Complicated as the year 2020 was, it was not boring. The past year offered a wealth of lawsuits dealing with business valuation and economic damages issues. The list below shows our Top 10. Read more >>

The Indiana Court of Appeals and the South Carolina Supreme Court recently issued noteworthy rulings on the appropriateness of discounts in valuing minority interests. The contexts in which the issue arose were different, but both situations amounted to a compelled buyback of shares. Read more >>

In a buyout dispute involving a Connecticut family business, an appellate court recently upheld the trial court’s earlier decision not to tax affect the earnings of the company in valuing the departing shareholder’s interest, even though experts for both sides tax affected. Read more >>

A protracted Minnesota buyout dispute involving the heirs to a local grocery store empire, Lunds & Byerlys, may have reached the end following a recent ruling from the state appeals court. The reviewing court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant the minority shareholder’s request for a buyout as well as the court's fair value determination. Read more >>

Healthcare valuation expert Mark Dietrich, who has more than 40 years of experience designing and valuing buy-in and buyout agreements, recently wrote an article for the Business Valuation Update identifying a number of best practices for both valuation analysts and consultants with respect to these matters. Read more >>

A recent case shows just how difficult it is to value a startup. Here, there was an extra challenge because the subject was a pharmaceutical venture that required years of funding for the development of two drugs working toward FDA approval. The trial court needed to determine the fair value of the plaintiff’s interest prior to the company’s ultimate success. Read more >>

Following the divorce, the husband filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and asked for confirmation of his plan. The issue was whether the plan could meet the liquidation test applicable under the Bankruptcy Code’s section 1325(a)(4). In essence, the test requires that creditors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy receive present value payments that are at least equal to the amount the creditors would receive in a Chapter 7 case. Read more >>

The parties retained a sole appraiser, whom they both knew from past appraisals he had done of the company. Prior to formally engaging the appraiser, in a court hearing, both sides broached the issue of whether it was appropriate to apply a minority discount in valuing the plaintiff's shares. The court declined to weigh in on the subject, but told the parties the minority discount issue should form “part of the discussion” they needed to have over the valuation methodology. Read more >>

The case featured experts whose professional backgrounds and valuation approaches could hardly be more dissimilar. Their value determinations were light-years apart. In trying to make sense of the conflicting testimony and achieve a plausible and fair result, the court decided it could not totally trust either valuation. Although it adopted the defense expert's valuation, it made two consequential changes to it. One was getting rid of the expert's admittedly high and insufficiently explained 35% discount for lack of marketability. Read more >>

The parties' most recent fight focused on whether the prevailing expert's DCF analysis embedded a marketability discount to account for illiquidity. If not, the trial court had to decided what the appropriate DLOM rate was. The plaintiff-selling shareholder argued in favor of a zero DLOM, the defendants-buying shareholders presented an expert valuation that specified a 35% DLOM, based on the expert's use of a market approach. Read more >>

In terms of valuation methodology, the agreement provided that “there shall be no minority or non-marketability discount applied.” Also, “fair market value” meant an arm’s length sale to an unrelated third party. And, for purposes of calculating the “total equity value,” the value of the assets would be subject to an EBITDA collar to ensure that the value of the assets was at least 6.5 x but no more than 7.5 x the company’s “EBITDA less Maintenance Capex” for year-end 2013. The resulting number was to be reduced by the company’s obligations and liabilities. Most important, the parties agreed to be bound by the appraiser's calculation of the price of the put units. There was no provision for judicial or any other form of review of the appraiser's valuation. Read more >>