N S T I T U T E
I
C L E
N Y C L A
W HEN TO H IRE A
F INANCIAL E XPERT AND
H OW TO U SE THEM
E FFECTIVELY
Prepared in connection with a Continuing Legal Education course presented
at New York County Lawyers’ Association, 14 Vesey Street, New York, NY
scheduled for March 25, 2015
Faculty:
Sam Rosenfarb, Roman Matatov, Rosenfarb LLC; Jorge Amador, Of Counsel, The
Grant Law Firm
This course has been approved in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal Education
Board for a maximum of 2 Transitional and Non-Transitional credit hours: 2 Skills.
This program has been approved by the Board of Continuing Legal education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 2
hours of total CLE credits. Of these, 0 qualifies as hours of credit for ethics/professionalism, and 0 qualifies as hours of
credit toward certification in civil trial law, criminal law, workers compensation law and/or matrimonial law.
ACCREDITED PROVIDER STATUS: NYCLA’s CLE Institute is currently certified as an Accredited Provider of
continuing legal education in the States of New York and New Jersey.
Information Regarding CLE Credits and Certification
When to Retain a Financial Expert and How to Use them Effectively
March 25, 2015; 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
The New York State CLE Board Regulations require all accredited CLE
providers to provide documentation that CLE course attendees are, in fact,
present during the course. Please review the following NYCLA rules for
MCLE credit allocation and certificate distribution.
i.
You must sign-in and note the time of arrival to receive your
course materials and receive MCLE credit. The time will be
verified by the Program Assistant.
ii.
You will receive your MCLE certificate as you exit the room at
the end of the course. The certificates will bear your name and
will be arranged in alphabetical order on the tables directly outside
the auditorium.
iii.
If you arrive after the course has begun, you must sign-in and note
the time of your arrival. The time will be verified by the Program
Assistant. If it has been determined that you will still receive
educational value by attending a portion of the program, you will
receive a pro-rated CLE certificate.
iv.
Please note: We can only certify MCLE credit for the actual time
you are in attendance. If you leave before the end of the course,
you must sign-out and enter the time you are leaving. The time will
be verified by the Program Assistant. Again, if it has been
determined that you received educational value from attending a
portion of the program, your CLE credits will be pro-rated and the
certificate will be mailed to you within one week.
v.
If you leave early and do not sign out, we will assume that you left
at the midpoint of the course. If it has been determined that you
received educational value from the portion of the program you
attended, we will pro-rate the credits accordingly, unless you can
provide verification of course completion. Your certificate will
be mailed to you within one week.
Thank you for choosing NYCLA as your CLE provider!
New York County Lawyers’ Association
Continuing Legal Education Institute
14 Vesey Street, New York, N.Y. 10007 • (212) 267-6646
When to Hire a Financial Expert and How to Use them Effectively
Wednesday, March 25, 2015, 6:00 PM-8:00 PM
Faculty:
Sam Rosenfarb, Roman Matatov, Rosenfarb LLC; Jorge Amador, Of
Counsel, The Grant Law Firm
AGENDA
5:30 PM – 6:00 PM
Registrations
6:00 PM – 6:10 PM
Introductions and Announcements
6:10 PM – 8:00 PM
Presentation and Discussion
WHEN TO RETAIN A FINANCIAL
EXPERT AND HOW TO USE
THEM EFFECTIVELY
Sam Rosenfarb, CPA, ABV, CFE, CVA, CBA
Roman Matatov, CPA, CFF, CVA, CFE, Cr. FA
Rosenfarb LLC
Jorge A. Amador, JD, CPA, CFF, CFE
The Grant Law Firm
Why an Accounting Expert?
THE NUMEROUS USES OF AN ACCOUNTING EXPERT
2
Why an Accounting Expert?
• Accounting experts can serve integral roles in a wide
variety of complex litigation
• Some examples include
• Complicated damages issues
• E.g., economic losses in shareholder securities class action
• E.g., analysis of costs, inventory and sales in suit for business
interruption
• Valuation of assets
• E.g., dispute over buyout or dissolution of a business
• Large accounting firms maintain practices devoted solely to this issue
• Professional liability
• E.g., whether audit was properly planned and supervised
• Conduct of CPA under professional literature is directly at issue
3
Why an Accounting Expert?
• Violations of the federal securities laws
• E.g., accuracy of financial disclosures, revenue recognition issues,
reserves, goodwill, etc.
