Delaware court weighs in on goodwill in sole proprietorships

A recent divorce case out of Delaware is significant for addressing the treatment of goodwill where the business is a sole proprietorship. The opinion includes important commentary on the only Delaware Supreme Court decision that has broached the issue.

In the instant case, the business was a sole proprietorship through which the husband had worked for decades as an independent contractor for a larger financial services and investment firm. Primarily his work involved financial planning, estate and business succession planning, and executive benefits planning. The husband earned income from selling clients policies that met their financial and strategic needs and maintaining the plans throughout their lifetime. Policy renewals were another earnings source.

Wrong premise: The parties’ BV experts reached very different value conclusions. The husband’s expert found the business was worth $255,000. The wife’s expert arrived at a value of nearly $3.5 million. Goodwill—specifically whether there was enterprise goodwill— was a major area of disagreement. The husband’s expert premised his valuation on the understanding that, under the controlling Delaware case law, there could be no goodwill in a sole proprietorship under any circumstances. This proposition was based on a 1983 decision from the Delaware Supreme Court, E.E.C. v. E.J.C., that deals with goodwill in the context of valuing a law firm owned by a sole practitioner. In E.E.C., the high court noted the parties conceded that “goodwill should be disregarded.”

The court ruling on the present case said there are no other high court decisions giving additional guidance “whether or not it is appropriate to ever include a value for professional good will in such a business.” Many trial court opinions have cited E.E.C. both for the proposition that the capitalization of income approach or the discounted cash flow method are not appropriate methods with which to value a sole proprietorship and that a sole proprietorship has no enterprise goodwill.

The court noted, here, the husband’s business was not a law firm “and the practice and means of generating income are different.”

“The Court does not read EEC as stating that every sole proprietorship in every case has no professional good will,” the court said. Therefore, here, the valuation of the husband’s expert was based on the wrong premise. The court found credible the analysis of the wife’s expert, who assigned 5% of goodwill to the husband (value of a noncompete) and the remainder to the business. The court said both experts agreed that, if the husband could transfer goodwill such that he could transfer to a buyer his client base and stream of income (even 95% of the income), he could obtain about $3.5 million for the business.

The opinion addresses other valuation issues, including how to account for commissions the husband received after separation but on which he worked during the marriage.

A full discussion of A.A. v. B.A., 2020 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 33; 2020 WL 6379355 (Oct. 9, 2020), and the court’s opinion are available to subscribers of BVLaw.

Extra:Check out BVR’s free goodwill chartproviding a quick overview of goodwill jurisprudence in the 50 states.

BVR ‘power panel’ comments on proposed BV glossary

The first in a series of “power panel” BVR webinars drew a huge audience and brought together top thought leaders in the profession to address hot-button issues via questions from the audience (some on video). The panel, moderated by Jay E. Fishman (Financial Research Associates), consisted of Michelle F. Gallagher (Adamy Valuation), Ken Pia (Marcum), and Jeffrey S. Tarbell (Houlihan Lokey). They fielded questions about valuations amid COVID-19, PPP loans, tax affecting pass-through entities, ESOP valuations, and future leadership of the profession. They also discussed the recently proposed revision to the International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms that is currently out for public comment (due January 31).

Some concerns: Gallagher noted that some new terms and methodologies in the glossary could create a problem—especially in a litigation context—if the glossary is made part of the valuation standards. Some of the new glossary entries include methodologies that are unknown to some practitioners. Pia commented that opposing counsel could pick up on this and ask the practitioner whether he or she used the methodologies listed in the new glossary. If you answer “no,” the next question you’ll get is “Why not? It’s in your professional standards.” Enough of those questions and enough “no” answers could seriously impact the expert’s credibility in the eyes of the court.

Tarbell, who is in the working group for the glossary, acknowledged this concern and noted that the working group will consider it. He pointed out that the glossary has a number of disclaimers in it and is not meant to be authoritative, but one possibility is to issue it in a form that clarifies this. Fishman also suggested that the definitions be put into context. For example, if a term is used primarily for financial reporting purposes, the glossary should explain that, or, if a term is used primarily in a particular country, the glossary should point that out as well.

The panel urged the audience to review the terms and definitions in the proposed glossary and submit comments by the deadline. You can find more details including how to submit comments in our prior coverage.

A recording of the webinar is available if you click here. The next “power panel” is scheduled for April 6.

