ILNews

BGBC: 10 crushing questions to ask a business valuation expert

July 2, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Howard I. Gross, Steven W. Reed, Erika M. Gowan, Casey L. Higgs and Samuel M. Pollom

As part of your cross-examination, you wish to attack the expert’s work. You’re supposed to ask about the methodology, assumptions, procedures and how the opinion of value was determined. These are standard questions asked in cross-examination that we expect to hear. What about those questions that are not standard, but just as effective if not more? We compiled a list of 10 questions that could deliver a crushing defeat to the other side.

1. Have you personally sold a business or assisted a client in buying or selling a business in the same industry? How many have you sold?

Asking the expert if he or she has sold businesses in the past is directly aimed at the expert’s experience and knowledge on real-world issues. An expert who has sold businesses has firsthand knowledge of the selling process and is likely to have a better understanding of the marketplace. An attorney should be on the lookout for a business valuation expert who is purely theoretical and has little knowledge about buyers and sellers in the real world.

2. Do you know for certain if the amount you concluded to be the value of the business can be financed?

A good business valuation expert will consider more than one method as a check for reasonableness. And a great business valuation expert will take one step further by determining if the purchase price can be financed. If the opposing side’s expert determines a value for a business that cannot be paid off in five or seven years while also returning a reasonable amount to the owner, it is probably not a realistic price to pay for that business.

3. Does your valuation comply with generally accepted accounting principles?

Some valuation experts are stumped by this question. Generally accepted accounting principles do not govern the valuation field. However, there are well-accepted valuation principles such as Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and Statement on Standards for Valuation Services.

4. Do you consider any text written by Shannon Pratt, Jim Hitchner or any other well-established author of valuation materials to be authoritative?

A conclusion of value is an opinion of the business valuation expert and is based on circumstances specific to that engagement. There is not one text that is authoritative or superior to another. For example, Shannon Pratt may have a difference of opinion from Jim Hitchner. If the expert admits that a particular source is authoritative, you can likely find previous valuations of his or hers in which a different source is used.

5. Did you conduct a site visit? If so, when?

Generally, site visits are important to a business valuation but this question is often overlooked by attorneys. If the expert did not conduct a site valuation, how do they know what they were valuing didn’t just vanish into thin air? A site visit must be performed to physically observe the valuation subject and corroborate those observations with the information obtained from the management interview and financial records. Trust but verify.

6. From your previous valuations, has any value you determined ever been substantially changed in a court decision? Has the value stood up in court?

This question further discredits the expert by showing the judge or jury that the expert’s been wrong in the past.

7. Have you ever been excluded as an expert? Has your testimony ever been excluded?

This is a direct hit at the expert’s credibility if he or she answers yes to this question.

8. Who hired you and how many times have you worked for them?

It’s all about perception. If the expert admits he or she has been hired by a client over and over again, the perception is that the expert will conclude a value to the client’s satisfaction whether or not it represents fair market value!

9. You advertise yourself as an expert for hire, is that correct?

The intent of this question is to show the judge or jury that the expert is a “hired gun” and is likely an advocate on behalf of his or her client. The value may be skewed to favor their side and may not represent fair market value.

10. How much of your professional time is devoted to expert testimony?

Score one for your side if you cross-examine a business valuation expert who spends more time on the “expert” part than the “business valuation” part. This kind of “expert” likely will be seen as an expert opinion for hire.

As CPAs who are accredited in business valuation and have significant expert testimony experience, we believe asking these questions during cross-examination of a business valuation expert could result in the judge or jury awarding you a crushing victory. We hope you find them useful (and we also hope you don’t use them against us).•

__________

Howard I. Gross, CPA/ABV/CFF, CFP; Steven W. Reed, CPA/ABV; Erika M. Gowan, CPA/CFF, CFE; Casey L. Higgs; CPA/CFF, CFE, CVA, and Samuel M. Pollom, JD, CPA, are with BGBC Partners LLP – Litigation, Forensic and Business Valuation. Contact BGBC at 317-633-4700 or visit www.bgbc.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT