The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.
Bankruptcy Court Denies Summary Judgment That Financing Is a Loan and Not a Change of Control
The wind down trustee sought a summary judgment order in the form of a declaration that no sale or change of ownership or control occurred when the debtor entered into a DIP and exit loan agreements with a capital financing company. A change of ownership or control would result in the estate owing a break fee to Fifth Seasons Investment. The court denied summary judgment for reasons outlined in the opinion.
GWG Holdings, Inc. v. Fifth Season Investments, LLC (In re GWG Holdings, Inc.)
The wind down trustee sought a summary judgment order in the form of a declaration that no sale or change of ownership or control occurred when the debtor entered into a DIP and exit loan agreements with a capital financing company. A change of ownership or control would result in the estate owing a break fee to Fifth Seasons Investment. The court denied summary judgment for reasons outlined in the opinion.
JBrick, LLC v. Chazak Kinder, Inc.
The defendants challenged the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert, and the plaintiff challenged the testimony of the defendants’ damages rebuttal expert. The case involved a Lego interpretation model of the Second Beit Hamikdash, or Second Holy Temple, and an alleged infringement of the copyright on this model. The court struck the plaintiff’s expert’s damages of a product related to the Temple Product but allowed testimony of damages on the Temple Product. The court also struck the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony that the plaintiff should be awarded lost profits on the Temple Product plus a disgorgement of the defendants’ profits. Both may not be awarded. The court also struck portions of the defendants’ rebuttal testimony and report.
Daubert Challenges on Experts on Damages Partially Successful
The defendants challenged the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert, and the plaintiff challenged the testimony of the defendants’ damages rebuttal expert. The case involved a Lego interpretation model of the Second Beit Hamikdash, or Second Holy Temple, and an alleged infringement of the copyright on this model. The court struck the plaintiff’s expert’s damages of a product related to the Temple Product but allowed testimony of damages on the Temple Product. The court also struck the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony that the plaintiff should be awarded lost profits on the Temple Product plus a disgorgement of the defendants’ profits. Both may not be awarded. The court also struck portions of the defendants’ rebuttal testimony and report.
Wong v. Wong
The defendants and plaintiffs were all family members who co-owned seven apartment buildings that the defendants managed. The defendants embezzled profits from the buildings for at least a decade. On appeal, the defendants conceded plaintiffs were entitled to an award of both compensatory and punitive damages based on their wrongdoing, but they challenged the amount of the awards. The appellate court agreed that the punitive damages were excessive as a matter of law and adjusted them. All other defendants’ contentions were rejected, and the trial court was affirmed in those matters.
California Appeals Court Reduces Punitive Damages as Being Excessive
The defendants and plaintiffs were all family members who co-owned seven apartment buildings that the defendants managed. The defendants embezzled profits from the buildings for at least a decade. On appeal, the defendants conceded plaintiffs were entitled to an award of both compensatory and punitive damages based on their wrongdoing, but they challenged the amount of the awards. The appellate court agreed that the punitive damages were excessive as a matter of law and adjusted them. All other defendants’ contentions were rejected, and the trial court was affirmed in those matters.
Paramount Fin. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Broadridge Inv’r Commc’n Sols., Inc.
In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.
On Reconsideration, Court Affirms Decision to Exclude Testimony of Damages Expert
In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.
In re Marriage of Gill
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.