FVQI exposure drafts comment period extended to August 24
You now have until August 24 to comment on two important exposure drafts that relate to the ongoing fair value quality initiative (FVQI) designed to improve financial reporting valuations for U.S. publicly traded companies.
Expert Prevails by Documenting Adherence to Valuation Standards
In fraud case, court rejects Daubert challenge, finding expert sufficiently identified assumptions and estimates she relied on and properly re-created subject company’s financial situation based on AICPA standards and authoritative valuation treatises.
Comments due June 24 on exposure drafts for fair value quality initiative
The ASA, AICPA, and RICS have issued two exposure drafts for public comment that relate to the ongoing initiative to improve the quality of financial reporting valuations for U.S. publicly traded companies. Comments are due June 24.
Some Key Takeaways From the AICPA FVS Conference
Over 1,100 attendees converged on Las Vegas for the AICPA Forensic and Valuation Services Conference 2015. BVU was there and heard some outstanding speakers and topics. Covered below are just a few of the takeaways. Future issues will cover these—and more.
Expert Fee Dispute Devolves Into Malpractice Claim
In fee dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s rejection of disgruntled client’s attempt to defend against accounting firm’s suit with allegations of malpractice; client failed to offer expert testimony to support attack on appraiser’s valuation.
Court Trusts Process to Test Expert’s Calculation of Value
Calculation reports periodically become a point of contention in litigation in trial and appeals courts. Courts have responded in different ways to questions about their usefulness and reliability. A recent case explores the issue of whether expert testimony based on a calculation of value is admissible under Daubert. Prior to marriage, the husband founded a company that marketed and sold Steel Seal, a car repair product that sealed blown head gaskets. The company ...
Can You Trust a Valuation That Falls Short of AICPA Standards?
Appeals court finds error in trial court’s refusal to value business; even if limited data caused expert’s estimate to fall short of AICPA standard, it was based on the market approach, a “sound and reasonable method to value a closely-held business.”
Cohen & Company v. Breen
In fee dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s rejection of disgruntled client’s attempt to defend against accounting firm’s suit with allegations of malpractice; client failed to offer expert testimony to support attack on appraiser’s valuation.
Hipple v. SCIX, LLC
Trial court finds plaintiff expert’s testimony based on a calculation of value instead of a full appraisal is admissible under Daubert because it is a form of engagements approved by the AICPA and the expert explained his methodology and assumptions.
Court Admits Solvency Analysis Lacking Specific Valuation of Debtor
Court finds solvency analysis is not subject to AICPA’s valuation standards and admits expert’s claim that “magnitude of excess” reflected in adjusted balance sheet numbers means assets exceeded liabilities.
Hugh v. Hugh
Appeals court finds error in trial court’s refusal to value business; even if limited data caused expert’s estimate to fall short of AICPA standard, it was based on the market approach, a “sound and reasonable method to value a closely-held business.”
Court Proscribes Litigant’s Efforts to Foil Expert’s Valuation
Court admits expert’s testimony despite his failure to appear for scheduled deposition where husband’s refusal to provide necessary corporate information delayed expert’s completion of the business valuation and says any error in the opinion was “invited”