• Home
  • About BVWire News
  • Contact us
  • BVR Products
RSS Subscribe RSS

BVWire News

Top developments in the business valuation profession

Home

CPE events ripped from the headlines

Written by David on May 24, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: CPE opportunities, damages and lost profits valuations, healthcare valuation

Last week’s BVWire discussed a recent bombshell court case where a jury found a hospital guilty of violating illegal kickback laws. The financial penalties could be so severe that the hospital may go bankrupt. The hospital tripped up on “commercial reasonableness,” which can be an elusive concept. That’s why you need to attend Commercial Reasonableness and FMV in Healthcare Valuation on May 29, featuring Mark Dietrich and James Pinna (Hunton & Williams), who will give you a better understanding of this slippery concept.

The May issue of BVU includes a case digest of a manufacturer of women’s handbags suing over trademark infringement (Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. RK Texas Leather Mfg.). There has been a rise in the volume of these types of cases. In Lost Profits in Trademark and Copyright Cases, expert John Pilkinton (Lone Peak Valuation Group) and attorney Jed Hansen (Thorpe North and Western) examine the processes of defining, analyzing, and measuring claims for damages on protected ideas, terms, or phrases. Part 4 of BVR’s 2013 Online Symposium on Economic Damages, this June 11 webinar will address emerging trends in the fields of trademark and copyright damages.

Share your thoughts...

June issue of Business Valuation Update hits the stands

Written by David on May 24, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: valuation research resources

Valuation professionals will find loads of useful information in the June issue of BVU. Here’s a sampling:

  • Key BV Topics From Latest APB Public Meeting. BVU speaks with Jay E. Fishman (Financial Research Associates), chair of the Appraisal Practices Board (APB), about the main takeaways from the recent APB public meeting in Austin, Texas.
  • Valuing Shareholder Loans in Divorce: Sorting Out the Problem. Not intuitively obvious, the question of shareholder loans in the context of a valuation for divorce purposes is examined here, the first of a three-part series by Christine Baker (Meyers, Harrison & Pia LLC).
  • Social Media: Unicorn or Horse for BV Professionals? Proven ways valuation experts build their practices by posting, blogging, and tweeting. Written by Rod Burkert (Burkert Valuation Advisors LLC) and Barbara Walters Price (Mercer Capital).
  • Lost Business or Lost Profits? Key Considerations for Economic Damages Cases. These cases have important distinctions, and each implies its own analysis and calculations. It’s all explained by Neil Beaton (Alvarez and Marsal) and Tyler Farmer (Calfo Harrigan Leyh & Eakes).
  • What to Consider When Carving Out the Value of a Firm’s Website. Stuart Weiss talks with Mike Pellegrino (Pellegrino & Associates LLC) about the intrinsic value of a firm’s website—separate and apart from the business itself.

To read these articles—plus a digest of the latest court cases—see the June issue of BVU.

Share your thoughts...

Commercial Reasonableness and FMV in Healthcare Valuation webinar on the 29th

Written by David on May 21, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: CPE opportunities, healthcare valuation

 

Featuring: Mark Dietrich and James Pinna
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Time: 10:00am-11:40am PT / 1:00pm-2:40pm ET
Earn 2 CPE Credits

Why you should attend:

The Stark Law, the anti-kickback statute, the False Claims Act, and Internal Revenue Service 501(c)(3) status all include regulations and sanctions requiring that transactions in the healthcare field be both commercially reasonable and at fair market value. While appraisers and businesses have refined the definition of fair market value over the past several years, such consensus and guidance on commercial reasonableness has yet to be created. Despite this, increased government commentary has underscored the need to understand and ensure that this requirement is met for all financial arrangements between parties in a position to refer.

Expert Mark Dietrich and attorney James Pinna address the requirements set forth by the many statutes regulating healthcare transactions, and what appraisers need to know in order to be in compliance with their stipulations of standards of value and commercial reasonableness.

Register Online Today for $179.00

$179 Webinar/$269 Webinar and Training Pack*
(*Training Pack includes a complete recording and transcript with all presentation and reading materials delivered electronically. CPE credit is not available through Training Packs). For more information, please call (503) 291-7963


Agenda

  • Fair market value defined
  • Commercial transactions
  • Physician workforce, recruitment, and retention
  • Does the transaction make sense in the absence of referrals?

Share your thoughts...

