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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chattree v. Chattree
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”