-
Valuing a business on an ongoing basis is intended to avoid valuation disputes in litigation and provide fairness and predictability.
-
Courts enforce contractual language that establish the the value of a closely held business based on valuation reports conducted by the owners for non-litigation purposes.
-
Courts are likely to view valuation reports conducted for the purpose of litigation with suspicion when they avoid the impact of the parties’ prior agreement
Courts commonly reject a valuation report of one litigant in favor of another. Rarely, however, will a court reject the valuation reports of both sides. A trial judge in Delaware did just that, however, rejecting the valuation reports of both sides in a recent high-profile case in favor of the company’s periodic valuation report used for internal purposes.
In Catalyst Advisors Investors Global Inc. v. Catalyst Advisors, L.P., the central issue was the valuation of a limited partnership that, according to the terms of its partnership agreement, periodically calculated its value. Both sides submitted valuation reports, but the judge held that it was the terms of the parties agreements that ultimately determined the value of the enterprise based on a report “on file” when the dispute began.
Partners Dissociate from Boutique Recruiting Firm
The dispute arose after two partners, Catalyst Advisors Investors Global Inc. (CAIG) and Christos Richards, dissociated from the limited partnership Catalyst Advisors, L.P. The partnership operated as a boutique recruiting firm specializing in senior executive placements within the biopharmaceutical and medical technology sectors. The parties had a contractual right to leave the firm, and the company had the right to buy out their interest.



Perhaps even more important, exit planning is good business. Thomas Deans, writing in Every Family’s Business, cautions that every business should be ready for sale every day and, if the price is right, the owners should consider a sale.
often a critical issue in business divorce cases. We see it in both in judicial dissolution cases and in those states that permit judicial expulsion (i.e., dissociation) of owners.
A CEPA has access to this network of professionals, in and out of EPI’s network of advisors, and a thorough understanding of a proven strategy for business value enhancement that can increase the value of some businesses by 2–8 times when implemented.
business after 2012 would proceed.
Hekemian’s will established several trusts and contained an arbitration clause in the event of disputes. After one of his son’s sued to compel an accounting, the co-executors, son Peter Hekemian and attorney Edward Imperatore, sought to compel arbitration under a provision in his Last Will and Testament (referred to by the court as the LWT). The effort failed. The Appellate Division in an unreported decisions, 