Extra: A redlined version of the BV glossary is included in the online version of the February 2021 issue of Business Valuation Update(subscription required).

Two new resources recap the year 2020 in BV

A lot happened in 2020 in the business valuation profession other than COVID-19, and you can get caught up on the impacts of the pandemic—and everything else—with two new guides from BVR.

The Business Valuation Update Yearbook, 2021 edition, contains over 70 articles and hundreds of news items that cover the most innovative approaches and techniques (including COVID-19-related), leading conferences, new court decisions, and changes in regulations and standards in the profession with on-the-ground reporting from valuation experts, thought leaders, and the BVR editorial team.

The Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2021 edition, represents BVLaw’s analysis of the most noteworthy court decisions of the past year in the areas of damages, marital disputes, breach of contracts, dissenting shareholder disputes, federal taxation (including estate and gift tax cases), intellectual property, bankruptcy, and more. It also contains the court opinions and a case listing by state/jurisdiction, court, and case name, followed by a short description of the key valuation issue of each case.

Note: You already have these two new resources in your BV library if you are a subscriber to the Digital Library or BVResearch Pro.

Valuations remain high in senior healthcare

Strong deal flow, record levels of unspent capital, and valuations remaining at a high level characterize the M&A environment for senior living and post-acute providers, reports Jed Cheney (CliftonLarsonAllen LLP), a principal in CLA’s healthcare transaction services group. During a recent webinar, Cheney gave a good overview of the types of entities in this sector and their value drivers, including the impacts of COVID-19. Responding to a question from the audience, Cheney says that, from his perspective, he has not seen a marked change in earnouts and contingencies. From an escrow standpoint, he is still seeing the typical 5% being put into escrow. Another audience question: Are current transaction multiples good to use for future reference? Yes, says Cheney, who is seeing the same level of multiples as before the pandemic, which is “good for sellers,” he notes. This is a good example of the fact that the pandemic has impacted different sectors in different ways—some negative, some positive, and some not much at all.

ESOP valuation FAQ guide is in the works at the AICPA

A new AICPA FAQ guide is being prepared on ESOP valuations, say Natalya Abdrasilova (Wipfli LLP) and Steven L. York (Stern Brothers Valuation Advisors), who spoke at the recent AICPA FVS Conference. They have been working on the document, which is designed to provide clarity to certain issues. BVWire has covered a number of controversial valuation issues that have emerged from a series of court cases the government has been winning that claim ESOPs are purchasing sponsor company stock based on inflated valuations. These cases have stung the ESOP valuation community and have generated controversy over the tactics and valuation methods the Department of Labor (DOL) has been using. Members of Congress and the American Society of Appraisers (ASA) have objected to the DOL’s aggressive litigation-driven strategy and use of flawed valuation methodology.

More takeaways from the conference are in the February 2021 issue of Business Valuation Update.

Book review: The Art of Business Valuation: Accurately Valuing a Small Business

The current issue of NACVA’s QuickRead includes a favorable review of a recently published book, The Art of Business Valuation: Accurately Valuing a Small Business. The book, written by Greg Caruso (Harvest Business Advisors), focuses on small and very small business (companies with under $10 million in revenues and often under $5 million in revenues). Caruso, well-known to NACVA members as the host and editor-in-chief of the monthly Around the Valuation World webcasts, “fills a gap by providing his professional insight on the challenges faced valuing small and very small businesses,” writes Roberto H Castro (Law Office of Roberto H Castro PLLC), who wrote the review. “This is insight that is not readily available.” To read the review, click here.

Global BV News

European goodwill impairment up 18% in 2019

Total goodwill impairment recorded by European-listed companies in the STOXX® Europe 600 increased for a second consecutive year, rising 18%, to €36.4 billion (bn) in 2019, as fears of a slowdown in global growth persisted, according to the “2020 European Goodwill Impairment Study,” from Duff & Phelps. The United Kingdom had the highest aggregate amount of goodwill impairment in 2019. Overall, the top three industries with the most significant increase in goodwill impairment amounts in 2019 are (in order of magnitude): financials and real estate, consumer staples, and energy.

Preview of the February 2021 issue of Business Valuation Update

Here’s what you’ll see:

•  “Massive Overhaul of Global BV Glossary in the Works” (BVR Editor). A major revision is being planned for the International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms, and the team preparing the new glossary wants feedback by January 31 on the proposed changes. The revision would double the size of the glossary by adding over 120 new terms and methodologies to the existing glossary, which has been integrated into the various valuation standards.
• Redlined Version of the International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms. Shows the extensive revisions being planned for this document, last published in 2001.

