Expand the following panels for additional search options.

SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC

This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.

Court Denies Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Damages

This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.

Larchick v. Pollock

The trial court (TC) in this case excluded the evidence of a business valuation expert because he had submitted a calculation of value report and was then asked to testify to it. The expert self-admitted that he would not testify to a calculation of value and had explained in his engagement letter that a valuation engagement would be required for testimony. Despite the exclusion by the TC and the self-admission of the inadequacy of a calculation of value for testimony purposes, the appellate court nevertheless remanded the case in part to determine whether the calculation of value met the requirements of Arizona Rule 702 for allowable evidence.

Arizona Appeals Court Says a Calculation of Value Is Not Per Se Unacceptable

The trial court (TC) in this case excluded the evidence of a business valuation expert because he had submitted a calculation of value report and was then asked to testify to it. The expert self-admitted that he would not testify to a calculation of value and had explained in his engagement letter that a valuation engagement would be required for testimony. Despite the exclusion by the TC and the self-admission of the inadequacy of a calculation of value for testimony purposes, the appellate court nevertheless remanded the case in part to determine whether the calculation of value met the requirements of Arizona Rule 702 for allowable evidence.

Courts Find Minority Discount Unwarranted Under Facts of Case

In valuing owner-spouse’s minority interest in LLC, trial court “would have been well within its discretion to apply a minority discount,” appeals court says, but it was not error for trial court to reject a discount based on certain questionable actions related to the owner’s interest.

Cobane v. Cobane

In valuing owner-spouse’s minority interest in LLC, trial court “would have been well within its discretion to apply a minority discount,” appeals court says, but it was not error for trial court to reject a discount based on certain questionable actions related to the owner’s interest.

More Valuation Data Do Not Ensure Fair Class Action Settlement

In stockholder class action, Chancery declines to approve settlement that requires plaintiffs to agree to broad release of claims in exchange for additional valuation-related information, finding it fails to meet applicable “fair and reasonable” standard.

In re Trulia Stockholder Litig.

In stockholder class action, Chancery declines to approve settlement that requires plaintiffs to agree to broad release of claims in exchange for additional valuation-related information, finding it fails to meet applicable “fair and reasonable” standard.

Court Finds ‘Market Value Concept’ Requires Flexibility

Court says under Daubert a business valuator is qualified to value an investment company dealing in real estate since the company is not a piece of real estate but a business with diverse assets and finds real estate valuation is by nature “imprecise.”

Marcus v. Quattrocchi

Court says under Daubert a business valuator is qualified to value an investment company dealing in real estate since the company is not a piece of real estate but a business with diverse assets and finds real estate valuation is by nature “imprecise.”

Stephen Weissberg v. Rene Pinado, et al.

The California Court of Appeals for the 1st Appellate District reversed an award for lost future damages following for a breach of contract.

Tax Court Bemoaned Lack of Expert Testimony

The Tax Court considered whether the compensation a holding company paid to its shareholder, a husband and wife, was reasonable and deductible under IRC Sec. 162.

Metro Leasing and Development Corporation, East Bay Chevrolet Company v. CIR

The Tax Court considered whether the compensation paid by a holding company to its shareholder, a husband and wife, was reasonable and deductible under IRC Sec. 162.

Linda Janiece Wright-Miller v. Harvey Granville Miller

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision denying the wife a share in the appreciation of the husband's business.

A Increase in Value During the Marriage Due Solely to the Consolidation of Two Separate Property Businesses May Be Marital Property

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision denying the wife a share in the appreciation of the husband's business.

15 results