Duff & Phelps’ Larsen sees more thorough valuation work now required under IFRS 13

Written by David on May 8, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: fair value for financial reporting

This past January 1, International Financial Reporting Standard No. 13 (IFRS 13) went into effect. It provides guidance on how to measure an asset’s fair value, but many companies haven’t even begun to implement it. Plus, certain aspects of the new rules will be particularly troublesome.

Speaking on a recent webcast, David Larsen (Duff & Phelps) said IFRS 13 applies to most corporations because it requires disclosures of fair-value measurement for M&A activity, asset impairment, or activity involving certain investment entities. During the webcast, attendees were asked: Have you started implementing IFRS 13? About half (47%) said they had started it, but over a third (38%) said they had not. The rest (16%) said they had completed full implementation.

Stumbling block: IFRS 13 now requires a lot more substantiation of the valuation techniques used in obtaining fair value, such as comparisons of different measurements to observable market data. This is known as “calibration,” and it is “one of the most important tools in IFRS 13 … and likely one of the least understood and least applied,” Larsen said.

Under IFRS 13, companies now must disclose fair values according to a “fair value hierarchy,” which categorizes the inputs used in valuation techniques into three levels. The hierarchy gives the highest priority (Level 1) to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities and the lowest priority (Level 3) to unobservable inputs.

In its disclosures, a company must also explain qualitative sensitivity analysis if changing inputs would result in alternative assumptions about fair value. There must also be a quantitative disclosure for Level 3 inputs.

Larsen noted: “The expansion of disclosures could be a new thing for many; a lot of judgment goes into the disclosure area.”

Share your thoughts...

Causation is pivotal to credible damages testimony, Fannon points out

Written by David on May 8, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: damages and lost profits valuations

Nancy Fannon (Meyers, Harrison & Pia) is concerned that recent BVWire reports on causation and lost profits leave the impression that damages experts don’t have to consider causation. Failure to link your damages to the actions of the defendant and rule out all causes for the loss, she says, makes an expert vulnerable at deposition or on cross-examination and a likely candidate for exclusion at trial.

“I frequently find that the misconception among experts is that they do not need to address cause,” which, she feels, may contribute to a general lack of credibility with the court. “The question is,” she goes on to say, “how can you calculate the extent of damages flowing from the breach, if you don’t consider the realm of things that could have caused the plaintiff’s presumably declining results? Is the attorney going to tell you the economy is down, prices went up, his client’s product is nearly obsolete, a new competitor went in down the street? I don’t think so. That’s our job to ferret it out.”

Share your thoughts...

Survey confirms that buyers find reasons to reasons to reduce the purchase price more often than not

Written by David on May 8, 2013 - 1 Comment
Categories: M&A valuations

 

Most private-target M&A deals have  price adjustments favorable to the buyer immediately prior to, or after, the closing, a new study confirms. This won’t surprise most BVWire readers–but does this mean the valuations were wrong?

The 2013 SRS M&A Post-Closing Claims Study analyzes post-closing issues and payouts across 420 private-target acquisitions, comprising $66.7 billion in stated deal value. Shareholder Representative Services (SRS) is a post-closing expert for private-company M&As. Overall, the study shows that two-thirds of all deals had issues arise after closing, and one in five deals with claims actually had exposure exceeding half of the escrow.

Other interesting findings: Of the deals analyzed, 8% had at least one claim made in the final week of the escrow period. Final escrow releases were delayed due to claims in 30% of deals. Almost three-quarters (73%) of deals with post-closing purchase price adjustment mechanisms saw adjustments, which were more often buyer-favorable than seller-favorable. Of these adjustments, 27% were ultimately modified from the initial amount claimed.

What do you think? Is there a tendency for sellers to overvalue acquisition targets? Are buyers not doing enough due diligence into value to justify the prices they’re paying (or relying on this technique as a simple negotiating technique)? Or is this phenomenon merely a result of the complex negotiation and deal structure process inherent in these deals? Write to the editor here.

1 Comment

Front-burner topics highlight upcoming CPE events

Written by David on May 3, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: damages and lost profits valuations, intellectual property valuation, professional practice valuations

How has the growth in the volume and prominence of patent infringement claims shaped the methods and analysis employed to present those claims? Find out as the Online Symposium on Economic Damages continues on May 7 with Hot Topics in Patent Royalty Damages, featuring expert Richard Bero (The BERO Group) and attorney Robert Surrette (McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.).