• “Insights, Tips, and Practical Advice From the AICPA FVS Conference” (BVR Editor). A recap of some valuable takeaways on the use of market transactions, valuations for bankruptcy, valuing private debt, ESOPs, business interruption claims, virtual testimony, and more.

•  “New Research From Grabowski and Abbott on Recovery and Growth” (BVR Editor). New upcoming research from Roger Grabowski (Duff & Phelps) and Ashok Abbott (West Virginia University) challenges conventional wisdom about long-term growth rates and economic recovery.

•  “Highlights of 2020 Delaware Valuation Decisions” (Gilbert E. Matthews). This article discusses two 2020 Supreme Court decisions and eight decisions by the Court of Chancery.

• “Practice Growth Opportunity in Valuing Financial Instruments” (BVR Editor). Valuation practitioners looking for a growth area should consider services related to financial instruments, according to Dr. Joel M. DiCicco (Center for International Business Valuation), speaking at the recent Second Annual Conference on the Art and Science of Business Valuation.

•  “Treasure Trove of Data in the 2021 Business Reference Guide” (BVR Editor). Here’s a look at what’s in the 31st edition of this guide, including an example of how to value equity using a rule of thumb.

The issue also includes:

• A full section of “BV News and Trends/Global BV News and Trends.”

• Regular features: “Ask the Experts” and “Tip of the Month.”

• BV data spotlight: “DealStats MVIC/EBITDA Trends,” “FactSet Mergerstat/BVR Control Premium Study,” “Economic Outlook for the Month,” and the “Cost of Capital Center.”

Prince estate and IRS embroiled in fierce valuation dispute

A recent article in the Star Tribune says the executor of the estate of Prince, the late world-famous rock star, and the Internal Revenue Service are currently locked in a fierce estate and gift tax dispute. The IRS argues the executor has seriously undervalued the estate, and the executors claim the IRS’ calculations “are riddled with errors.”

Prince (full name Prince R. Nelson) died in April 2016 of an overdose of fentanyl. The fact that he had no will has resulted in complicated and extensive probate proceedings and wildly fluctuating estimates of the worth of Prince’s estate.

The executor of the estate is Comerica Bank & Trust, a financial services company headquartered in Dallas. According to the Star Tribune, Comerica filed a tax return in 2017, valuing the estate at $82.3 million. Last June, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency in which the agency claimed the estate was worth about double that much, $163.2 million, and owed an additional $32.4 million in taxes. The IRS assessed an accuracy-related penalty related to what it considered a “substantial” undervaluation of the estate.

The U.S. Tax Court’s docket shows that, in August 2020, Comerica petitioned the court for review and, at the same time, asked for a trial. At issue are the value of Prince’s real estate holdings and, most controversial, nontangible assets. The latter include ownership interests in music publishing, music compositions, and recordings. The article reports that at least one “deep-pocketed investor in music copyrights” has expressed great interest in acquiring the rights to Prince’s music.

Besides his reputation as a brilliant musician, Prince became famous for keeping tight control over the release and use of his music and for enforcing his intellectual property rights aggressively. Case research shows that Comerica, whose role as executor includes acting as “fiduciary charged with monetizing and protecting the Estate’s intellectual property for the benefit of [Prince’s] heirs,” seeks to continue along this path. It has set up the official Prince YouTube channel and has successfully litigated copyright infringement claims against those who have released unauthorized audio and/or video recordings of Prince performances (Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Habib).

Stay tuned for further reporting on this matter.

Letter to the editor: Proposed change to BV Glossary

The following letter concerns the proposed changes to the International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms (see last week’s coverage for details):

Dear Editor:

I think many certified as ABVs and CPAs who perform valuation services will be interested in the effective change to AICPA’s professional standard for valuation services, VS Section 100, if the proposed revised “international glossary” is adopted and replaces the original international glossary currently at VS 100.81.

The proposed revised glossary has about twice as many terms as the current version. The current version of the international glossary in the standard has 123 valuation terms. The December 14, 2020 proposed revised international glossary has 239 valuation terms.

Some of the new terms include valuation methods including Backsolve Method, Cost Savings Method, Current Value Method, Distributor Method, Greenfield Method, Hybrid Method, Investment Method, Premium Profits Method, Summation Method, and With and Without Method.

