Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Calculation engagement value holds up in Alabama divorce litigation

Many valuators are adamantly opposed to doing calculation engagements, as we recently reported.

Appeals Court Validates Trial Court’s Reliance on Calculation of Value

Appeals court rejects claim that expert’s value determination pursuant to a calculation engagement rather than a valuation engagement was unreliable; trial court properly considered limitations inherent in a calculation engagement when crediting expert’s value estimate, appeals court says.

Rohling v. Rohling

Appeals court rejects claim that expert’s value determination pursuant to a calculation engagement rather than a valuation engagement was unreliable; trial court properly considered limitations inherent in a calculation engagement when crediting expert’s value estimate, appeals court says.

Court Rejects Appreciation in Value Calculation, Citing SSVS Violations

In appreciation in value case, court excludes nonowner spouse’s valuation testimony under Daubert, finding expert’s calculation of “minimum marital component” is not a methodology approved under the applicable SSVS for determining fair market value and also violated other SSVS requirements.

Hebert v. Cote

In appreciation in value case, court excludes nonowner spouse’s valuation testimony under Daubert, finding expert’s calculation of “minimum marital component” is not a methodology approved under the applicable SSVS for determining fair market value and also violated other SSVS requirements.

SEC v. Nutmeg Group, LLC

In an SEC case requiring valuation of restricted securities, court admits most of the testimony of parties’ experts; experts need not be specialists in given field and need not demonstrate familiarity with USPAP or SSVS to qualify under Daubert, court fin ...

MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v. Venuto

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.

Dietz v. Jacobs

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.

Divorce court says SSVS-1 is not binding

10 results