Source: https://www.bvresources.com/blogs/business-valuation-law-news/2011/01/29/new-case-digests-added-to-bvlaw
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:07:29+00:00

Document:
Metro Tech Corp. v. TUV Rheinland of N.A., 2010 WL 4117123 (D. Puerto Rico.)(Oct. 18, 2010); and Metro Tech Corp. v. TUV Rheinland of N.A., 2010 WL 4117115 (D. Puerto Rico.)(Oct. 18, 2010) Court limits damages to breach of contract to those that can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and qualifies first-time lost profits plaintiff’s expert to testify re: same.
In re Fairvue Club Properties, 2010 WL 4501959 (Bkrtcy. M.D. Tenn.)(Nov. 2, 2010) Lender uses cash flow projections by the debtors’ appraiser to show that the proposed reorganization plan for two golf clubs is unfair and not feasible.
McCabe v. Capital Mercury Apparel, 2010 WL 4507443(S.D. N.Y.)(Nov. 9, 2010) ESOP administrator did not breach duty of care when relying on an appraisal that valued the company a year before its eventual liquidation and sale.
Wilson v. Wilson, 2010 WL 4723461 (W. Va.)(Sept. 21, 2010) West Virginia Supreme Court finds that construction management fees, conditioned on completion of a project, are analogous to attorney contingency fee contracts and subject to same rules of equitable division.
SV Investment Partners v. Thoughtworks, Inc., 2010 WL 4547204 (Del. Ch.)(Sept. 8, 2010) Delaware Chancery finds that “funds legally available” for corporate stock redemption requires more than calculating a balance sheet surplus valuation.
In re Citigroup, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2010 WL 4484650 (S.D.N.Y.)(Nov. 9, 2010) Court denies motion to dismiss subprime asset litigation, based on plaintiff’s allegations that Citigroup overvalued its collateral debt obligations and understated its risk.
In re Capmark Financial Group, 2010 WL 4313046 (Bkrtcy. D. Del.)(Nov. 1, 2010) Bankruptcy court confirms reorganization plan based in large part of “put option” approach to valuing corporate insider guaranties.
Balicki v. Balicki, 2010 PA. Super. 134 (July 30, 2010) Pennsylvania statute requires family courts to consider tax and other cost ramifications associated with each asset to be divided in divorce.
Ho Myung Moolsan, Co. Ltd. v. Manitou Mineral Water, Inc., 2010 WL 4892646 (S.D.N.Y.)(Dec. 2, 2010) Court strikes expert’s $133 million lost profits damages for lack of any documentary evidence regarding actual sales made by the plaintiff.
In re Boston Generating, 2010 WL 4922578 (Bkrtcy. S.D.N.Y.)(Dec. 3, 2010) Court authorizes $1.1 billion asset sale of the debtors, despite DCF by lenders’ expert that shows $13.8 billion value.
In re Marriage of Hagar, 2010 WL 4807559 (Iowa App.)(Nov. 24, 2010)Court declines to accept “calculation of value” by CPA expert in divorce, because it relied on industry rules of thumb and lacked required level of judgment compared to complete valuation.
Graves v. Tomlinson, 2010 WL 4825624 (Tex. App.-Hous.(14 Dist.))(Nov. 30, 2010) Husband presents two experts to value wife’s three health care businesses, a forensic accountant to normalize the records and a business valuation expert to assess value under all three approaches.
Interplan Architects, Inc. v. C.L. Thomas, Inc., 2010 WL 3982273 (S.D. Tex.)(Oct. 8, 2010) Court excludes expert evidence regarding copyright infringement that does not provide specific causal link between defendant’s gross revenues from infringement and the copyrighted works.
In re Chemtura Corp., 2010 WL 4272727 (Bkrtcy. S.D. NY.)(Oct. 29, 2010) Bankruptcy court finds total enterprise value for large specialty chemical company based on DCF as well as comparable companies and transactions analysis.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.