BV News and Trends September 2021
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Today! Valuation and legal experts examine latest cases
BVR legal editor Jim Alerding has hand-picked a number of the most consequential recent valuation and financial litigation court decisions for the next installment of our regular BVLaw Case Update webinars, which will be today.
Larchick v. Pollock
The trial court (TC) in this case excluded the evidence of a business valuation expert because he had submitted a calculation of value report and was then asked to testify to it. The expert self-admitted that he would not testify to a calculation of value and had explained in his engagement letter that a valuation engagement would be required for testimony. Despite the exclusion by the TC and the self-admission of the inadequacy of a calculation of value for testimony purposes, the appellate court nevertheless remanded the case in part to determine whether the calculation of value met the requirements of Arizona Rule 702 for allowable evidence.
Arizona Appeals Court Says a Calculation of Value Is Not Per Se Unacceptable
The trial court (TC) in this case excluded the evidence of a business valuation expert because he had submitted a calculation of value report and was then asked to testify to it. The expert self-admitted that he would not testify to a calculation of value and had explained in his engagement letter that a valuation engagement would be required for testimony. Despite the exclusion by the TC and the self-admission of the inadequacy of a calculation of value for testimony purposes, the appellate court nevertheless remanded the case in part to determine whether the calculation of value met the requirements of Arizona Rule 702 for allowable evidence.
Cheng v. Coastal Lb Assocs.
This case concerned the purchase of minority interests in a California limited liability company under the Corporate Code concerning the purchase of these interests in lieu of a liquidation of the company. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order confirming the purchase of these interests at a discounted fair market value.
California Court of Appeal Allows a Discount for Lack of Control in the Buyout of 25% Interests in an LLC
This case concerned the purchase of minority interests in a California limited liability company under the Corporate Code concerning the purchase of these interests in lieu of a liquidation of the company. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order confirming the purchase of these interests at a discounted fair market value.
Appellate court affirms zero DLOM for a 100% control interest
In a divorce matter, an Indiana appellate court has upheld the lower court’s decision not to allow a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) on a 100% control interest in a business the husband owned.
Pourmoradi v. Gabbai
This California appellate case reviewed the trial court’s decision that discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability were not appropriate in determining the value to be paid to the plaintiffs in this corporate dissolution case where the remaining 50% owners exercised their right to purchase the plaintiff’s 50% interest in the LLC.
California Appellate Court Remands for Application of Trial Court of Wrong Standard of Value Denying Discounts
This California appellate case reviewed the trial court’s decision that discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability were not appropriate in determining the value to be paid to the plaintiffs in this corporate dissolution case where the remaining 50% owners exercised their right to purchase the plaintiff’s 50% interest in the LLC.
Recap of recent BV cases of note
A number of recent cases have emerged that contain various valuation issues.
Van Vleet comments on use of SEAM in Ryan case
BVWire recently reported on the Ryan Trust v. Ryan case, a buyout dispute in which the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to credit the valuation testimony of the expert for the late majority shareholder.
In buyout dispute, ‘downward bias’ sinks expert’s fair value determination
In a bitter buyout dispute involving a successful private family business and featuring two veteran appraisers, the Nebraska Supreme Court recently affirmed the district court’s decision to unreservedly credit the valuation testimony of the expert for the late majority shareholder.
Iowa Supreme Court Allows Reduction in Value for Transaction Costs but Refuses to Allow a Reduction for Built-In Capital Gains Tax
This case was decided, on appeal, under the Iowa “election-to-purchase-in-lieu-of-dissolution statute.” The Iowa Supreme Court decided that, because the parties’ experts had “both included transaction costs in their valuations under a net asset approach, the district court’s failure to reduce the asset values to account for the costs to liquidate the corporation’s assets warranted reversal.” Additionally, since there was no evidence of an intention to liquidate the company or its assets, the court declined to adjust for the built-in gains tax consequences urged by the majority shareholder.
Guge v. Kassel Enters.
This case was decided, on appeal, under the Iowa “election-to-purchase-in-lieu-of-dissolution statute.” The court decided that, because the parties’ experts had “both included transaction costs in their valuations under a net asset approach, the district court’s failure to reduce the asset values to account for the costs to liquidate the corporation’s assets warranted reversal.” Additionally, since there was no evidence of an intention to liquidate the company or its assets, the court declined to adjust for the built-in gains tax consequences urged by the majority shareholder.
Connecticut Supreme Court clarifies double-counting rule
In a recent decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court clarified this jurisdiction approach to double counting (or double dipping).
Oudheusden v. Oudheusden (II)
In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).
Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies Double Counting Rule in Divorce Cases Involving Valuation of a Business and Determination of Alimony
In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).
Ryan Trust v. Ryan
In family buyout dispute, state high court affirms trial court’s decision to adopt expert valuation testimony for selling majority shareholder, finding expert’s DCF inputs were reasonable as was selection of multiple of earnings in GPTC analysis; expert’s explanation for S corp premium was convincing.
State Supreme Court Affirms Adoption of Selling Shareholder’s Expert Value Findings
In family buyout dispute, state high court affirms trial court’s decision to adopt expert valuation testimony for selling majority shareholder, finding expert’s DCF inputs were reasonable as was selection of multiple of earnings in GPTC analysis; expert’s explanation for S corp premium was convincing.
BVU News and Trends February 2021
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
LLC buyout at fair value poses ‘conundrum’ for the court
In allowing LLC members to buy out a departing member to avoid the dissolution of the company, a court had to determine the fair value of the departing member’s interest in a holding company.
BVU News and Trends December 2020
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Gerring Props. v. Gerring
In this shareholder oppression suit appeal, the Minnesota appellate court upheld the prejudicial conduct to an oppressed shareholder and affirmed the disallowance of a marketability discount. Further, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order for dissolution when the appellants failed to exercise the option to pay court-ordered stock-buyout amounts.
Minnesota Appellate Court Upholds Prejudicial Conduct to Oppressed Shareholder and Affirms Disallowance of Marketability Discount
In this shareholder oppression suit appeal, the Minnesota appellate court upheld the prejudicial conduct to an oppressed shareholder and affirmed the disallowance of a marketability discount. Further, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order for dissolution when the appellants failed to exercise the option to pay court-ordered stock-buyout amounts.
BVR featured in ABA podcast on divorce valuations
BVWire editors Sylvia Golden and Andy Dzamba joined moderator Tom Urquhart at the American Bar Association on a podcast to discuss Business Valuation in Divorce: A Case Compendium, a book co-published by BVR and the ABA.