In addition to new methods, the proposed revised glossary adds technical terms including All Risks Yield, Calibration, En Bloc Value, Evidential Skepticism (that differs from Professional Skepticism in the document), Notional Market Valuation, Ratable Value, Self-Skepticism, and Sustainability (that relates to climate change, corporate responsibility, and other factors).

I see two issues for the AICPA’s comment period: first, should the proposed revised glossary be included in AICPA’s professional valuation standard VS 100 or separated as an obvious non-authoritative document similar to a practice aid or practitioner handbook; and, second, whether the valuation terms are reasonable or acceptable. From the perspective of ABVs and CPAs who perform valuation services, I think the first area to consider is whether the proposed glossary document belongs in the VS 100 professional standard. It could, for instance, increase risk for practitioners. Also, I think AICPA providing a mark-up (redline) version of the proposed revisions would be a large benefit to those reviewing the proposal for possibly providing comments to AICPA.

Dr. Michael A. Crain, CPA/ABV, CFA, CFE

Editor’s note: Dr. Crain was the chair of the AICPA’s Business Valuation Committee in 2007 when the AICPA issued its business valuation standard, Statement on Standards for Valuation Services (SSVS), now commonly known as VS Section 100. He is currently the director of Florida Atlantic University’s Center for forensic accounting and continues to practice on a part-time basis.

Comments on the proposed changes are due January 31. Click here for our coverage from last week that has links to the document and how to submit comments.

New guidance issued on the Payroll Protection Plan

During a recent BVR webinar, speakers report that many business owners will claim their Payroll Protection Plan (PPP) loans will be 100% forgiven. In reality, not everyone will receive 100% forgiveness, so appraisers need to make their own decisions about whether what clients are saying is reasonable or not. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and Treasury have issued new guidance for the reopening of the PPP. The new guidance released includes:

·         PPP guidance from SBA Administrator Carranza on accessing capital for minority, underserved, veteran, and women-owned business concerns;

·         Interim final rule on Paycheck Protection Program as amended by Economic Aid Act; and

·         Interim final rule on second draw PPP loans.

Speakers on the BVR webinar also advised experts to consult with a client’s accountant and attorney about the loan forgiveness.

Today’s the deadline to send your video question to the BV ‘power panel’

You can get free admission to BVR’s Power Panel: Live Expert Answers for Today’s Tough BV Questions on January 14 if you send in a video of yourself asking a question you want the panel to answer. But you must send it in before the end of today, January 13, to qualify. The panel will consist of Jay E. Fishman (Financial Research Associates), Michelle F. Gallagher (Adamy Valuation), Ken Pia (Marcum), and Jeffrey S. Tarbell (Houlihan Lokey). Use your smart phone or other device and video yourself asking a question and send it to BVR’s training director, Jared Waters, at JaredW@bvresources.com by the end of today, January 13, and you’re all set. If you have any trouble doing this, contact Jared for help.

Business Reference Guideupdated for 2021

The 2021 edition of the Business Reference Guide (BRG) by Tom West is now available. Now in its 31st year, it contains the latest industry-related information including “rules of thumb,” pricing tips, benchmarking information with comparison data, industry resources, and general industry data on nearly 600 types of businesses. There is also an online version with a fully searchable database, and it includes the print version of the guide.

FAU offers online accounting course on data analytics

The School of Accounting Executive Master’s Degree Program at Florida Atlantic University has developed an online accounting course on data analytics in auditing, managerial accounting, and financial statement analysis. The course includes hands-on practice in extracting data from accounting systems for use in analytical software. This course covers an entire semester, which starts this month (officially on January 16) and is worth three credit hours for CPE purposes, which should translate to 45 CPE credits. There is no set class schedule—you make your own weekly schedule and arrange online meetings with the instructor for one-on-one or group meeting. There is a short video by the instructor, who is a CPA with direct experience in data analytics. The cost is $700. The contact information for the application is 561-297-0525, or you can email Deborah Cavicchia at dcavicchia@fau.edu. FAU’s School of Accounting Executive Program can help expedite the application process.

Revised resource for IP valuation insights and case law

New chapters and over 200 case digests—plus online access to the full text opinions—are available in BVR’s Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, 4th edition. This compendium helps remove the guesswork from understanding what it takes for an effective expert/attorney team to win a case in intellectual property valuation. In addition to the case material, there are articles that outline practical tactics for use in any IP engagement, including a list of the top 20 questions to ask when completing due diligence for an IP valuation. For more details and the table of contents, click here.

