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.
Walsh v. Preston
In this ESOP ERISA case, the government (plaintiffs) (Secretary of Labor) alleged claims against the defendants, Robert N. Preston and TPP Holdings Inc. (and nominally against its ESOP) for: (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) engaging in prohibited transactions; and (3) co-liability of defendants. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that the defendants did breach fiduciary duties and did engage in prohibited transactions. It further decided that there was no co-liability among the defendants, but it did not allow an offset of payments on debt of TPP Preston personally made. In determining FMV, the court did not allow a minority interest discount. In so doing, the resulting damages determined were minimal.
U.S. District Court Decides Some Issues for Government and Some for Defendants But Very Little in Damages in an ERISA ESOP Case
In this ESOP ERISA case, the government (plaintiffs) (Secretary of Labor) alleged claims against the defendants, Robert N. Preston and TPP Holdings Inc. (and nominally against its ESOP) for: (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) engaging in prohibited transactions; and (3) co-liability of defendants. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that the defendants did breach fiduciary duties and did engage in prohibited transactions. It further decided that there was no co-liability among the defendants, but it did not allow an offset of payments on debt of TPP Preston personally made. In determining FMV, the court did not allow a minority interest discount. In so doing, the resulting damages determined were minimal.
The New Stark FMV is a Game Changer: The Rejection of “Survey Says” for Stark-Compliant Physician Compensation
This two-part BVR webinar series provides a critical and in-depth assessment of the new definitions of fair market value under the regulations for the federal physician self-referral law commonly known as “Stark.” Many in the healthcare valuation industry have viewed the updated definitions, along with new commentary from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as promoting “business as usual” for healthcare valuation practice. Timothy Smith, however, begs to differ. Smith was a major ...
Warranting Further Discussion: Why the Use of Financing Warrants in ESOP Transactions Benefits American Workers
The leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) structure was created by US Congress to enable American workers to gain an equity interest in their companies without using their own funds. A critical component in the financing of leveraged ESOP transactions is a “warrant,” which enables corporate sponsors of ESOPs to access the financing necessary to facilitate purchases of company stock by ESOPs. Warrants also afford substantial benefits to ESOPs by providing downside risk for ESOP ...
Simons v. Simons
The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.
Nebraska Supreme Court Allows Fair Value Determination for Family-Owned Business and Does Not Allow Discounts
The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.
Important Provider Compensation Topics in 2022
To begin a dialogue on important topics in physician compensation and fair market value, PYA surveyed more than 30 physician compensation experts to understand the collective thoughts on issues impacting these topics in 2022. These issues range from compensation for advance practice practitioners to value-based compensation. Please join PYA Senior Manager Katie Taylor as she discusses key physician compensation issues in 2022 ...
Healthcare whistleblower case regarding FMV can proceed
The CFO of a healthcare provider blew the whistle on his former employer, alleging it overpaid for a surgery center in order to induce it to refer future business.
The New Stark FMV is a Game-Changer: Foundational Concepts and Valuation Methodology
This two-part BVR webinar series provides a critical and in-depth assessment of the new definitions of fair market value under the regulations for the federal physician self-referral law commonly known as “Stark.” Many in the healthcare valuation industry have viewed the updated definitions, along with new commentary from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as promoting “business as usual” for healthcare valuation practice. Timothy Smith, however, begs to differ. Smith was a major ...
Fair v. Fair
The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
Appellate Court Rules on the Value of the Marital Business as to Personal Goodwill, Minority, Liquidity, and Marketability Discounts
The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
BV News and Trends June 2022
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
ESOP valuations may be at a turning point
At last week’s inaugural ESOP Virtual Conference hosted by the American Society of Appraisers, the landmark Bowers case was discussed, which could represent a turning point for ESOP valuations.
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 S-Tek 1, LLC
The debtor, S-Tek 1 LLC, submitted a motion to value to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the value of the collateral of Surv-Tek Inc. as to debt owed it by the debtor pledged as collateral for debt owed by S-Tek to Surv-Tek. The valuation was to be used in the confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization of S-Tek. The court used the replacement value standard of value instead of the “ongoing concern” value since the replacement value provided a value greater than the “enterprise value” (i.e., ongoing concern value).
Bankruptcy Court Uses the ‘Replacement Value Standard’ as It Determines That Debtor ‘Enterprise Value’ Is Lower and Inappropriate
The debtor, S-Tek 1 LLC, submitted a motion to value to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the value of the collateral of Surv-Tek Inc. as to debt owed it by the debtor pledged as collateral for debt owed by S-Tek to Surv-Tek. The valuation was to be used in the confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization of S-Tek. The court used the replacement value standard of value instead of the “ongoing concern” value since the replacement value provided a value greater than the “enterprise value” (i.e., ongoing concern value).
King v. King
In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.
Maryland Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court on Value of Husband’s Business as Well as Several Other Divorce-Related Issues
In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.
BV News and Trends April 2022
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Purchase price equals value of business caught up in divorce
In Wisconsin, the valuation opinions of two experts were deemed not credible for a business caught up in a marital dissolution.
No valuation adjustment for alleged acts of oppression
In a Connecticut case, four siblings were partners in a number of restaurant properties and one of the partners (who had a 25% interest) was ousted by the others.
AICPA offers free webcast on estate/gift valuations
A two-and-a half-hour webcast on estate and gift valuations is available free of charge from the AICPA.