Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Blockchain Forensics—Part 1

This presentation is about discovery of cryptocurrency assets in divorce and valuation. This presentation will not cover the origin stories or the inner cryptographic workings of various blockchains and cryptocurrencies. Attendees will learn forensic methods for identifying the existence of cryptocurrency assets, tracing transactions with public sources, and identifying when additional records exist that are accessible by the account holder only.

Mikalacki v. Rubezic

In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.

Arizona Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of a Calculation of Value

In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.

Redcell Corp. v. A.J. Trucco, Inc.

In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.

Parties' Motions to Exclude Each Other’s Experts Are Granted in Part and Denied in Part

In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.

Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp.

The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.

U.S. District Court Partially Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Qui Tam Case on Excess Purchase Price Under the False Claims Act

The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.

In re Marriage of Brown

In this Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s determination of value of the husband’s business by the husband’s expert even though evidence was presented that the expert did not follow the AICPA Business Valuation Standards. Further, the husband’s expert did not consider any enterprise goodwill and used an unorthodox method to determine the value of the business. The wife’s expert asserted that the husband’s expert did not provide a fair market value but rather did a “calculation.” The appellate court also affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to exclude the testimony of the husband’s expert witness.

Illinois Appellate Court Does Not Accept Valuation Including Enterprise Goodwill

In this Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s determination of value of the husband’s business by the husband’s expert even though evidence was presented that the expert did not follow the AICPA Business Valuation Standards. Further, the husband’s expert did not consider any enterprise goodwill and used an unorthodox method to determine the value of the business. The wife’s expert asserted that the husband’s expert did not provide a fair market value but rather did a “calculation.” The appellate court also affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to exclude the testimony of the husband’s expert witness.

Maginnis v. Maginnis

In this unpublished opinion, the Kentucky Appellate Court remanded the decision as to the value of the husband’s business for, among other things, the Family Court’s failure to consider an apportionment of goodwill between enterprise and personal goodwill. It also remanded for a reconsideration of the maintenance award to the wife since that award is based in part on the value of the business and the income of the husband.

Trial Court Fails to Consider Apportionment of Goodwill in a Marital Dissolution Case

In this unpublished opinion, the Kentucky Appellate Court remanded the decision as to the value of the husband’s business for, among other things, the Family Court’s failure to consider an apportionment of goodwill between enterprise and personal goodwill. It also remanded for a reconsideration of the maintenance award to the wife since that award is based in part on the value of the business and the income of the husband.

Discovery dispute over damages expert’s undisclosed work paper

In a discovery dispute, a federal court recently found the defendant had no duty to disclose to the opposing side its expert’s “intermediary” working paper that he used to prepare his damages calculation.

Fingertip guides to valuation cases in new BVR compendium guides

BVR’s valuation and case law compendium guides contain a very helpful feature: a handy summary table of hundreds of cases (by jurisdiction) that gives you the case name, date, specific court, and the main valuation issue in the case.

Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods.

In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.

Expert’s Damages Testimony Prompts Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Exclude Under Daubert

In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.

BVU News and Trends December 2020

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

New edition released of the BV in Divorce Compendium

The most current summary and analysis of U.S. legal decisions involving business valuation and divorce is in the just-released fifth edition of BVR’s Business Valuation in Divorce Case Law Compendium.

Tips on how to help settle a divorce during COVID-19

How do you resolve a divorce case during COVID-19, when many businesses in all kinds of industries are coping with significant losses and continuing uncertainty over future performance?

In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Finds Business Adequately Alleges It Suffered a Physical Loss

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs, inter alia, adequately allege that they suffered a physical loss due to COVID-19.

Studio 417 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 claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs, inter alia, adequately allege that they suffered a physical loss due to COVID-19.

Court Finds Delayed Disclosure of Expert’s Complete Report ‘Substantially Justified’

Court denies defendants’ Rule 37 motion to exclude opposing expert’s report and testimony; court notes reason for expert report’s ...

Wright v. Old Gringo, Inc.

Court denies defendants’ Rule 37 motion to exclude opposing expert’s report and testimony; court notes reason for expert report’s lateness was defendants’ litigation strategy, including efforts to thwart production of financial information vital for valuation of company and damages calculation.

Parties fight over notes-containing expert report: draft or final version?

Several sessions at the recent AICPA conference in Las Vegas highlighted the importance of expert discovery in litigation and noted that draft reports continue to be a hot-button issue.

County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.

Expert Report Containing Notes Qualifies as Draft Not Subject to Discovery

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.

1 - 25 of 73 results