• E.g., claims of auditor misstatement under Section 10(b) of 1934
Securities Exchange Act
• Antitrust
• E.g., develop evidence concerning pricing structures, marginal costs,
profit margins and other economic enterprise considerations
• E.g., analyzing enterprise cost structure in predatory pricing claims
• Other disputes
• Patent and copyright disputes (e.g., questions of appropriate royalties)
• Employment disputes (e.g., commission compensation disputes)
• Divorce ( e.g., concealment of assets or income)
4
Finding the Right Expert Witnesses
INTERVIEWING AND SELECTING ACCOUNTING EXPERTS
PROFESSIONAL EXPERT VS. PRACTITIONER?
GETTING THE EXPERT INVOLVED EARLY
5
Best Ways to Locate Experts
• Consult colleagues and peers
• Talk to the client and the client’s
other outside counsel
• Ask trusted consultants on other
matters
• As a last resort, consult public
databases
6
Do Not Postpone Your Decision to Retain
an Expert Witness
• The sooner the expert is on the case the quicker they
become thoroughly familiar with critical facts.
• The advantage:
• The expert can reveal elements of your case that you may not
have considered earlier
• The expert should be able to give you an objective and
detailed analysis of both the strengths and vulnerabilities you
face specific to the area of expertise
• Avoid the risk of being unable to retain the best candidate for
your case
7
Do Not Postpone Your Decision to Retain
an Expert Witness
• Marshaling adequate evidence necessary to support and
solidify the basis for the expert’s opinions
• Supplying technical knowledge and input into scientific,
technical and other specialized underpinnings of the case
to guide strategy
• Developing themes to pursue in fact discovery as well as
with the other parties’ experts
8
Conduct a Thorough Background Check
Wise words from a veteran trial attorney:
“Do the due diligence necessary to avoid surprise. Do the
same with your adversary’s expert so that you can inflict
humiliating surprise.”
10
Conduct a Thorough Background Check
• Ask for permission to verify credentials
•Check education, degrees and professional affiliations
•Check publications and speaking engagements
• Determine the expert’s involvement in prior
litigation
• Who were the parties and attorneys?
• What was the nature of the claims?
• For whom did the expert testify?
• What were his or her opinions?
11
Conduct a Thorough Background Check
• Research public databases (e.g., Westlaw) and use
Google
• Search for prior appearances, publications not identified
• Identify any professional discipline or legal trouble
• Avoid any surprises
• Check all references
• Check any references provided
• Also check references not provided
• Contact attorneys on prior retentions
12
Criteria to Consider in an Expert Witness
• Easily verifiable criteria
• Does the witness have adequate professional
•
•
•
•
•
qualifications?
Does the witness have impressive education, licenses,
affiliations, etc.?
Can the expert be deemed to be independent?
Does the witness participate in continuing industry
training?
Has the witness worked for industry trade
bodies/regulators?
Does the witness maintain an active role in the
industry?
13
Criteria to Consider in an Expert Witness
• Other important issues to consider
• Does the witness look and sound credible?
• How savvy is the witness on the stand?
• Can the witness hold up under cross
examination?
• Has the witness ever had his or her opinions
and work product scrutinized and attacked
before?
• Does the witness have gray hair (and is that
necessary or helpful?)
15
Criteria to Consider in an Expert Witness
• Consideration of fees is an important
factor in retaining an expert witness
• More expensive is not always better, but it can be,
and often is
• Fees may be a strong indicator of experience and
credentials, abilities and stature
• Some factors when considering fees
•
•
•
•
The degree of knowledge, learning, or skill required
The uniqueness of the expert’s qualifications
The amount charged by similarly situated experts
The impact of scheduling difficulties or other commitments
16
Working With the Testifying Expert to
Create the Report
• The federal rules contemplate that attorneys may assist the expert
in preparing his or her report
• Experts may need guidance in organizing the report to meet legal requirements of
substantive law or procedural rules
• See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), Advisory Committee Notes (1993)
(“Rule 26(a)(2)(B) does not preclude counsel from providing assistance to experts in
preparing the reports, and indeed, with experts such as automobile mechanics, this
assistance may be needed.“)
• However, the expert should be encouraged to do
his/her own work
• The expert should not rely extensively on staff and/or
attorneys
• The expert should drill down into the facts and documents
• The expert should take a bottom up approach instead of a
cloud level bottom-cloud-level, top-down approach
17
Forensic Accounting
• Fact-finding
• Fraud prevention and detection
• Financial information, interviews and systems
• Guidance
• Accounting (GAAP), auditing (GAAS) and tax
• A CPA’s professional duties
• Calculations
• Business, IP, estate, shareholder and contract disputes
• Opinions
• Damages, CPA liability and valuation
18
Forensic Accounting
What is a Forensic Accountant?
