BVU News and Trends April 2023
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Report drills down on dental practice financials
PKF O’Connor Davies has released its 2022 edition of “Dental Practices by the Numbers,” which provides key financial benchmarks.
Court uses old transaction to value a dental practice
In a North Carolina divorce case, the wife’s stake in a dental practice was valued based on what she paid for it two years before she and her husband separated in 2015 (the valuation date).
Logue v. Logue
In this marital dissolution case in North Carolina, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of value of the wife’s dental practice. The trial court determined the value based on the value of the entire practice determined several years before the separation date. That value was determined by appraisals by professional appraisers to determine the buyout of the husband’s father’s 50% interest in the practice. No evidence of value as of the separation date was provided by the parties who decided not to hire appraisers to assess the value at the separation date.
North Carolina Appellate Court Values a Dental Practice Based on a Two-Year-Old Purchase of an Interest in the Practice
In this marital dissolution case in North Carolina, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of value of the wife’s dental practice. The trial court determined the value based on the value of the entire practice determined several years before the separation date. That value was determined by appraisals by professional appraisers to determine the buyout of the husband’s father’s 50% interest in the practice. No evidence of value as of the separation date was provided by the parties who decided not to hire appraisers to assess the value at the separation date.
The Dental Valuation Revolution
The valuation landscape for dental practices is changing rapidly. Private equity funds and dental service organizations have entered the industry in force. Experts Matthew Howard and Kam McQuay will engage in discussions around what is the definition of “any given buyer” for practices and how to include this relevant buyer in your valuations. They will also discuss industry-specific considerations for valuations concerning the officer compensation adjustment and typical and some not-so-typical income statement and balance ...
Nothing personal about goodwill in dental practice
In a South Carolina divorce case, the appellate court reversed the family court on the issue of personal versus enterprise goodwill.
Bostick v. Bostick
The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.
Appellate Court Reversed Decision and Treated All Goodwill as Enterprise Goodwill Includable in the Marital Estate
The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.
Kakollu v. Vadlamudi
In this marital dissolution case, the Indiana Appellate Court affirms the trial court’s decision that no DLOM is allowed in the valuation of a control interest. The husband’s expert failed to provide sufficient evidence that a DLOM was appropriate at the level the wife’s expert claimed. The court also affirmed the decision that $50,000 of legal and expert fees the husband paid in advance is not part of the marital estate and thus not subject to offset.
Court Affirms No DLOM in Valuation of a Control Interest, Wife’s Legal Fees Are Not Part of Marital Estate
In this marital dissolution case, the Indiana Appellate Court affirms the trial court’s decision that no DLOM is allowed in the valuation of a control interest. The husband’s expert failed to provide sufficient evidence that a DLOM was appropriate at the level the wife’s expert claimed. The court also affirmed the decision that $50,000 of legal and expert fees the husband paid in advance is not part of the marital estate and thus not subject to offset.
In Buyout Dispute, Appeals Court Finds There Was No Basis for Jury to Set Aside Appraisers’ Contractually Mandated Value Determination
In buyout dispute, appeals court reverses trial court’s judgment, finding it was based on jury’s erroneous decision to set aside a contractually mandated appraisal and provide its own buyout price; there was no indication the appraisers misinterpreted the controlling partnership agreement; court remands.
Parrish v. Schroering
In buyout dispute, appeals court reverses trial court’s judgment, finding it was based on jury’s erroneous decision to set aside a contractually mandated appraisal and provide its own buyout price; there was no indication the appraisers misinterpreted the controlling partnership agreement; court remands ...
Court Declines Motion to Dismiss Claim of Coverage for Loss of Income, but Dismisses the Claim of Coverage Under the Civil Authority Provision
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiff as to coverage for loss of business income but does dismiss the claim of coverage under the civil authority provision of the policy. The court found the wording of the policy sufficiently vague, especially as to the meaning and definition of the word “loss.” In the case of the civil authority provision of the policy, the court decided that plaintiff has not alleged that “[a]ccess to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property is prohibited by civil authority.”
Derek Scott Williams PLLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiff as to coverage for loss of business income but does dismiss the claim of coverage under the civil authority provision of the policy. The court found the wording of the policy sufficiently vague, especially as to the meaning and definition of the word “loss.” In the case of the civil authority provision of the policy, the court decided that plaintiff has not alleged that “[a]ccess to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property is prohibited by civil authority.”
7 Tips for Valuing—and Designing—Buy-In and Buyout Agreements for Medical/Dental Practices
Healthcare valuation expert Mark Dietrich, who has more than 40 years of experience designing and valuing buy-in and buyout agreements, recently wrote an article for the Business Valuation Update identifying a number of best practices for both valuation analysts and consultants with respect to these matters.
