Freed Maxick Service Delivery Update

We have implemented a phased approach for returning to our offices that allows us to modify our approach to service delivery as situations change without any service disruptions. In the meantime and in the interest of public health and the safety of our community, our teams will continue working remotely whenever possible to provide the same high-quality service you have come to expect. Utilizing state-of-the-art technology, we are committed to meeting all of your assurance, tax, and advisory needs to help you navigate a business environment filled with challenges and opportunities. To discuss a specific need that can’t be handled remotely, please contact your Freed Maxick representative directly.

Litigation Support: Damage Calculation Method Used in Recent Case

By Tim McPoland, CPA/ABV, CVA, CFE on March, 12 2013
Back to main Blog
Tim McPoland, CPA/ABV, CVA, CFE

Court Confirms the “Gold Standard” of Valuation

Author: Tim McPoland

business interruption and litigation supportBusiness valuation arises in many legal contexts, including damages calculations in commercial litigation. In a recent case we have discussed, Malik v. Falcon Holdings, LLC, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook turned to what he called the “gold standard of valuation” to help determine damages for plaintiffs.

Promises, promises

Aslam Khan held 40% of the common units in Falcon Holdings, a limited liability company that owned and operated 100 fast-food restaurants. Khan allegedly told Falcon’s managers that when he acquired full ownership of the company one day he would reward top managers with 50% of Falcon’s equity.

In 2005, Khan bought out Falcon’s other owners and became the company’s sole equity owner. When he failed to distribute common units to any of the managers, five of them took him to court.

The plaintiffs used the price Khan paid in the buyout to calculate that the company was worth about $48 million. They also determined that because 20 managers qualified for units under the terms of Khan’s offers, each plaintiff lost about $1.2 million ($48 million × 50%/20).      

District court’s ruling

In summary judgment the district court found that Khan had promised the plaintiffs an equity stake in Falcon. But it held that the managers hadn’t adequately estimated their damages.

The court reasoned that the other owners didn’t own 100% of Falcon, making it impossible to derive the value of the whole firm from the amount Khan paid for their interests. Also, the amount the other owners were paid depended on how much Khan and Falcon could borrow — not on Falcon’s true value. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ approach was flawed.

Easterbrook questions analysis

On appeal, Judge Easterbrook rejected the district court’s analysis. That court’s two propositions ignore the fact that the “gold standard of valuation” is what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction. Easterbrook concluded that the buyout of the other owners involved a willing buyer and a willing seller dealing at arm’s length, so the price they agreed on was the value of the asset.

But the judge also found fault with the plaintiffs’ damages estimate. The interest that plaintiffs valued and the interest Khan owned were different. The plaintiffs valued the entire company — or the sum of Falcon’s debt plus its equity. However, while Khan owned 100% of the equity, the bank held the debt interest. The judge found it unsound to assume that Khan’s equity interest in Falcon was worth 100% of the company’s total value.

Easterbrook also questioned the plaintiffs’ assumption that Khan would give each of the 20 managers 2.5% of Falcon’s equity units without attaching terms or conditions to them. He characterized this proposition as “a disaster not only for the ownership structure of a closely held firm but also from a tax perspective.”

Plaintiffs hold out hope

Easterbrook vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with his opinion. The plaintiffs are still expected to receive something if they calculate damages according to the “gold standard,” but that amount will likely be less than the $1.2 million each manager had hoped for.

If you have any questions about the “gold standard” of valuation or any other litigation support issue, give us a call at 716.847.2651, or you may contact us here.

Stay up to date