• Hired to investigate, analyze, interpret, summarize and present
•
•
•
•
complex financial and business information
Involves accounting, auditing and investigation skills
Trained to look beyond the numbers
Assist with the protection and/or recovery of assets
Attributes – curious, persistent, creative, organized,
communicative, discrete, confident, exercises sound
professional judgment
19
Forensic Accounting
Forensic Accounting Definitions
• “Forensic” is an adjective derived from the Latin word
•
•
•
•
“forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum.”
“Forensic” now means the use of science or technology in the
investigation or establishment of facts or evidence in a court of
law.
Thus, forensic testimony or forensic medicine are used to assist
attorneys in legal matters, including trials.
The integration of accounting, auditing and investigative skills
yields the specialty known as “Forensic Accounting”.
Forensic Accounting provides an accounting analysis that is
suitable to the court which will form the basis for discussion,
debate and ultimately dispute resolution.
20
Forensic Accounting
Universal Definition of Forensic Accounting
USING FINANCIAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL IN CONJUNCTION
WITH INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES TO RESOLVE A MATTER IN A
LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE MANNER EXACTING TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS OF THE LAW
21
Forensic Accounting
Forensic Examination
• Timing  Non-Recurring
• Scope  Specific
• Objective  Affix Responsibility
• Relationship  Adversarial
22
Forensic Accounting
Components of a Forensic Investigation
• Obtaining Evidence and Taking Statements
• Analyzing Documents
• Preparing Analyses
• Writing Reports
• Testifying to Findings
• Detection and Prevention of Fraud
23
Forensic Accounting
Sample of Common Forensic Engagements
• Breach of fiduciary responsibility
• Violation of Federal Securities Laws
• Hedge fund and partnership abuse
• Misrepresentation and omissions about investments
• Unauthorized use of escrow funds
• ERISA violations, engaging in prohibited transactions
• False financial statements and related disclosures
• Money laundering
24
Forensic Accounting
Sample Common Forensic Engagements (cont’d.)
• Inappropriate operating expenses
• Misappropriation of cash by fudging accounts
• Unauthorized withdrawal or transfer of funds
• Matrimonial disputes and equitable distribution
• Business economic losses
• Shareholder and partnership disputes
• Auditor gross negligence (accountants malpractice)
25
Forensic Accounting
Sample Common Forensic Engagements (cont’d.)
• Actuary gross negligence
• Board of Director abuse
• Preferential treatment of executives
• Failure to disclose conflicts of interest
• Commingling of funds
• Insider trading
• Tax fraud
26
Forensic Accounting
Forensic Objectives
PREPARE FINDINGS REGARDING:
• The truthfulness of representations
• Specific financial transactions or account balances
• Disclosure issues against accounting, auditing principles
• Responsible parties
• Quantification of damages and economic effects
27
Forensic Accounting
Obtaining and Organizing Evidence
Obtaining Documentary Evidence
• Subpoenas
• Search warrants
• Voluntary consent
Organization of Evidence
• Often difficult to ascertain the relevance early on
• Essential for documents to be properly organized
• Continuously reorganize
28
Forensic Accounting
Obtaining Evidence –
Detailed Discovery Requests
• Corporate and organizational structure
• Subsidiaries and holding companies
• Securities
• Business description / products
• Investments
• Financial documents
• Financial statements
• Tax matters
• Officers and directors
29
Forensic Accounting
Obtaining Evidence –
Detailed Discovery Requests (cont’d.)
• Benefit plans
• Labor disputes
• Real and personal property
• Intellectual property
• Contracts and arrangements
• Litigation
• Environmental and related matters
• Receivables
30
Forensic Accounting
Obtaining Evidence –
Detailed Discovery Requests (cont’d.)
