Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Wee v. Yangzhou Putian Shoemaking Co. (In re Unimex Corp.)

An expert’s report on debtor’s insolvency was excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because the expert’s 50% discount of inventory value was a flawed assumption given that the debtor was not being liquidated and was not on its deathbed, but instead was a going concern.

Expert’s Testimony Is Excluded as to Solvency—Adjustments to the Balance Sheet of Debtor Were Inappropriate

An expert’s report on debtor’s insolvency was excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because the expert’s 50% discount of inventory value was a flawed assumption given that the debtor was not being liquidated and was not on its deathbed, but instead was a going concern.

Business Valuation in the Context of Insolvency

This webinar will dive into the complex world of bankruptcy. It will include a look at the valuation nuances that one needs to consider when preparing a valuation analysis and report in the context of bankruptcy.

Musk prevails in lawsuit claiming he meddled in SolarCity deal

In a unanimous 106-page opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court has upheld the Delaware Chancery Court’s judgment in favor of Elon Musk in a case involving Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity in 2016.

In re Tesla Motors Stockholder Litig.

At issue was a 2016 acquisition of Solar City Corp. by Tesla. Some Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk caused Tesla to overpay for Solar through his alleged domination and control of Tesla’s board. The primary focus of the shareholders was that Solar was insolvent at the time of the acquisition. The court applied the “entire fairness” standard. The Court of Chancery found the acquisition to be “entirely fair.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision.

Delaware Supreme Court Upholds ‘Entire Fairness’ of a Tesla Acquisition

At issue was a 2016 acquisition of Solar City Corp. by Tesla. Some Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk caused Tesla to overpay for Solar through his alleged domination and control of Tesla’s board. The primary focus of the shareholders was that Solar was insolvent at the time of the acquisition. The court applied the “entire fairness” standard. The Court of Chancery found the acquisition to be “entirely fair.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision.

VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. Wulf

In this complex case, which the district court judge called “a doozy,” the subject of this subissue was a motion by the defendants to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s (VeroBlue Farms USA Inc.) damages expert, Brandi Kleinman, CPA/CFF. The district court judge assigned the case to the court’s magistrate judge for recommendation of decision. The motion alleged a multitude of issues and flaws with the opinions of Kleinman. The magistrate, despite these alleged issues and flaws, denied the motion, thereby allowing Kleinman to testify.

U.S. District Court (Texas) Allows Testimony of Damages Expert Despite Alleged ‘Flawed Opinions’

In this complex case, which the district court judge called “a doozy,” the subject of this subissue was a motion by the defendants to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s (VeroBlue Farms USA Inc.) damages expert, Brandi Kleinman, CPA/CFF. The district court judge assigned the case to the court’s magistrate judge for recommendation of decision. The motion alleged a multitude of issues and flaws with the opinions of Kleinman. The magistrate, despite these alleged issues and flaws, denied the motion, thereby allowing Kleinman to testify.

Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of LB Steel, LLC v. Steelcast Ltd. (In re LB Steel, LLC)

The Bankruptcy Court in this case dealt with an adversary complaint from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee sought to avoid and recover payments the debtor made within the 90 days leading up to the bankruptcy filing to the parent company. For reasons including that the debtor was insolvent during that 90-day period, the court decided in favor of the committee and ordered the payments avoided and ordered the parent company to repay the debtor’s estate.

Bankruptcy Court Orders Parent Company to Repay Payments Within 90 Days of Filing

The Bankruptcy Court in this case dealt with an adversary complaint from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee sought to avoid and recover payments the debtor made within the 90 days leading up to the bankruptcy filing to the parent company. For reasons including that the debtor was insolvent during that 90-day period, the court decided in favor of the committee and ordered the payments avoided and ordered the parent company to repay the debtor’s estate.

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.

How Recent Insolvency Reform in the UK Impacts Business Valuations

Driven by the pandemic, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) 2020 is the largest reform to insolvency law in the United Kingdom in over 20 years. Although targeted to large companies, the impact on business valuation methods and standards will likely trickle down to smaller firms.

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.

BV News and Trends June 2021

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

New edition of BVR’s Bankruptcy Case Law Compendium

Virtually every bankruptcy case is intertwined with valuation issues at almost every stage of the process, which is why BVR’s Business Valuation & Bankruptcy: Case Law Compendium, 3rd edition, is a must-have resource.

BVU News and Trends February 2021

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

Choose Your Client Wisely in a Bankruptcy Engagement

Robert Reilly (Willamette Management Associates) and Josh Shilts (Shilts CPA) conducted an informative session on valuations for bankruptcy at the AICPA FVS Conference.

What the New Subchapter V in Bankruptcy Means to Business Valuers

Michael D. Pakter (a managing member at Gould & Pakter Associates LLC in Chicago) discusses the new niche subchapter of the Bankruptcy Code that creates an easier and less expensive path for small businesses to reorganize and survive.

1 - 25 of 52 results