ILNews

BGBC: Calculating lost profits requires analysis

February 1, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Howard I Gross, Steven W. Reed and Casey L. Higgs

Computing the lost profits of a business as a result of a wrongful act is a complex task. And many times, the question to ask is: “But for” a wrongful act, what would the profits be? What would the value be?

Generally, lost profits are claimed as part of economic damages in litigation. A lost profits calculation, or economic damages analysis, is often performed to estimate the profits that were lost, or damages suffered, as a result of the wrongful act. In Robert L. Dunn’s 6th Edition of “Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits,” he writes that there are three requirements for damages recovery:

• The damages must be proximately caused by the wrongful conduct;

• The damages must be proven with reasonable certainty; and

• The damages must have been foreseeable at the time the contract was made (only for contract claims).

In calculating lost profits, net profits are recoverable. Net profits include the revenue the plaintiff would have earned “but for” the loss, reduced by the costs associated with generating the revenues. Gross profits are normally recoverable when net and gross profits are the same or if there is minimal or no additional costs necessary to realize the profits.

An important factor requiring identification is the damage period. Typically, the damage period begins on the date of the loss and ends when the company returns to the profitability or to the level of cash flow that it would have been at “but for” the loss.

There are several methods used to calculate profits that would have been attained “but for” the loss:

• Before-and-after method – This method projects operating results based off historical operating results as if there was no loss and then compares it to the actual results during the loss period to determine the damages.

• The Yardstick Approach – Under this method, the operating results from the loss period are compared to the operating results for the same period of a similar company for comparison purposes. The difference is used to determine the damages.

• Sales Project (But for) Method – Operating results are projected during the loss period absent the loss as if the loss did not occur. The projections are then compared to the actual results to determine the damages.

Which method is most appropriate depends on the circumstances of the issues at hand. Oftentimes, the calculation can use a combination of all three methods. The types and timeframe of financial data to be analyzed (e.g., actual, projections, etc.), the availability of competitor and industry information, among other factors, are all items that need to be considered when choosing the most appropriate method. Performing insufficient analysis of financial information, using an inappropriate growth rate to determine projections, and insufficiently considering other relevant factors can negatively impact the lost profits calculation.

Once a method of assessing damages is determined, the stream of lost profits needs to be discounted to their present values. Determining the appropriate discount rate is critical as a very small change in the discount rate can severely increase or decrease the amount of the lost profits calculated.

The process for calculating lost profits is based in sound and thorough analysis, but also requires the use of reasonable judgment and estimates. For these reasons, assessing damages can be a lengthy process. It is critical to be as accurate as possible when estimating cost revenues, calculating the costs associated with generating revenues and determining the appropriate discount rate. The calculated damages should be reasonable, based on reliable information using an appropriate methodology and performed by an experienced expert.•

__________

Howard I Gross, CPA/ABV/CFF, CFP; Steven W. Reed, CPA/ABV; and Casey L. Higgs, CPA/CFF, CFE, CVA 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 author.

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT