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.
Miller v. Miller
In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.
Ohio Trial Court Fails to Consider Expert Testimony—Appellate Court Remands
In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.
Hardiman v. Woodlands Store, Inc.
This appeal in a California court involved a dispute over an appraisal of the plaintiffs’ 15% interest in a grocery store the defendant operated. The plaintiffs alleged that the award of the superior court was obtained by fraud and that the arbitrator prejudiced their rights. The appellate court found no basis for “disturbing” the appraisal-arbitration award.
Appellate Court (California) Declines to Set Aside Appraisal and Decision of Arbitrator
This appeal in a California court involved a dispute over an appraisal of the plaintiffs’ 15% interest in a grocery store the defendant operated. The plaintiffs alleged that the award of the superior court was obtained by fraud and that the arbitrator prejudiced their rights. The appellate court found no basis for “disturbing” the appraisal-arbitration award.
Demenno v. Demenno
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.
Supreme Court (Alaska) Affirms Trial Court Calculation of Active Appreciation
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.
Palkon v. Maffei
Two minority shareholders challenged the conversion of two Delaware corporations into Nevada corporations with the intent to reduce potential liability for directors and officers, with the controlling shareholder casting the deciding vote. The business rule did not apply since the controller received a nonratable benefit.
Delaware Chancery Court Determines That Reducing Potential Personal Liability Exposure Through a Change in Corporate Domicile Constituted a Nonratable Benefit
Two minority shareholders challenged the conversion of two Delaware corporations into Nevada corporations with the intent to reduce potential liability for directors and officers, with the controlling shareholder casting the deciding vote. The business rule did not apply since the controller received a nonratable benefit.
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.
U.S. District Court (California) Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents in a Case Involving Uber
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.
In re Rozdolsky
In this complex Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s business. The trial court had already reduced the wife’s expert’s valuation by 30%. Overall, the husband raised nine issues on appeal, including having to contribute to the wife’s attorney’s and expert fees, resulting from the husband’s lack of cooperation in discovery.
Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Marital Business
In this complex Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s business. The trial court had already reduced the wife’s expert’s valuation by 30%. Overall, the husband raised nine issues on appeal, including having to contribute to the wife’s attorney’s and expert fees, resulting from the husband’s lack of cooperation in discovery.
Smith v. Smith
In this divorce case appeal, the appeals court remanded to the Chancery Court the issue of separate versus marital property. The appellate court determined that one of the husband’s businesses was marital property and not separate property as the Chancery Court decided. It remanded that portion of the Chancery decision with instructions to change the ruling and determine a value for the now marital property business—but without any goodwill.
Appellate Court (Mississippi) Affirms That Goodwill Is Not a Marital Asset
In this divorce case appeal, the appeals court remanded to the Chancery Court the issue of separate versus marital property. The appellate court determined that one of the husband’s businesses was marital property and not separate property as the Chancery Court decided. It remanded that portion of the Chancery decision with instructions to change the ruling and determine a value for the now marital property business—but without any goodwill.
Rieves v. Town of Smyrna
The plaintiffs’ business was allegedly damaged by the actions of the defendant. The plaintiffs engaged an expert in economic damages and lost profits. The defendants engaged their own expert to provide his opinions as to why he believed the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions were unreliable. The court ultimately excluded this portion of the defendants’ expert’s testimony. The defendants’ expert’s calculation of damages, however, was a matter for cross-examination and will be allowed.
In re Hebert
In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Affirms in Part and Vacates in Part and Remands Divorce Trial Court—Husband Fails to Provide Support for Expenses
In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.
U.S. District Court Excludes Expert’s Testimony on Critique of Plaintiffs’ Damages but Allows Same Expert Testimony on His Damages Calculation
The plaintiffs’ business was allegedly damaged by the actions of the defendant. The plaintiffs engaged an expert in economic damages and lost profits. The defendants engaged their own expert to provide his opinions as to why he believed the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions were unreliable. The court ultimately excluded this portion of the defendants’ expert’s testimony. The defendants’ expert’s calculation of damages, however, was a matter for cross-examination and will be allowed.
Cronan v. Cronan
This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.
Rhode Island Supreme Court Affirms Value of Interest in Medical Practice Per Shareholder Agreement and Equitable Distribution of Assets
This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.
U.S. Appellate Court Affirms Witness’s Exclusion—Cites New Rule 702 but Follows Abrogated Precedent Instead
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
Rodriguez v. Hosp. San Cristobal, Inc.
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
In re Hembree
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
Appellate Court (California) Affirms Denial of Wife’s Motion Claiming Missing Assets and Undervalued Assets
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
Lazar v. Mor
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.