Abstracts
Vol. 35, No. 2, Summer 2001
Difficult Valuation Issues Symposium
J. Thomas Oldham, Introduction to Difficult Valuation Issues
Symposium, 35 FAM. L.Q. 231 (Summer 2001).
This issue has been organized with the goal of soliciting articles
from practitioners and scholars who could help family lawyers address
difficult valuation problems. Valuation problems abound at divorce,
but important valuation issues can arise relating to: (1) business
valuations; (2) calculating the marital portion of stock options that
are not exercisable at divorce; and (3) calculating the marital claim
to pensions. The articles in this issue address these problems.
Marvin Snyder, Challenge in Valuing Pension Plans, 35 FAM.
L.Q. 000 (Summer 2001).
This article presents examples that serve to illustrate some of the
complexities of defined contribution plan valuations when attempting
to ascertain a value of a marital asset. At first thought, it would
seem that in a plan with an individual account for the employee it
would be easy to see what the account value is. That is not quite
the case, and when consideration is given to loans, hardship withdrawals,
before and after-tax employee contributions, investment choices, and
the timing of the contributions, it is seen that it is not easy at
all.
Diana Richmond, The Challenges of Stock Options, 35 FAM.
L.Q. 000 (Summer 2001).
Stock options, those fast rockets to fortune, have a downward trajectory
as well. How we address these complex assets in the financial realities
of 2001 may be different from what we were doing in the heady times
between 1998 and early 2000. Value fluctuations are just one of the
challenges of stock options: other challenges are presented by their
character depending on when they were earned, vesting and repricing,
limitations of transferability, taxation, manipulability and availability
for support. This article will take a difficult hypothetical case,
analyze it from a California perspective, compare that perspective
to approaches in other states and address each of the components that
present a challenge.
David S. Rosettenstein, Exploring the Use of the Time Rule
in the Distribution of Stock Options on Divorce, 35 FAM. L.Q. 000
(Summer 2001).
The article commences with a brief description of the roots of the
time rule in the law regulating the distribution of pensions on divorce.
Then, the basic model, as applied to stock options, is described.
Thereafter, the article examines the relationship between the various
elements of time and the value of the options themselves and how this
relationship may be used to achieve a de facto variation of the outcome
suggested by the time rule. Adjustments to the time rule formula to
take account of pre-grant contributions of the employee and of the
marriage towards earning the options is the next topic to be considered.
The article then deals with some of the issues arising from complex
grant structures such as the issuing of multiple flights of options
or grants embodying staggered vesting dates. Next to be tackled are
a variety of post-grant concerns such as changing the point at which
the options vest due to the replacement and re-pricing practices of
the employer and as a consequence of acceleration and reloading. Finally,
some demands of equity restructuring are considered.
Patrice Leigh Ferguson & John E. Camp, Valuation Basics
and Beyond: Tackling Areas of Controversy, 35 FAM. L.Q. 000 (Summer
2001).
Many have written on the topic of business valuation. The purpose
of this article is to provide an overview of the legal aspects of
business valuation and an understanding of valuation foundation to
assist the attorney in preparing the divorce case in which valuation
issues are a part. In addition, the article addresses common errors
in valuation work, Daubert considerations related to the valuation
expert, and topics of controversy among experts and the attorneys
who employ them.
Randall B. Wilhite, The Effect of Goodwill in Determining
the Value of a Business in a Divorce, 35 FAM. L.Q. 000 (Summer 2001).
The real world of investing in publicly traded stocks is replete with
examples of how executives, managers, prognosticators, investors,
and company analysts, despite having the best possible assembly of
data, are unable to accurately predict even the company's next quarter's
earnings-much less something that might occur over the next succeeding
set of years. In a litigation context, business valuation (especially
the subjective components, like goodwill) becomes even harder. In
a divorce case, the difficulty again multiplies. Preparing a valuation
with the hypothetical assumptions required by state case law further
complicates the process. Further, at times, the truculence kindred
to the divorce itself, aptly called "perverse incentives"
by one commentator, could adversely influence a spouse's working actions.
"Perverse incentives" may cause an ex-spouse to wish to
disadvantage the other ex-spouse even if, in the process, he or she
too will suffer harm." The appraiser, in such an instance, must
often perform more tests and even look at underlying source data to
ascertain whether these unusual behaviors are unfairly impacting the
valuation process, especially the often very subjective component
called "goodwill." Difficult to value as it is, goodwill
is something, nonetheless, that must be valued. For to overlook a
potentially very significant marital property asset would mean to
ignore the emerging definitions of property that clearly include intangible
assets.
Family Law Quarterly
Board of Editors
Linda D. Elrod
Associate Editor
Robert G. Spector
Board of Editors
Jeff Atkinson
Elizabeth B. Brandt
Jean N. Crowe
John DeWitt Gregory
Robert J. Levy
J. Thomas Oldham
John J. Sampson
Nancy Ver Steegh
Reviewing Editors
Susan Appleton
Patricia M. Hoff
Harry D. Krause
Paul M. Kurtz
Managing Editor
Deborah Eisel
2006-2007 Student Editorial Staff
Washburn University School of Law
Student Editor-In-Chief
Holly Fisher
Student Executive Research Editors
Christine Campbell
Megan Fluharty
Tracey Johnson
Student Senior Editors
Melissa Doolan
Kyle Ramsey
Derik Smith
Catherine Sundwall
Doug Taylor
Eryn Wright
Katherine Zluticky
Student Junior Editors
Lucy Betteridge
Jessica Casterline
Lauren Douglass
Regan Duckworth
Megan Furgason
Nicholas (Craig) Hovarth
Sayra Hurley
Jessica Kohls
Anna Krstulic
Carol Krstulic
Audrey Lee
William Schmidt
Brandy Smidt
Amy Turner
Jason Watkins
Katie Whitsitt
Secretarial Staff
Pamela Arnoldy
Shirley Jacobson