• Inventories
• Acquisition documents and sales of securities
• Liabilities
• Transaction with officers
• Customers
• Licenses
• Consents
• Stock Exchanges
• Miscellaneous
31
Forensic Accounting
Trial and Evidentiary Issues –
What to Ask for in Discovery
• Must seek specific relevant information
• Objections re: excessive scope and burdensome
• Begin narrowly and expand
• The Sorcerer’s Apprentice problem
• Be careful what you wish for
32
Forensic Accounting
Collection of Documents
• Obtain original documents when feasible
• Make working copies for review
• Keep originals segregated
• Do not touch originals any more than necessary
• Maintain a good filing system
• Store original properly
33
Forensic Accounting
Analyzing Documents
• Preserve and present evidence
• Identify all relevant documents
• Set aside all irrelevant documents
• Avoid getting bogged down in the detail initially
• Don’t lose sight of the simple reality:
• Documents do not make cases
• Witness make cases
• However, documents make or break the witness
• Evidence needs to be properly identified
• Establish proper chain of custody
34
Forensic Accounting
Fraudulent Documents
• Forged, altered, fabricated and other suspicious documents are
regularly encountered in fraud matters
• Paper documents can be evidence in establishing that a fraud
was committed
• Electronic documents as well can be utilized
• Expert examination required:
• Assist in developing and proving fraud theory
• Can corroborate or refute statements by witness or fraud suspects
• Having early on can assist in leverage for examiner during interviews
35
Forensic Accounting
Good Organization Techniques
• Witness
• Transaction
• Chronological
• Key document files
• Database early on to manage documents
• Log of work steps
36
Financial Valuation
• Valuing a business
• Present value of future cash flows
• Asset, income and market approaches
• Unusual, infrequent and non-business item normalization
• Valuing part of a business
• Pro-rata value reduced by relevant discounts
• Valuing intangibles, including intellectual assets (property)
• Only attributable cash flows considered
• Intangibles generally more unique than businesses
37
Forensic Valuation
• Business injury
• Divisions or segments injured for extensive loss periods
• Business destruction
• Little or no opportunity to mitigate complete business loss
• Post-transaction disputes
• For example, reps and warranties, and earn-out issues
• Oppressed owner
• Discounts from pro-rata value limited by some courts
• Intangible and intellectual assets
• For example, infringement or price erosion
• Opposing expert valuation
• Comments, critiques and corrections
38
Forensic Valuation
• Business injury
• Divisions or segments injured for extensive loss periods
• Business destruction
• Little or no opportunity to mitigate complete business loss
• Post-transaction disputes
• For example, reps and warranties, and earn-out issues
• Oppressed owner
• Discounts from pro-rata value limited by some courts
• Intangible and intellectual assets
• For example, infringement or price erosion
• Opposing expert valuation
• Comments, critiques and corrections
39
Any Questions?
Q&A
41
With more than 40 years of experience, including Partner-in-Charge of the forensic accounting
practice at a large CPA firm, Sam Rosenfarb is a proven and demonstrated expert. Sam’s forensic
accounting skills arise from his significant experience in the investigation of fraud, financial
damages and business crimes. Throughout his career, he has testified as an expert witness in
numerous matters including damage calculations, matrimonial litigation, accounting malpractice,
estate issues, partnership disputes, business valuations and insolvencies. Mr. Rosenfarb has served
as a court appointed expert and arbitrator, including appointment to the Panel of Arbitrators by the
American Arbitration Association.
Roman Z. Matatov is engaged by clients to assist with disputes and valuations in various
industries including animation, branded apparel, consumer electronics, food technology,
hospitality, insurance underwriting, internet and traditional retail and wholesale,
pharmaceutical development and manufacturing, real estate development, and
telecommunications. Roman formerly served as Controller for an online media company, and as
Assistant Controller for a translation and interpretation company. Roman teaches forensic
accounting to attorneys and MBA students in-person and online.
Jorge Amador is a Lawyer and a Certified Public Accountant with over 20 years of corporate and
public accounting experience, including disputes, litigation, forensic investigations, discovery
and regulatory compliance. Formerly the Director of Forensic Accounting at Milberg LLP—
where he led a group of accounting professionals that investigated private securities lawsuits
involving complex financial issues—Mr. Amador is a licensed attorney in the State of California.
He has advised and litigated such major cases as Tyco, Enron and Rite Aid, and has a unique
legal perspective on financial disputes.
