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.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Decision on Spousal Support and on the Value of Husband’s Medical Practice
On appeal, the husband asked the court to review whether the wife needed alimony given the assets she otherwise received in the equitable distribution and her earning capacity as a pharmacist, whether an award of rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro by the trial court was appropriate, and whether the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s medical practice was in error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all aspects reviewed and did not award legal fees to either party.
In re Trapp
The primary issue in this Illinois appeal of a divorce decree dealt with the value of a company owning two buildings. The primary tenant in both buildings was the husband’s electrician business. The trial court accepted the value of the real estate company the husband’s business valuation expert, who was not a real estate appraiser, submitted. The business appraiser valued the two buildings using what the court determined to be “competent evidence.”
Illinois Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of Real Estate Value in Absence of Wife’s Submission of a Competing Value
The primary issue in this Illinois appeal of a divorce decree dealt with the value of a company owning two buildings. The primary tenant in both buildings was the husband’s electrician business. The trial court accepted the value of the real estate company the husband’s business valuation expert, who was not a real estate appraiser, submitted. The business appraiser valued the two buildings using what the court determined to be “competent evidence.”
Brown v. Brown
In this Mississippi divorce case, the appellate court en banc reversed in part and remanded in part, asking the trial court to determine whether certain items were marital property and determine the values for certain marital properties so a proper distribution of marital property can be made. Included was a used-car business that was remanded for a value to be determined. Several judges dissented primarily because the marital estate in total was not very material and they believed the appellate court could have made adjustments without remanding.
Mississippi Appeals Court En Banc Remands for Valuation of a Small Used-Car Business With Dissents From Several Judges
In this Mississippi divorce case, the appellate court en banc reversed in part and remanded in part, asking the trial court to determine whether certain items were marital property and determine the values for certain marital properties so a proper distribution of marital property can be made. Included was a used-car business that was remanded for a value to be determined. Several judges dissented primarily because the marital estate in total was not very material and they believed the appellate court could have made adjustments without remanding.
In re Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Litig.
A pharmaceuticals company sued its former CEO for, among other things, breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment establishing the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. This resulted in counterclaims by the former CEO, Michael Goldberg. Goldberg submitted for testimony of damages Terry Lee Orr, CPA. In this matter, the company sought to exclude Orr’s testimony and, absent his exclusion, to present their own expert, William F. Murray, CPA, as a rebuttal expert. Goldberg sought to exclude the testimony of Murray. The court excluded portions of Orr’s testimony and denied the exclusion of Murray as a rebuttal expert.
U.S. District Court Partially Excludes Witness in Securities Value Case and Allows Rebuttal Witness
A pharmaceuticals company sued its former CEO for, among other things, breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment establishing the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. This resulted in counterclaims by the former CEO, Michael Goldberg. Goldberg submitted for testimony of damages Terry Lee Orr, CPA. In this matter, the company sought to exclude Orr’s testimony and, absent his exclusion, to present their own expert, William F. Murray, CPA, as a rebuttal expert. Goldberg sought to exclude the testimony of Murray. The court excluded portions of Orr’s testimony and denied the exclusion of Murray as a rebuttal expert.
Delaware Chancery Court Cites Differences in Cash-Flow Assumptions as Cause for Large Discrepancy in Value
In this appraisal action to determine fair value, petitioner Ramcell Inc. exercised its appraisal rights in asking for a statutory appraisal of the value of its 155 shares of Jackson Cellular Telephone Co. Inc. The respondent, Alltel Corp. (dba Verizon Wireless), had converted the 155 shares at a value of $2,963 per share. “Respondent’s expert opines that Jackson’s per-share value was $5,690.92 at the time of the merger. Petitioner’s expert has offered two appraisal ranges, opining that, at the high end, Jackson’s per-share value was $36,016 on the merger date.” Both parties agreed that the DCF method should be the sole method for determining the value. The Delaware Chancery Court, using that method, determined the fair value of each share at $11,464.57. The court noted that the disparity in the parties’ valuations was due to disagreements as to the inputs to the DCF model and how they should be calculated.
Ramcell, Inc. v. Alltel Corp.
In this appraisal action to determine fair value, petitioner Ramcell Inc. exercised its appraisal rights in asking for a statutory appraisal of the value of its 155 shares of Jackson Cellular Telephone Co. Inc. The respondent, Alltel Corp. (dba Verizon Wireless), had converted the 155 shares at a value of $2,963 per share. “Respondent’s expert opines that Jackson’s per-share value was $5,690.92 at the time of the merger. Petitioner’s expert has offered two appraisal ranges, opining that, at the high end, Jackson’s per-share value was $36,016 on the merger date.” Both parties agreed that the DCF method should be the sole method for determining the value. The Delaware Chancery Court, using that method, determined the fair value of each share at $11,464.57. The court noted that the disparity in the parties’ valuations was due to disagreements as to the inputs to the DCF model and how they should be calculated.
U.S. District Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motions of Dismissal by Company Against Blockchain Researcher
The defendant, CasperLabs LLC, in this trademark dispute in U.S. District Court (California) moved for dismissal of eight causes of action from the plaintiff Vlad Zamfir’s (Zamfir) second amended complaint. The actions dealt primarily with trademark infringement and alleged damages therefrom. The actions also included allegations of fraud and misrepresentation under California law. After analysis of each of the actions, the court granted dismissal of some of the actions and denied dismissal of some of the actions.