Global BV News

PFI featured in latest OIV Journal

The latest edition of the journal of the Organismo Italiano di Valutazione, the valuation standards-setter in Italy, is now available if you click here. This edition contains the following articles:

• The use of management’s prospective financial information: a focus on fair value measurement using discounted cash flow techniques (David C. Dufendach); and
• Early warning signs (value based) of imbalances in troubled firms (Mauro Bini).

Dufendach advises that valuation professionals should increase their familiarization regarding Guidance on PFI contained in the Mandatory Performance Framework (MPF1) and Application of the Mandatory Performance Framework (AMPF) for the CEIV credential—“even though it may not be required,” he writes. The guidance addresses professional skepticism, due diligence procedures, reasonably objective basis, and documentation.

Comments wanted on revised global BV glossary

A draft of a revised international glossary of business valuation terms has been developed, and feedback is wanted on the terms included and their definitions. The draft is a result of the collaboration of the ASA, AICPA, RICS, TAQEEM, and CBV Institute. Public comments are due January 31, and the document, titled International Valuation Glossary—Business Valuation, can be found if you click here. Comments can be submitted if you click here, but the AICPA has asked its members to provide feedback directly to Mark Smith, senior manager of the AICPA’s FVS section, via email at mark.smith@aicpa-cima.com.

Key point: The revised glossary will be made part of official standards, and it contains technical terms and methodologies, a number of which have emerged since the prior version (published in 2001). Some practitioners we spoke with are worried that this could create a problem, especially in a litigation context. For instance, you might get this question related to a new glossary entry: “Did you use or consider the Greenfield method in your valuation analysis?” If you answer “no,” the next question you’ll get is “Why not? It’s in your professional standards.”

It may be better to promulgate the revised glossary in nonauthoritative form, such as an advisory or practice aid.

Vinoskey reply brief refutes DOL’s stock value and control claims

Argument continues in the contentious Vinoskey ESOP litigation, which is now in the 4th Circuit where the remaining defendant, Adam Vinoskey, has appealed the district court’s liability and damages findings. Vinoskey recently filed a reply to the Department of Labor’s defense of the court’s decision in which he discredits the DOL’s valuation-centered contentions.

As we reported earlier, at issue was a 2010 transaction in which Vinoskey and his late wife sold the remaining 52% of stock in their company to an ESOP for $406 per share. Appraisals in the five years preceding this transaction ranged from $215 per share to $285 per share in 2009. The crux of the district court’s ruling was that Vinoskey was a knowing participant in the independent trustee’s ERISA violations and was liable as a co-fiduciary for failing to remedy the trustee’s breaches. The trustee caused the plan to overpay for company stock, and Vinoskey, the selling shareholder, accepted the price knowing it was inflated.

Post-judgment, the DOL and the trustee settled, but Vinoskey appealed the findings.

Arm’s-length deal: In its response brief, the DOL claimed Vinoskey, who was a named fiduciary of the ESOP, was liable as a fiduciary concerning the 2010 transaction. He also was liable as a co-fiduciary because he failed to make reasonable efforts to remedy the trustee’s breaches. He “did nothing to protect his employees’ interests in the 2010 Transaction.” Vinoskey’s reply brief counters that he removed himself from the decision-making process underlying the transaction and that the company retained an independent trustee that had the authority to review and approve the transaction and that was insulated from Vinoskey’s influence. Vinoskey did “what a prudent fiduciary selling stock to the ESOP should do,” the brief says.

“Vinoskey sat only on one side of the bargaining table and negotiated against the independent trustee, who sat on the other side.” The brief claims he wasn’t a fiduciary and cannot be liable as a co-fiduciary of the trustee’s breaches. The DOL “advances what amounts to a per se theory of liability for selling shareholders when an independent trustee causes an ESOP to overpay for company stock,” the reply brief asserts.

Valuation is forward looking: The DOL claims Vinoskey knew “there was no business reason” that justified the stock price increase from $285 per share in 2009 to $406 per share in 2010. Vinoskey’s reply brief points out that 2009 earnings were lower as a consequence of the Great Recession. It says the DOL conceded that the company began to bounce back in 2010; Vinoskey reasonably believed it would do even better in 2011 considering the large backlog of orders, which, when filled, would boost the company’s earnings.

