Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2023 Edition

January 2023 PDF, Softcover (195 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

The legal coverage and in-depth analysis from the BVR legal team including an Introduction by Jim Alerding, BVR Legal Editor delivers lessons learned to help appraisers reach better and more defensible valuation conclusions. The 2023 Yearbook illustrates how financial experts helped their side win (and lose) in the courtroom and includes 70 new cases were added to BVLaw in 2022.  Learn more >>

Business Valuation Update Yearbook, 2023 Edition

January 2023 PDF, Softcover (426 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

It's that time of year again, BVR's “greatest hits” publication is here!  The Business Valuation Update Yearbook 2023 covers the previous year’s most groundbreaking and thought-provoking advancements in valuation.  It captures changes in regulations and professional standards, key takeaways from professional conferences, and tactical practice-building ideas. This critical desktop reference puts you ahead of the competition with on-the-ground reporting by the BVR editorial team including an Introduction by Andy Dzamba, BVR Executive Editor and insights from notable BV experts. Learn more >>

Appraisers Continue to Be Excluded Most Under Daubert, Per PwC Study

Under Daubert, appraisers were excluded more often in 2021 than any other type of financial expert witness, according to the latest edition of an annual PwC survey. Of the three most common financial experts (economists, accountants, and appraisers), appraisers had a 38% exclusion rate in 2021, followed by accountants (32%) and economists (27%). The article gives more insights into the survey and some ways to avoid a Daubert challenge.

Appraisers have highest exclusion rate under Daubert, per PwC study

Under Daubert, appraisers were excluded more often in 2021 than any other type of financial expert witness, according to the PwC survey, “Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts (2000-2021).”

Meet The Speakers—2022 AAML/BVR National Divorce Conference

The 2022 AAML/BVR National Divorce Conference is just a little over a month away! Take a moment to meet a trio of our speakers.

Appraisers Have the Highest Exclusion Rate Under Daubert, Per PwC Study

A look at the latest study from PwC that analyzes challenges to financial expert witnesses (appraisers, accountants, economists, and others) under the Daubert standards from 2000 to 2020. Also, some classic advice on how to survive a Daubert challenge.

Court Rulings Have Big Impact on Fair Value

To sue or not to sue, that is the question! Learn more about a pair of court cases that have made a big impact on fair value as it relates to shareholder dissent suits.

Blue-Sky Method in Valuing a Car Dealer—Redux

In a recent issue of the BVLaw Alert, we published a short piece about a shareholder dissent/oppression appellate decision in Tennessee regarding the valuation of a “high-end” car dealership. Our headline noted, “Court Tweaks Blue-Sky Method in Valuing a Car Dealer.” We received a question from a reader asking whether the rule of thumb blue-sky method was explained in the case.

Do BV Standards Have Any 'Value' in Court?

Do business valuation standards have any value in court? Our legal editor shares insights gleaned from several cases on just this topic.

Proposed Rule 702 Change Targets Unqualified Experts

Too many experts who are not qualified are being allowed to testify in court, and this has triggered proposed changes to strengthen Rule 702, which is the federal rule of evidence regarding testifying experts.

So You Want to Testify as a Financial Expert Witness? Testimony Tips, Traps and Video Demonstrations From the Trenches

Learn how to testify in bench and jury trials and depositions from a seasoned forensic CPA who has testified in the trenches for 27 years. See video clips from an actual testimony by Robert Vance and from popular TV shows and movies (which are mostly very humorous) to learn how to answer questions and keep your cool. Receive tips on how to construct your litigation-oriented curriculum vitae and engagement letter. Get prepared for subpoenas, Daubert ...

Proposed rule change cracks down on testifying experts

Too many experts who are not qualified are being allowed to testify in court, and this has triggered proposed changes to strengthen Rule 702, which is the federal rule of evidence regarding testifying experts.

Legal Firestorm Hits Delaware SPACs

Well a firestorm hit the legal world of special purpose acquisition corporations (SPACs) when the Delaware Court of Chancery (Lori W. Will, VC) denied motions to dismiss various allegations of some of the public stockholders of Churchill Capital Corp.

Questions a Trier of Fact Will Ask About Your Valuation

The fear of every valuation analyst is to be unprepared to answer a question in a deposition or on the witness stand. Here are some questions a judge or attorney will likely ask, either directed to themselves when reviewing your report or directly to you.

Divorce—Are Trapped-In Gains Trapped or Not?

Two new cases exemplify the need to know the law in the jurisdiction of your case in a marital dissolution (divorce).

Poll: Some BVers say ‘no way’ to testifying in court

About one in five (18%) of business valuation experts who do divorce cases have no interest in testifying in court, according to a recent poll.

Daubert Standard and FRE 702 Rejections on the Rise?

It appears that the courts are rejecting Daubert standard and FRE 702 challenges more frequently. Take a deep dive into potential reasons for this with our legal editor, Jim Alerding.

Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2022 Edition

January 2022 PDF, Softcover (177 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

The legal coverage and in-depth analysis from the BVR legal team deliver lessons learned to help appraisers reach better and more defensible valuation conclusions. All the cases featured in this book impart important lessons about applicable legal principles, approved and discredited valuation methodology, and the act (and art) of presenting expert opinions. This must-have collection benefits both the generalist as well as the specialist.

Learn more >>

Business Valuation Update Yearbook, 2022 Edition

January 2022 PDF, Softcover (454 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

A new year means another annual “greatest hits” publication!  The Business Valuation Update Yearbook 2022 covers the previous year’s most groundbreaking and thought-provoking advancements in valuation.  It captures changes in regulations and professional standards, key takeaways from professional conferences, and tactical practice-building ideas. This critical desktop reference puts you ahead of the competition with on-the-ground reporting by the BVR editorial team including an Introduction by Andy Dzamba, BVR Executive Editor and insights from notable BV experts.  Learn more >>

Demand for Forensic Litigation Professionals Creates Shortages

Lately, there has been chatter about the demand for experienced business valuation forensic litigation specialists exceeding the supply of such people.

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Is the Subject of Cross-Examination but Not Exclusion

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (I)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Goes to the Weight and Not the Admissibility

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

Mock trial event this Friday, November 5

At the ASA International Conference in Las Vegas, BVWire chatted with the folks from the Houston ASA Chapter, who are having a full-day mock trail event this Friday, November 5.

1 - 25 of 386 results