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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT