Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Dangers of Relying on a Single-Period Capitalization Mode
Frequently, matrimonial attorneys are presented with an “opinion” of marital asset value of a business equity from a CPA, appraiser or other financial professional, that seems rather basic. Following depositions, arguments often ensue as to the “reliability” of the value, how much effort was expended in the analysis, and whether the “conclusion of value” meets appropriate professional standards. The easiest model in valuation is a single-period capitalization methodology because there are few moving parts. In reality, however, the single period model encapsulates a whole variety of assumptions and estimates that are easy to manipulate but difficult to sustain. The biggest danger to matrimonial attorneys is that the valuation professional will only give this single-period model as the sole support for the opinion, seemingly ignoring other market evidence and asset/liability components. If this is the situation, the matrimonial attorney should understand how to attack the opposing expert, or seek support of his/her expert in a hearing to rehabilitate the expert following a cross-examination scrutiny.
Background
There are three approaches to valuing businesses: the income approach, market approach and asset approach. There are various methods within each of the approaches that the business appraiser can consider in performing a valuation. With perfect information, all methods will yield the “correct” value. Unfortunately, the expert's opinion of business value is necessary because of imperfect information.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.