Valuation is forward looking, the brief notes. “For valuation purposes, the question was whether, in 2010, [the company] was poised for future growth.” Vinoskey saw a promising future particularly in light of the economy’s general improvement.

Regarding the contested issue of control, the brief says a layperson likely understands what “control premium” means. However, “even a valuation professional would not know that a buyer was paying a control premium based solely on the fact that a valuation was conducted on a controlling interest basis,” the brief says. Further, the ESOP did gain control, the brief emphasizes. The transaction caused the ESOP to own 100% of the company’s voting shares, and, under the corporate bylaws, the ESOP had the unfettered right to remove the board of directors for any reason at any time.

The brief further notes that the idea that an ESOP owning 100% of a company’s voting rights might not control the company “simply did not exist until 2017, after the district court’s decision in Brundle.” This transaction took place in 2010, the brief points out.

Stay tuned for reporting on further developments in this case.

Digests of the district court’s 2019 decision in Pizzella v. Vinoskey(earlier Acosta v. Vinoskey), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129579 (Aug. 2, 2019), and Pizzella v. Vinoskey (II), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15464; 2020 WL 476669 (Jan. 29, 2020), as well as the court opinions are available to subscribers of BVLaw.

Send the BV ‘power panel’ a video question—and get free admission

Here’s your chance to ask any question you want, and it will be answered live during BVR’s Power Panel: Live Expert Answers for Today’s Tough BV Questions on January 14. What’s more, if you send in a video of yourself asking the question, you will get free admission to the session. The panel will consist of Jay E. Fishman (Financial Research Associates), Michelle F. Gallagher (Adamy Valuation), Ken Pia (Marcum), and Jeffrey S. Tarbell (Houlihan Lokey). To get free admission to the webinar, you must send in a question in video form by January 13.

What to do: Use your smart phone or other device and video yourself asking a question you want the panel to answer. Send the video to BVR’s training director, Jared Waters, at JaredW@bvresources.com no later than January 13, and you’re all set. If you have any trouble doing this, contact Jared for help.

Vanguard stock market forecast implies a U.S. ERP of 3% to 5%

Annual returns of U.S. stocks over the next decade are forecasted to be in the “modest 3.7%-5.7% range,” according to a recent market outlook reportfrom Vanguard. This implies an equity risk premium (ERP) in the range of 2.2% to 4.2%, assuming a risk-free rate of 1.5% (the 20-year T-bond spot rate at the time of this writing). The forecast of stock returns “is quite different from the 10.6% annualized return generated over the last 30 years,” the report says. Some analysts believe that the past is not reflective of the future, so they do not use an ERP based on historical returns. The ERP is a forward-looking concept based on the expected excess return on the stock market, so they use a forward-looking (“implied”) ERP. An implied ERP represents investment expectations as of a particular point in time, which is what analysts are trying to determine.

Good, free economic research from McKinsey

We hear more valuation analysts touting the free material available from McKinsey on economic and industry analyses, particularly with respect to the COVID-19 crisis. A few examples: One chart shows projected small-business recoveries by industry (click here to view), and another shows the most likely scenario for COVID-19’s impact on domestic GDP in various countries (click here to view). All of this material is free, and you can sign up for regular alerts on the McKinsey website.

Do you have a story to tell?

During 2020, it was exciting to see valuation experts rise to the challenges the pandemic created. Business Valuation Update was very fortunate to publish a good number of articles submitted by experts who presented some very interesting and innovative thinking about how to reflect the impact of the pandemic on valuations. Of course, this thinking continues to evolve, so we invite you to share your ideas and experiences with your peers and submit an article to us. No time to write? No problem—just contact us and we can help you with that! Send an email to andyd@bvresources.com.

Global BV News

IVSC issues exposure draft on financial instruments

The International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) is “eager” to hear comments on its exposure draft on a new standard for the valuation of financial instruments. This is part of the ongoing effort of the organization’s Financial Instruments Board, which was formed in December 2018. “This exposure draft represents a hugely significant evolution in the valuation of financial instruments and the IVSC is eager to hear your thoughts,” the IVSC says. Comments are due by April 19. You can find the exposure draft if you click here, and you’ll also find a form for feedback.

CBV Institute sets date for 2021 Congress

Mark your calendar for June 16-18 to attend the Interactive Virtual Congress 2021 held by the Chartered Business Valuators Institute (CBV Institute), Canada’s valuation professional organization (VPO). This event has always represented best-in-class global learning. Details are forthcoming and will appear on the organization’s event webpage.