Zamfir v. CasperLabs, LLC
The defendant, CasperLabs LLC, in this trademark dispute in U.S. District Court (California) moved for dismissal of eight causes of action from the plaintiff Vlad Zamfir’s (Zamfir) second amended complaint. The actions dealt primarily with trademark infringement and alleged damages therefrom. The actions also included allegations of fraud and misrepresentation under California law. After analysis of each of the actions, the court granted dismissal of some of the actions and denied dismissal of some of the actions.
Buccieri v. New Hope Realty, Inc.
This case arose out of a dispute between the surviving family and a trustee of the founders of New Hope Realty Inc. The parties could not agree on the management and operations of New Hope Realty. On July 7, 2020, a dissolution proceeding was commenced. The defendants elected to purchase the plaintiffs’ shares. Subsequently, the parties could not agree as to the fair value of the plaintiffs’ interest. The plaintiffs asked the court to determine the value. The court held hearings including testimony from expert witnesses from both parties and determined the fair value.
Court Determines Fair Value of 50% Interest in Real Estate Company—Parties Could Not Agree on Value
This case arose out of a dispute between the surviving family and a trustee of the founders of New Hope Realty Inc. The parties could not agree on the management and operations of New Hope Realty. On July 7, 2020, a dissolution proceeding was commenced. The defendants elected to purchase the plaintiffs’ shares. Subsequently, the parties could not agree as to the fair value of the plaintiffs’ interest. The plaintiffs asked the court to determine the value. The court held hearings including testimony from expert witnesses from both parties and determined the fair value.
Mikalacki v. Rubezic
In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.
Arizona Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of a Calculation of Value
In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.
Champions Retreat Golf Founders, LLC v. Comm’r
The Tax Court, on remand from the 11th Circuit, which decided that the taxpayer was entitled to a charitable donation for donation of a conservation easement, now valued that interest to determine the amount of the donation deduction. Both parties presented valuation opinions from expert appraisers. The Tax Court determined that the highest and best use of the property before and after the grant of the easement was the key to the determination of the value of the easement. The Tax Court then analyzed the evidence from the expert appraisals to arrive at a value of the easement.
On Remand, the Tax Court Determines the Value of a Conservation Easement From a Golf Course
The Tax Court, on remand from the 11th Circuit, which decided that the taxpayer was entitled to a charitable donation for donation of a conservation easement, now valued that interest to determine the amount of the donation deduction. Both parties presented valuation opinions from expert appraisers. The Tax Court determined that the highest and best use of the property before and after the grant of the easement was the key to the determination of the value of the easement. The Tax Court then analyzed the evidence from the expert appraisals to arrive at a value of the easement.
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.
Maryland Appellate Court Remands for Valuation of Withdrawing Member’s Interest in Law Firm and Affirms Damages Award
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.
ESL Invs., L.P. v. Sears Holdings Corp. Debtor-Appellee (In re Sears Holdings Corp.)
Second-lien holders, entitled to payment only after the debts of first-lien holders have been discharged, argued that the value of the collateral that secured their claims, as measured on the petition date, vastly exceeded what they had been paid and that they were accordingly entitled to priority payment of the difference. At trial, all parties put on evidence as to the value of the assets at the petition date. The differences varied widely. “The differences among these values turned primarily on how the experts calculated the revenue Debtors could expect to earn from selling their inventory.” The appeal dealt primarily with this inventory issue and how it should be valued.
Valuation of Inventory Key to Decision on Collateral Value in Bankruptcy
Second-lien holders, entitled to payment only after the debts of first-lien holders have been discharged, argued that the value of the collateral that secured their claims, as measured on the petition date, vastly exceeded what they had been paid and that they were accordingly entitled to priority payment of the difference. At trial, all parties put on evidence as to the value of the assets at the petition date. The differences varied widely. “The differences among these values turned primarily on how the experts calculated the revenue Debtors could expect to earn from selling their inventory.” The appeal dealt primarily with this inventory issue and how it should be valued.
Thomasee v. Thomasee
The Louisiana appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court in a divorce case that included the value of the husband’s business in the marital estate as community property. The husband argued that the FEMA adjuster business was a professional business and that the profits were all goodwill and, therefore, not included in the estate. The wife argued that the business was not a professional business and had value other than just the personal goodwill of the husband. The value was includable as community property, and any subsequent income was half hers. The trial court sided with the wife, and the appeals court affirmed.
Louisiana Appeals Court Affirms Husband’s Business Is Not a Professional Business and Has Value Other Than Personal Goodwill
The Louisiana appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court in a divorce case that included the value of the husband’s business in the marital estate as community property. The husband argued that the FEMA adjuster business was a professional business and that the profits were all goodwill and, therefore, not included in the estate. The wife argued that the business was not a professional business and had value other than just the personal goodwill of the husband. The value was includable as community property, and any subsequent income was half hers. The trial court sided with the wife, and the appeals court affirmed.
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of LB Steel, LLC v. Steelcast Ltd. (In re LB Steel, LLC)
The Bankruptcy Court in this case dealt with an adversary complaint from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee sought to avoid and recover payments the debtor made within the 90 days leading up to the bankruptcy filing to the parent company. For reasons including that the debtor was insolvent during that 90-day period, the court decided in favor of the committee and ordered the payments avoided and ordered the parent company to repay the debtor’s estate.
Bankruptcy Court Orders Parent Company to Repay Payments Within 90 Days of Filing
The Bankruptcy Court in this case dealt with an adversary complaint from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee sought to avoid and recover payments the debtor made within the 90 days leading up to the bankruptcy filing to the parent company. For reasons including that the debtor was insolvent during that 90-day period, the court decided in favor of the committee and ordered the payments avoided and ordered the parent company to repay the debtor’s estate.