Emerging trends in the service industry are affecting the practice of business appraisal. Learn about this and how to avoid or overcome classic valuation pitfalls on May 8 during Valuing Professional Practices, a 100-minute webinar that features Kevin Yeanoplos (Brueggeman and Johnson Yeanoplos).

Share your thoughts...

Proving causation for lost sales undermines an expert’s testimony

Written by David on May 3, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: damages and lost profits valuations

In lost profits cases, the causation element puts the plaintiff’s damages expert in a quandary, we reported here a few weeks ago. Do you assume liability and strictly focus on damages, or testify to it?

In a recent patent infringement case, the expert unsuccessfully opted to do the latter. Both parties produced “advanced energy” surgical products for laparoscopic and minimally invasive procedures. The plaintiffs claimed the defendant violated three of its patents for ultrasonic surgical devices and the federal court (D. Conn.) agreed.

To establish the requisite linkage between the defendant’s violation and their lost sales under the Panduit test, the plaintiffs tried to establish the market share allocation they would have had “but for” the defendants’ infringing devices. The court agreed with the definition of the market the plaintiffs’ expert proposed: a single market for advanced energy cutting and coagulating devices in which the litigants were the largest players and competed directly with each other. The plaintiffs did so with two different types of products, instruments using ultrasonic energy and those using radiofrequency (RF). Witnesses agreed that both types of energy worked for the same surgeries. This, the expert stated, meant they could function interchangeably.

If, in the 2010 “actual market,” the plaintiffs had a 24% market share, in the 2010 “but for” market, the plaintiffs would have a 54.2% market share, regardless of the defendant’s access to “immune” ultrasonic products and its own line of RF products, the expert calculated. For 2011, the plaintiffs’ actual market share was 27.5%, but, under the expert’s reconstruction, it would be 60.2%. This increase was due to a steady rise in the use of RF technology, he said, referencing a 2010 report from the Millennium Research Group (MRG) on vessel-sealing instruments.

The defendant’s expert claimed primarily that the “immune” products would fill in the “hole” the absence of the infringing devices left in the market. The court rejected this model but also found the market reconstruction of the plaintiffs’ expert problematic. The research study included information that “undercut” his “but for” market reconstruction. There was insufficient evidence to infer that “RF technology would have taken over the advanced energy market to the extent [the plaintiffs’ expert] claimed.” Because the plaintiffs did not prove causation, their case for lost profits damages failed.

However, the expert’s reasonable royalty analysis fared much better. Ultimately, the court awarded $141 million in royalty damages. Read the complete digest of Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43992 (March 28, 2013) in the JuneBusiness Valuation Update; the opinion will be available soon at BVLaw.

Share your thoughts...

Valuing odd investments in an ERISA plan

Written by David on May 3, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: ESOP valuations

A brewery, diamonds, liens, water rights—even a slaughterhouse—are the kinds of investments pension plan sponsors are adding to their portfolios, reveals an article in the New York Times. Plan sponsors like these investments because they avoid the need for cash they would otherwise have to use to plug funding gaps. Plus, if these assets yield high returns, it reduces the level of investment needed to fund the plan in full.

The ripple effect on valuation professionals is that the U.S. Department of Labor, which must approve large, in-kind pension contributions, could require the hiring of an independent fiduciary to bring in a valuation expert to assess the unusual asset, according to Susan Mangiero (Fiduciary Leadership), writing in Pension Risk Matters. “As a trained appraiser, I would tell anyone who asks that there are multiple items that must be assessed as a precursor to determining fair market value of the asset in question,” she says.

For example, if the asset has multiple owners, can the plan exercise authority over how it’s used, disposed of, and/or managed for purposes of adding to the asset’s value? If others have claims on the asset, what is the plan’s pecking order if the asset throws off cash or gets sold? Since unusual assets may not trade in an active secondary venue, what is the appropriate discount for lack of marketability so that the ERISA plan does not overpay?

Watch out: The DOL wants to designate appraisers as a fiduciary for an assessment they render about an ERISA plan. This effort, along with other factors, has made pension and ESOP valuations a minefield for appraisers. To learn more, Mangiero will participate in a May 14 BVR webinar, Valuation and ERISA Fiduciary Liability: Traps for the Unwary Appraiser, along withRob Schlegel (Houlihan Valuation Advisors) and ERISA attorney James Cole (Groom Law Group).

Share your thoughts...

