In re Rozdolsky
In this complex Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s business. The trial court had already reduced the wife’s expert’s valuation by 30%. Overall, the husband raised nine issues on appeal, including having to contribute to the wife’s attorney’s and expert fees, resulting from the husband’s lack of cooperation in discovery.
Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Marital Business
In this complex Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s business. The trial court had already reduced the wife’s expert’s valuation by 30%. Overall, the husband raised nine issues on appeal, including having to contribute to the wife’s attorney’s and expert fees, resulting from the husband’s lack of cooperation in discovery.
Testimony of damages expert excluded due to no basis
In a Pennsylvania breach of contract case, the plaintiff’s damages expert was to testify as to lost profits.
No do-over for valuation of business hit by COVID-19
In a Wisconsin marital dissolution case, COVID-19 negatively impacted the husband’s hair salon business, which had to shut down for a while.
Paramount Fin. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Broadridge Inv’r Commc’n Sols., Inc.
In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.
On Reconsideration, Court Affirms Decision to Exclude Testimony of Damages Expert
In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.
In re Marriage of Gill
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
Appellate Court (Wisconsin) Affirms Trial Court Allocation of Tax Liability and Business Value in Divorce
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
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.
Dettloff-Meyer v. Meyer
The husband in this divorce case appealed the circuit court ruling that relied on the purchase price of the business less than a year before the valuation date. The purchase was made from the wife’s parents at a price the parents determined of $500,000, most of which was goodwill. After an initial ruling from the circuit court accepting the value less debt of the husband’s expert, the wife asked for a reconsideration. The Circuit Court granted the reconsideration and found a value of the business of $45,230. The husband appealed the reconsidered decision of the circuit court. The appellate court determined that the circuit court’s use of the purchase price was not erroneous.
Wisconsin Appellate Court Affirms Purchase Price as Value of the Business in a Divorce Matter
The husband in this divorce case appealed the circuit court ruling that relied on the purchase price of the business less than a year before the valuation date. The purchase was made from the wife’s parents at a price the parents determined of $500,000, most of which was goodwill. After an initial ruling from the circuit court accepting the value less debt of the husband’s expert, the wife asked for a reconsideration. The Circuit Court granted the reconsideration and found a value of the business of $45,230. The husband appealed the reconsidered decision of the circuit court. The appellate court determined that the circuit court’s use of the purchase price was not erroneous.
Use of DCF for damages survives challenge
In an antitrust lawsuit in Nevada, the expert for a company that alleges it was forced to close due to anticompetitive practices used the discounted cash flow (DCF) method to calculate damages.
Court Reverses Its Order to Strike Expert Testimony That Utilized the Discounted Cash Flow Method in Valuing a Business
This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.
V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, Ltd.
This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.
Court adheres to earlier ESOP liability and damages rulings
In a controversial ESOP case that turned on the trustee’s oversight of the pretransaction valuation work, the defendant trustee recently filed a motion for reconsideration. It argued the court had committed errors related to its liability and damages findings. Although the court owned up to some mistakes, including a misunderstanding of the concept of beta, it ultimately stuck to its earlier decision.