Estate attorney sued over alleged undervaluation
The matriarch of a family business in Hawaii had four children, two of which were involved in the business.
Sullivan v. Loden
In this malpractice case against an estate attorney, the attorney was denied a summary judgment. The primary issue related to the attorney’s valuation of stock of a family business that was gifted to two of the four children of the decedent. While an “equalization payment” was made to each of the two remaining children, one of these two sued the attorney for both breach of fiduciary duty and for undervaluing the stock gifted, resulting in an underpaid equalization payment.
Estate Attorney Is Denied a Summary Judgment for Alleged Incorrect Valuation of Gifts of Stock—Malpractice Case Proceeds
In this malpractice case against an estate attorney, the attorney was denied a summary judgment. The primary issue related to the attorney’s valuation of stock of a family business that was gifted to two of the four children of the decedent. While an “equalization payment” was made to each of the two remaining children, one of these two sued the attorney for both breach of fiduciary duty and for undervaluing the stock gifted, resulting in an underpaid equalization payment.
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.
Expert Trips Over Fundamental Damage Concepts
Court strikes rebuttal testimony under Daubert, where expert admitted he lacked an understanding of the damages concepts central to the opposing expert’s calculation, failed to identify a specific method for his conclusions, and included his clients’ tria ...
Orthoflex, Inc. v. Thermotek, Inc.
Court strikes rebuttal testimony under Daubert, where expert admitted he lacked an understanding of the damages concepts central to the opposing expert’s calculation, failed to identify a specific method for his conclusions, and included his clients’ tria ...
Appraisal Malpractice: It’s About Standards, Not the Ultimate Value
In a malpractice action against a real estate appraiser, district court excludes valuation of leasehold interest by plaintiff’s financial expert for failing to comply with any professional standards, and for unreliability under Daubert.
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Weiser Realty Advisors LLC
In a malpractice action against a real estate appraiser, district court excludes valuation of leasehold interest by plaintiff’s financial expert for failing to comply with any professional standards, and for unreliability under Daubert.
Attorneys and Appraisers May Be Liable for Wrong FV in Proxy Statement
3rd Circuit reverses district court determination that attorneys and appraisers are not liable for material misstatements of fair value in a proxy statement, remanding case for possible findings of malpractice and apportionment of liability for $33 million.
Amboy Bancorporation v. The Bank Advisory Group
Third Circuit reverses district court determination that attorneys and appraisers are not liable for material misstatements of fair value in a proxy statement, remanding case for possible findings of malpractice and apportionment of liability for $33 mill ...
United States District Court Cites Noble in Considering Subsequent Events
Court permits taxpayer to introduce subsequent events to the extent that they are relevant to establishing the amounts that a hypothetical, willing buyer and seller would have paid for a closely held private company on the valuation date.
Court-Appointed Expert Appeals a Second Time for Malpractice Immunity
Supreme Court of Minnesota reverses lower court’s opinion and extends quasi-judicial immunity to neutral experts appointed under Rule 706 of the applicable rules of evidence.
Alan Baer Revocable Trust v. U.S.
Court permits taxpayer to introduce subsequent events to the extent that they are relevant to establishing the amounts that a hypothetical, willing buyer and seller would have paid for a closely held private company on the valuation date.
Peterka v. Dennis (II)
Supreme Court of Minnesota reverses lower court’s opinion and extends quasi-judicial immunity to neutral experts appointed under Rule 706 of the applicable rules of evidence.
What Leads to CPA Liability in Valuing Real Estate LLCs Under (Older) AICPA Standards?
Court decides CPA malpractice claims for failing to adhere to AICPA professional standards when valuing LLCs.
Adams v. Kern
Court decides CPA malpractice claims for failing to adhere to AICPA professional standards when valuing LLCs.
Is a Court-Appointed Appraiser Protected From Malpractice?
Appraiser sued for malpractice, claims quasi-judicial immunity.
Peterka v. Dennis (I)
Appraiser sued for malpractice claims quasi-judicial immunity.
What Happens When a Litigious Client Turns on the Appraiser
Doctor sues appraisal firm for allegedly flawed valuation of practice goodwill, having already lost these claims in arbitration and on appeal.
Appraiser Exposed to Claims of Negligent Valuation in Buy-Sell
1st Circuit determines that an appraiser may be sued for negligent valuation in buy-sell context.
Davison v Margolin Winer & Evans
Plaintiff Edward T. Davison, MD and Scott J. Ratner, MD were each 50% shareholders in Edward T. Davison and Ratner entered into a series of shareholder agreemeents, the last one of which was dated June 1996.
Wetmore v. Macdonald, Page, Schatz, Fletcher & Co., LLC (II)
First Circuit determines that an appraiser may be sued for negligent valuation in buy-sell context.
Appraisal Doesn't Equal Arbitration; a Court May Review Buy-Sell Valuation for Certain Errors
When is an appraisal not an arbitration? 10th Circuit court explains the difference.
More Problems With Buy-Sell Agreements: Appraiser Gets Sued by Disgruntled Director
Is the appraiser for a company’s buy-sell agreement liable to the ousted director?