Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (I)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Goes to the Weight and Not the Admissibility

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

Gift and Estate Tax Valuation Update

Join Barry Sziklay for important 2021 income and transfer tax valuation cases as well as the valuation aspects of the adequate disclosure regulations required to report a gift for federal transfer tax purposes and start the statute of limitations running. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Chapter 14 valuations, Special Valuation Rules §§ 2701-2704, will be addressed in a summary fashion given the complexities of the rules required for a valuation to meet the requirements of Chapter ...

Federal Circuit explains concept of ‘built-in’ apportionment

The Federal Circuit, in ruling on a patent infringement case involving two major pharmaceutical companies, recently clarified the apportionment requirement.

Delaware court weighs in on goodwill in sole proprietorships

A recent divorce case out of Delaware is significant for addressing the treatment of goodwill where the business is a sole proprietorship.

Sufficiently Comparable License Obviates Further Apportionment for Reasonable Royalty

Federal Circuit affirms plaintiff’s damages theory that relies on sufficiently comparable license to calculate reasonable royalty; court says there is an assumption that apportionment was built into negotiations for comparable license, obviating need for further apportionment in instant case.

Vectura v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

Federal Circuit affirms plaintiff’s damages theory that relies on sufficiently comparable license to calculate reasonable royalty; court says there is an assumption that apportionment was built into negotiations for comparable license, obviating need for further apportionment in instant case.

Coca-Cola Co. v. Comm'r

Coca-Cola had been applying a transfer pricing method called the 10-50-50 since it entered into a closing agreement with the IRS in 198, covering the years 1987 to 1995. Coca-Cola had consistently followed that transfer pricing method; the IRS had audited Coca-Cola annually and “signed off” on that transfer pricing method for over a decade. Upon examination of Coca-Cola’s tax returns for 2007 to 2009, the IRS determined that Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it overcompensated the supply point and undercompensated Coca-Cola. The IRS reallocated income between Coca-Cola and its supply points employing the comparable profits method (CPM) pursuant to Reg. Sec. 1.482-5. The IRS increased Coca-Cola’s taxable income by over $9 billion assessing over $3 billion in additional taxes!

2020’s Most Important Transfer Pricing Case—Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola had been applying a transfer pricing method called the 10-50-50 since it entered into a closing agreement with the IRS in 1986, covering the years 1987 to 1995. Coca-Cola had consistently followed that transfer pricing method; the IRS had audited Coca-Cola annually and “signed off” on that transfer pricing method for over a decade. Upon examination of Coca-Cola’s tax returns for 2007 to 2009, the IRS determined that Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it overcompensated the supply point and undercompensated Coca-Cola. The IRS reallocated income between Coca-Cola and its supply points employing the comparable profits method (CPM) pursuant to Reg. Sec. 1.482-5. The IRS increased Coca-Cola’s taxable income by over $9 billion assessing over $3 billion in additional taxes!

American Business Appraisers and BVR Annual Key Issues Update

Every year American Business Appraisers brings together experts from across the country for a frank and practical discussion of the issues impacting business valuation. This year, everyone is invited to four great sessions. Get a current update on the SBA Paycheck Protection Program and the forgiveness application. Adam Rosenfield gives an overview of what the most recent changes to the program are and how that affects clients/future clients. Get guidance on how the loan and ...

A.A. v. B.A.

In valuing owner’s financial advisory business organized as sole proprietorship, court rejects idea that prior case law on goodwill in solely owned business precludes assigning goodwill to business; court says commissions earned during marriage but received post-separation or post-divorce are marital.

Delaware Court Revisits Issue of Goodwill in Sole Proprietorship

In valuing owner’s financial advisory business organized as sole proprietorship, court rejects idea that prior case law on goodwill in solely owned business precludes assigning goodwill to business; court says commissions earned during marriage but received post-separation or post-divorce are marital.

Flaws in North Carolina Court’s Appraisal of Reynolds American

The wrong valuation date, a faulty reliance on other cases and the disregard of projections highlight the court’s opinion in a shareholder dissent case involving two tobacco giants.

In a crunch, court adopts company’s DCF model as fair value indicator

In a statutory appraisal action prompted by the 2016 buyout of minority shareholders by the controller of a private company, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently found there was no meaningful market-based evidence of fair value and neither expert opinion, based on standard valuation methods, was “wholly reliable.”

Kruse v. Synapse Wireless, Inc.

In appraisal action arising out of controller’s buyout of minority stockholders, court finds there is no reliable market evidence as to target’s fair value on merger date; none of expert valuations are “wholly reliable,” but one expert’s DCF analysis offers a “proportionately reliable conclusion.”

Lacking Any Wholly Reliable Indicators of Fair Value, Court Adopts Respondent's DCF Model

In appraisal action arising out of controller's buyout of minority stockholders, court finds there is no reliable market evidence as to target's fair value on merger date; none of expert valuations are "wholly reliable," but one expert's DCF analysis offers a "proportionately reliable conclusion."

Fir Tree Value Master Fund v. Jarden Corp., (Jarden III)

High court affirms trial court’s use of unaffected market price as fair value in statutory appraisal involving merger of publicly traded company; high court rejects petitioners’ late argument that, where sale process was flawed and company failed to prove synergies, deal price should act as floor.

No ‘Long-Recognized Principle’ Against Use of Market Price as Fair Value Indicator, High Court Says

High court affirms trial court’s use of unaffected market price as fair value in statutory appraisal involving merger of publicly traded company; high court rejects petitioners’ late argument that, where sale process was flawed and company failed to prove synergies, deal price should act as floor.

North Carolina court looks to deal price for fair value in tobacco merger

The importance of Delaware appraisal jurisprudence beyond state borders was on display in a recent fair value decision out of North Carolina related to a merger involving the tobacco giant Reynolds.

Reynolds American Inc. v. Third Motion Equities Master Fund Ltd.

In appraisal action involving merger of public (tobacco) company, court, guided by key Delaware court decisions, says deal price best reflects fair value and represents upper limit; contemporaneous valuations based on comparable companies, precedent transactions, and DCF support use of deal price.

North Carolina Court Says Deal Price Represents Upper Limit of Tobacco Company’s Fair Value

In appraisal action involving merger of public (tobacco) company, court, guided by key Delaware court decisions, says deal price best reflects fair value and represents upper limit; contemporaneous valuations based on comparable companies, precedent transactions, and DCF support use of deal price.

Built for BV: The New Platform for Guideline Public Company Comps

In March, BVR will launch a new guideline public company comps platform with Excel add-in. This new robust tool will help BV professionals maximize their guideline public company method work. Attend this webinar and learn how to streamline your guideline public company comparable searches and results by using this new platform. Using a structure similar to the DealStats platform, users will have the access to a wide range of beneficial features, which will be showcased ...

Synergy deduction purely academic in new Delaware appraisal ruling

In a statutory appraisal case that involved the sale of a publicly traded company to a privately held entity, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently decided the deal price was a reliable indicator of fair value and a downward adjustment for synergies was justified.

Court Rejects Parties’ Expert Valuations of Unique Sailing Vessel as Unreliable

In damages case involving unique ship for which there was no active market, court says parties’ experts provided some data points relevant to valuing ship but failed to give adequate explanations of rationales and calculations, making testimony unreliable; court performs its own analysis.

In re Manhattan By Sail, Inc.

In damages case involving unique ship for which there was no active market, court says parties’ experts provided some data points relevant to valuing ship but failed to give adequate explanations of rationales and calculations, making testimony unreliable; court performs its own analysis.

1 - 25 of 155 results