Overvaluation penalty is fair, tax court concludes

Written by David on May 3, 2013 - 0 Comments
Categories: estate & gift valuations, estate tax planning

The Tax Court has overturned its own precedent in ruling that a taxpayer may not avoid the 40% gross valuation penalty for overvaluing a tax shelter. Taxpayers have been able to avoid the penalty short of trial merely by conceding on grounds unrelated to valuation or basis. But now, in AHG Investments, the court shifted gears and followed the majority rule in the appellate courts and sided with the IRS, which had waged a decades-long battle on this issue.

What it means: This ruling may trigger more trials focusing on valuation issues, since the value of the underlying assets is typically the fundamental issue in abusive tax shelter cases. It also means investors need to be more careful when presented with a business deal that promises tax benefits based on assets with a questionable valuation.

Share your thoughts...

Next Page »

  • Search

  • Recent Posts

    • CPE events ripped from the headlines
    • June issue of Business Valuation Update hits the stands
    • Commercial Reasonableness and FMV in Healthcare Valuation webinar on the 29th
    • Duff & Phelps’ Larsen sees more thorough valuation work now required under IFRS 13
    • Causation is pivotal to credible damages testimony, Fannon points out
  • Categories

    • 409A/123R incentive stock valuations
    • AICPA Standards
    • appraisal standards and regulations
    • ASA BVC
    • bankruptcy valuations
    • business valuation certification
    • Butler Pinkerton
    • buy-sell agreements
    • company-specific risk
    • cost of capital
    • CPE opportunities
    • damages and lost profits valuations
    • Daubert challenges
    • discounts and premia
    • divorce valuations
    • economic forecast
    • equity risk premia
    • ESOP valuations
    • estate & gift valuations
    • estate tax planning
    • excess earnings method
    • expert witness
    • fair market value (FMV)
    • fair value for financial reporting
    • FASB valuation standards
    • forecasts
    • forensic accounting
    • guideline public company method
    • healthcare valuation
    • income approach
    • industry research
    • intangibles
    • intellectual property valuation
    • international valuation standards
    • international valuations
    • IRS regulations
    • limited partnerships
    • M&A valuations
    • management forecasts
    • market approach
    • NACVA
    • option price modeling
    • personal goodwill
    • practice management and growth
    • preparer penalties
    • private company transaction data
    • professional practice valuations
    • public company comps
    • purchase price allocation
    • reasonable compensation
    • SEC valuation standards
    • securities litigation
    • shareholder oppression
    • small business valuations
    • standards of value
    • tax affecting
    • tax valuations
    • The Appraisal Foundation (TAF)
    • transfer pricing valuations
    • Uncategorized
    • USPAP
    • valuation case law analysis
    • valuation profession news
    • valuation research resources
    • valuing goodwill
    • wealth transfer
  • Enter your email address:

  • Archives

    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
  • Blogroll

    • 409a Dismay Attorney Richard Meisner has been commenting on problems with this regulation for several years
    • Aswath Damodaran's Blog Musings on the Markets
    • Business Valuation Law News BVR’s blog for litigators involved in matrimonial, lost profits, commercial, tax, damages, securities, IP and other engagements where the value of businesses is contested
    • BVR's Intellectual Property Blog Great coverage of new litigation and business news about how intellectual property is protected, commercialized, and valued
    • Chris Mercer's blog Chris’ moderated ValuationSpeak blog
    • ClarityBV Blog Good posts on increasing the value of businesses, and valuation theory–including some material provided by BVR
    • FEI blog on financial reporting There’s so much non-news in the FASB/IASB/SEC area–we think this is one of the best for ignoring the fluff and capturing the real issues
    • Going Concern Any blog that recommends Willie Nelson as the chair of FASB can’t be all bad
    • IBA Business Valuation Blog Institute of Business Appraisers was the first…and still offers some of the best insight on the practicalities of the valuation process
    • Mark Zyla's Fair Value Measurements Blog Mark has done more training on this topic, for the AICPA and BVR and others, than any one else in the profession.
    • RJ on Business Valuation RJ Dragon’s blog focuses on some of the controversial (and fun) issues in BV
    • Rod Burkert's "Standard of Value" Rod’s insights are always great…
    • Texas Tech trust & estate blog This has good general coverage and is part of the law professors blog network
  • Product Topics

    • Finance and Accounting for Lawyers

Admin Login

Powered by frugal


Copyright © 2013 BVWire News