Vieira v. Think Tank Logistics, LLC (In re Levesque)
In this adversary Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee sought to avoid the debtor’s transfer of his interest in two corporate entities and either recover the interests or the value of such interests from the defendants. As part of this proceeding, the court was asked to decide on two motions in limine regarding an valuation expert from each side. The motions (Daubert) asked that the experts not be allowed to testify. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the parties.
Bankruptcy Court (South Carolina) Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motions to Exclude Experts in Daubert Motions
In this adversary Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee sought to avoid the debtor’s transfer of his interest in two corporate entities and either recover the interests or the value of such interests from the defendants. As part of this proceeding, the court was asked to decide on two motions in limine regarding an valuation expert from each side. The motions (Daubert) asked that the experts not be allowed to testify. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the parties.
Lack of Facts and Data Render Expert’s Fair Value Balance Sheet Not Helpful
Bankruptcy Court excludes as unreliable and irrelevant expert’s solvency opinion and balance sheet; court says expert lacked the facts and data necessary to enact his chosen method and “failed in numerous ways” to reliably apply the facts and data in accordance with the selected method.
Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair)
Bankruptcy Court excludes as unreliable and irrelevant expert’s solvency opinion and balance sheet; court says expert lacked the facts and data necessary to enact his chosen method and “failed in numerous ways” to reliably apply the facts and data in accordance with the selected method.
Bankruptcy Court’s Going-Concern Valuation Weathers Appeal
In Chapter 7 case, Bankruptcy Court finds trustee expert’s liquidation valuation fails to meet insolvency tests; court says expert’s substantial discounting of debtor’s assets is based on mistaken assumption and incompatible with going-concern valuation.
Bankruptcy Court’s Going-Concern Valuation Weathers Appeal
In Chapter 7 case, district court upholds Bankruptcy Court’s insolvency determination, which was a predicate to many of trustee’s claims; reviewing court says evidence supports use of going-concern valuation and rejection of liquidation discount.
Why Divorce Valuation Does Not Accord With Chapter 7 Liquidation Analysis
Bankruptcy Court says differing standard of value in divorce and bankruptcy proceedings precludes use of divorce valuation of husband’s interest in dental practice; but valuation based on shareholder agreement accords with Chapter 7 liquidation analysis.
Why Bankruptcy Court declines to be bound by divorce valuation
Following the divorce, the husband filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and asked for confirmation of his plan. The issue was whether the plan could meet the liquidation test applicable under the Bankruptcy Code’s section 1325(a)(4). In essence, the test requires that creditors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy receive present value payments that are at least equal to the amount the creditors would receive in a Chapter 7 case.
Burtch v. Opus, LLC (In re Opus East, LLC) (II)
In Chapter 7 case, district court upholds Bankruptcy Court’s insolvency determination, which was a predicate to many of trustee’s claims; reviewing court says evidence supports use of going-concern valuation and rejection of liquidation discount.
Bankruptcy Court Favors DCF to Value Dissociated Interest
Court finds debtor’s fraudulently conveyed interest represents a dissociated interest that is held by the estate; appropriate valuation date is date of trial, and DCF analysis, as modified by court, best captures value of the interest at that time.
In re Cole
Bankruptcy Court says differing standard of value in divorce and bankruptcy proceedings precludes use of divorce valuation of husband’s interest in dental practice; but valuation based on shareholder agreement accords with Chapter 7 liquidation analysis.
Hanckel v. Campbell (In re Hanckel)
Court finds debtor’s fraudulently conveyed interest represents a dissociated interest that is held by the estate; appropriate valuation date is date of trial, and DCF analysis, as modified by court, best captures value of the interest at that time.
Burtch v. Opus, LLC (In re Opus East, LLC) (I)
In Chapter 7 case, Bankruptcy Court finds trustee expert’s liquidation valuation fails to meet insolvency tests; court says expert’s substantial discounting of debtor’s assets is based on mistaken assumption and incompatible with going-concern valuation.
‘Blurred’ Solvency Analysis Diminishes Expert’s Credibility
Bankruptcy court finds expert’s analysis “blurred the line” between going concern and liquidation value, detracting from opinion’s credibility; but court approves of expert’s “precise” time frame for capturing data with which to determine solvency.
Stadtmueller v. Fitzgerald (In re Epic Cycle Interactive, Inc.)
Bankruptcy court finds expert’s analysis “blurred the line” between going concern and liquidation value, detracting from opinion’s credibility; but court approves of expert’s “precise” time frame for capturing data with which to determine solvency.