Taylor Precision Prods. v. Larimer Grp., Inc.
In the damages portion of this complex suit, the court determined damages based on the plaintiff’s expert’s determination and report of same. It awarded damages on the first component of his damages calculation, the damages based on an adjusted “lost” EBITDA, but not on the second component, which the court deemed to be speculative.
Plaintiff Awarded Direct Damages But Not Speculative ‘Growth Damages’
In the damages portion of this complex suit, the court determined damages based on the plaintiff’s expert’s determination and report of same. It awarded damages on the first component of his damages calculation, the damages based on an adjusted “lost” EBITDA, but not on the second component, which the court deemed to be speculative.
Delaware Chancery Encourages Experts to Use More Than One Valuation Method
Delaware Chancery court finds “battle of the experts” is entirely one-sided, based on petitioner’s expert using only one valuation method, “fraught with error.”
In re Hanover Direct, Inc. Shareholder’s Litigation
Delaware Chancery court finds “battle of the experts” is entirely one-sided, based on petitioner’s expert using only one valuation method, “fraught with error.”
Accounting Method Trumps Valuation in ‘Clear Reflection of Income’ Case
Taxpayer’s fair market valuation of account receivables must “clearly reflect income” under accounting requirements of IRC §446(b).
Heilig Meyers Co. v. Internal Revenue Service
Taxpayer’s fair market valuation of account receivables must "clearly reflect income" under accounting requirements of IRC §446(b).