Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Global BV News: CBV Institute releases its 2021 journal

The Chartered Business Valuators Institute (CBV Institute), Canada’s valuation professional organization (VPO) and standard-setter, puts out an excellent journal each year, and the 2021 edition is now available.

Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2022 Edition

January 2022 PDF, Softcover (177 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

The legal coverage and in-depth analysis from the BVR legal team deliver lessons learned to help appraisers reach better and more defensible valuation conclusions. All the cases featured in this book impart important lessons about applicable legal principles, approved and discredited valuation methodology, and the act (and art) of presenting expert opinions. This must-have collection benefits both the generalist as well as the specialist.

Learn more >>

Business Valuation Update Yearbook, 2022 Edition

January 2022 PDF, Softcover (454 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

A new year means another annual “greatest hits” publication!  The Business Valuation Update Yearbook 2022 covers the previous year’s most groundbreaking and thought-provoking advancements in valuation.  It captures changes in regulations and professional standards, key takeaways from professional conferences, and tactical practice-building ideas. This critical desktop reference puts you ahead of the competition with on-the-ground reporting by the BVR editorial team including an Introduction by Andy Dzamba, BVR Executive Editor and insights from notable BV experts.  Learn more >>

BV News and Trends December 2021

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Use of DCF for damages survives challenge

In an antitrust lawsuit in Nevada, the expert for a company that alleges it was forced to close due to anticompetitive practices used the discounted cash flow (DCF) method to calculate damages.

Sherman v. Sherrod

In this primarily procedural ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed judgment from a lower court awarding damages, including goodwill, for breach of contract arising from a sale of a medical practice, including goodwill. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to comply with the transfer assistant clauses in the sale contract destroyed the practice goodwill, among other things.

In a Primarily Procedural Ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms a Damages Award Including Goodwill

In this primarily procedural ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed judgment from a lower court awarding damages, including goodwill, for breach of contract arising from a sale of a medical practice, including goodwill. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to comply with the transfer assistant clauses in the sale contract destroyed the practice goodwill, among other things.

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)

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.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Is the Subject of Cross-Examination but Not Exclusion

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.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Incompetent valuation KOs jury verdict

The jury’s verdict in an eminent domain trial could not stand because the jury relied solely on the valuation the expert for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) did, “which was incompetent.”

Court Affirms Violation of ERISA but Allows Offset of Debt Forgiveness in Determining Damages

This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.

Walsh v. Vinoskey

This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.

HMH Enters. v. TAG Enters.

The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.

Court Affirms Exclusion of Testimony From Witness as Being Based on Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence

The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.

Dettenhaim Farms, Inc. v. Greenpoint Ag, LLC

In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.

Appeals Court Decides Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Choosing the Method of Determining Damages

In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.

Patent Royalty Damages – What’s the Approach?

Royalty damages are one of the two primary types of patent infringement damages; which represent the majority of patent damages awarded and are a part of most patent damages cases. Experts John L Abramic and Richard F. Bero present a structured approach to addressing key royalty damages components. Drawing on the extensive patent damages and litigation experience of our presenters, the presentation covers royalty damages fundamentals, navigates patent damages case law, and provides insightful concepts ...

V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, Ltd.

This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.

Court Reverses Its Order to Strike Expert Testimony That Utilized the Discounted Cash Flow Method in Valuing a Business

This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.

SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC

This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.

Court Denies Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Damages

This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.

Clint Eastwood awarded $6.1 million in right of publicity case

In a default judgment, actor Clint Eastwood has been awarded $6.1 million from a company that falsely claimed Eastwood had endorsed its CBD products.

State Route 00700, Section 21H v. Bentleyville Garden Inn, Inc. (In re Condemnation by DOT)

The jury verdict was set aside in this Pennsylvania condemnation case for reliance on an incompetent report by the expert witness for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The report did not account for the damages the hotel incurred on the unclaimed property for loss of business due to the condemned property. Additionally, the court decided that a new trial, which the trial court did not allow, should be allowed and remanded for a new trial.

Verdict Based on an Expert’s Incompetent Report Cannot Stand, New Trial Ordered

The jury verdict was set aside in this Pennsylvania condemnation case for reliance on an incompetent report by the expert witness for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The report did not account for the damages the hotel incurred on the unclaimed property for loss of business due to the condemned property. Additionally, the court decided that a new trial, which the trial court did not allow, should be allowed and remanded for a new trial.

BV News and Trends September 2021

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

1 - 25 of 694 results