BV News and Trends June 2022
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Bankruptcy court KOs transfers from ‘personal piggy bank’
In a bankruptcy case in Illinois, the three tests for insolvency came into play when a dispute arose as to whether transfers the debtor company made totaling $1.72 million were fraudulent.
Tennis great Becker convicted of hiding assets in bankruptcy
In London, ex-tennis star Boris Becker has been found guilty of four charges under the UK’s Insolvency Act relating to his 2017 bankruptcy, the BBC reports.
Stone v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union (In re Int’l Supply Co.)
The trustee of International Supply Company (ISCO) asked for avoidance and recovery of prepetition fraudulent transfers made to Citizens Equity First Credit Union. ISCO was insolvent when the transfers were made, and the transfers were for the benefit of the controlling shareholder. The court disallowed two of the fraudulent transfers. Some complaint counts against certain individuals were dismissed without prejudice.
Bankruptcy Court Sides With Trustee—Disallows (Fraudulent) Transfers
The trustee of International Supply Company (ISCO) asked for avoidance and recovery of prepetition fraudulent transfers made to Citizens Equity First Credit Union. ISCO was insolvent when the transfers were made, and the transfers were for the benefit of the controlling shareholder. The court disallowed two of the fraudulent transfers. Some complaint counts against certain individuals were dismissed without prejudice.
The Long Arm of the Bankruptcy Court: Valuation in Fraudulent Transfer Matters
When a company files for bankruptcy, the first analysis is to determine what the company has and what the company owes as of the filing date. Next is a thorough analysis of what had been paid out of the company before the filing date to determine whether such payments can be clawed back into the estate for the benefit of creditors. Payments made within 90 days of the filing may automatically be considered preferential. Beyond ...
Valuation experts spar over fraudulent transfer matter
In the bankruptcy court, two valuation experts squared off in a case where the trustee argued that a cash transfer by the debtor was a constructively fraudulent transfer under the bankruptcy code.
Yaquinto v. Thompson St. Capital Partners (In re Stone Panels, Inc.)
Trustee argued that a cash transfer by debtor was a constructively fraudulent transfer under the bankruptcy code. The Trustee was able to show that the transaction was an interest in property for which debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value. The Trustee was not able to show that the debtor was insolvent at the date of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The debtor was engaged in a business for which the property remaining was sufficiently capitalized. It appeared that the debtor would have sufficient access to cash to service its obligations and operate its business in a sustainable way. The Trustee failed in its burden of proof.
Property Transfer Was Not Fraudulent Because Debtor Was Not Insolvent
Trustee argued that a cash transfer by debtor was a constructively fraudulent transfer under the bankruptcy code. The Trustee was able to show that the transaction was an interest in property for which debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value. The Trustee was not able to show that the debtor was insolvent at the date of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The debtor was engaged in a business for which the property remaining was sufficiently capitalized. It appeared that the debtor would have sufficient access to cash to service its obligations and operate its business in a sustainable way. The Trustee failed in its burden of proof.
Misunderstanding of Facts Results in Overvaluation of Fuel Supply Rights
Debtor’s fuel supply rights had value either in form of an implied contract, customer relationship, or simply an income stream, court says; court does not assign specific value but finds appraiser overstated its value due to misunderstanding of key facts.
Market Data Approach ‘Particularly Unsuitable’ to Valuing Feature Film
Court rejects expert’s movie valuation based on percentage of cost of making it; market data approach is “particularly unsuitable” because simply averaging price of films and cost to create them does not yield information about value of particular film.
Misunderstanding of Facts Results in Overvaluation of Fuel Supply Rights
Debtor’s fuel supply rights had value either in form of an implied contract, customer relationship, or simply an income stream, court says; court does not assign specific value but finds appraiser overstated its value due to misunderstanding of key facts.
r2 Advisors, LLC v. Equitable Oil Purchasing Co. (In re Red Eagle Oil, Inc.)
Debtor’s fuel supply rights had value either in form of an implied contract, customer relationship, or simply an income stream, court says; court does not assign specific value but finds appraiser overstated its value due to misunderstanding of key facts.
Flop film poses unique valuation challenge
A recent bankruptcy-related case in front of the California Court of Appeal raises important questions about how one quantifies the value of a dated piece of art, a film, for which there never was a market in the first place.
Holder v. Howe
Court rejects expert’s movie valuation based on percentage of cost of making it; market data approach is “particularly unsuitable” because simply averaging price of films and cost to create them does not yield information about value of particular film.
Market Data Approach ‘Particularly Unsuitable’ to Valuing Feature Film
Court rejects expert’s movie valuation based on percentage of cost of making it; market data approach is “particularly unsuitable” because simply averaging price of films and cost to create them does not yield information about value of particular film.
Daubert Flexible as to Solvency Determination for Multiple Debtor Entities
Court finds Daubert centers on reliability, not persuasiveness, and can accommodate experts’ different approaches to determining solvency in case with multiple debtor entities; court rejects exclusion of expert opinion relying on GAAP-based financials.
Daubert tests reliability of testimony, not power of persuasion
The plaintiff, representing the debtor enterprises, sued executives of related family-run consumer lending and retail businesses that had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy over allegedly fraudulent transfers.
Bankruptcy Court’s Going-Concern Valuation Weathers Appeal
In Chapter 7 case, Bankruptcy Court finds trustee expert’s liquidation valuation fails to meet insolvency tests; court says expert’s substantial discounting of debtor’s assets is based on mistaken assumption and incompatible with going-concern valuation.
Bankruptcy Court’s Going-Concern Valuation Weathers Appeal
In Chapter 7 case, district court upholds Bankruptcy Court’s insolvency determination, which was a predicate to many of trustee’s claims; reviewing court says evidence supports use of going-concern valuation and rejection of liquidation discount.
Daubert Flexible as to Solvency Determination for Multiple Debtor Entities
Court finds Daubert centers on reliability, not persuasiveness, and can accommodate experts’ different approaches to determining solvency in case with multiple debtor entities; court rejects exclusion of expert opinion relying on GAAP-based financials.
Burtch v. Opus, LLC (In re Opus East, LLC) (II)
In Chapter 7 case, district court upholds Bankruptcy Court’s insolvency determination, which was a predicate to many of trustee’s claims; reviewing court says evidence supports use of going-concern valuation and rejection of liquidation discount.
Post-Confirmation Comm. for Small Loans, Inc. v. Martin
Court finds Daubert centers on reliability, not persuasiveness, and can accommodate experts’ different approaches to determining solvency in case with multiple debtor entities; court rejects exclusion of expert opinion relying on GAAP-based financials.
‘Reasonably Equivalent Value’ Analysis Meets FMV Standard, Court Says
On remand, Bankruptcy Court determines sale of plaintiff’s subsidiaries to defendants yielded “reasonably equivalent value” when viewed from objective creditor’s perspective, under FMV standard and without considering debtor’s subjective needs or beliefs.
In re Mercury Companies, Inc. (II)
On remand, Bankruptcy Court determines sale of plaintiff’s subsidiaries to defendants yielded “reasonably equivalent value” when viewed from objective creditor’s perspective, under FMV standard and without considering debtor’s subjective needs or beliefs.