42
43
Contact Us
825 Third Avenue
825 3rd Avenue
Fourth Floor
New York, NY 10022
Direct: (855) 415-1100
Email: info@rosenfarb.com
Website: www.rosenfarb.com
FIVE TIPS FOR LITIGATORS TO RETAIN RIGOR 1.Plead Collaboratively 2.Discover Synergy Address with ardor whether and how the basic business factors of people‐systems‐
process‐product are impacted. Use your lost profits expert to gauge the economic reality of the contemplated claim. The litigant will appreciate access to financial acumen early in the matter.
Shift your time from synthesizing to evaluating financial demands. Direct your lost profits expert to suggest the financial demand dialect. You will also ensure accuracy and unambiguously demanded financial data and documents.
3.Exploit Demand Delays Alter to your advantage the financial document delays which burden so many matters. Invite your lost profits expert to assess, monitor, and continuously document the inadequacy or incompetence of your opponent’s production. 4. Delegate to Defend 5.Focus Fearlessly Gain the litigant’s favor by delegating financial questions. Showcase your lost profits expert who “speaks the same language” as the litigant’s financial staff, and will liaison between you and your client.
Outsource financial thinking and single‐
task on legal strategy. Empower your lost profits expert as an accountable team‐
member, not a doer of tasks.
Rosenfarb LLC ▪ www.rosenfarb.com ▪ (855) 415‐1100 825 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 ▪ 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068 © Rosenfarb LLC TIPS FOR EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION DEMANDS DIALECT Financial dialect is typically used to identify what is owned, owed, and how much is “brought in” and “taken out.” Owned  Cash (unrestricted and restricted)  Accounts receivable (“A/R”) (due from customers)  Investments (stocks, bonds)  Fixed assets (buildings, cars, and machinery)  Intangibles (patents, trademarks, copyrights) Owed  Accounts payable (“A/P”) (due to vendors)  Notes, loans, and debt Ins  Receipts (sales, rents, interest)  Profitable investments  Royalties  Gifts  IRS and other tax refunds  Amounts loaned Outs  Disbursements (cost of sales, interest)  Unprofitable investments  Payments to register, develop, maintain, and defend intellectual property  Gifts made  Payments of income, payroll, sales, and other types of tax  Repayments of loans and related interest DATA DIALECT⇨DOCUMENTS⇨DATA Financial feud resolution begins with using financial dialect to ask focused questions. Responsive to focused questions should be relevant financial documents, which should be organized and reviewed. Gleaned from financial documents should be potent financial data to identify financial wrongdoing. Following this formula of Dialect⇨Documents⇨Data, value and vigilance is achieved. Armed with financial dialect, developing focused questions about the following becomes easy and effective:  Value  Control and those in control  Business activities  Past and planned changes By reviewing financial documents, it is usually simple to glean financial data evidencing wrongdoing, including:  Amounts unequitably benefiting stakeholders  Disguised dividends  Amounts benefiting unauthorized individuals  Mismanagement of assets  Diminution in value  Family‐business frauds  Lost revenues and avoided, incremental costs  Infringer’s profits (intellectual property matters)  Amounts fraudulently conveyed to detriment of bankruptcy estate  Amounts transferred by insiders recoverable by bankruptcy trustee or debtor‐in‐possession  Negligence by CPAs and resulting damages  Damages resulting from malpractice by other professionals DOCUMENTS Typical accounting records include:  Financial statements (audited, reviewed, or compiled)  Accounting reports  Chart of accounts  General ledger  Subsidiary ledgers (A/R, A/P, inventory, fixed asset)  List of journal entries  Cash receipts and disbursements journals  Cost accounting records (material, labor, overhead, allocations)  Third‐party documents (sales invoices, vendor bills, bank statements) Typical tax records include:  Income tax returns (including IRS Form 1120, 1120S, 1065, or 1041)  Payroll tax returns and other payroll forms (including IRS Forms 941, 940,W‐3, W‐2, 1096, 1099)  State sales and use tax returns  Gift tax returns (IRS Form 709)  Employee benefit plan reports (IRS Form 5500) Business‐specific documents include:  Forecasts, projections, and business plans  Industry guidance, compensation studies, commission reports Rosenfarb LLC ▪ www.rosenfarb.com ▪ (855) 415‐1100 825 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 ▪ 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068 © Rosenfarb LLC BUSINESS VALUATION QUICK REFERENCE Capitalization of Earnings—which capitalizes some Capitalization Rate—any divisor (usually expressed as a measure of the company’s earning capacity at a rate re‐ percentage) used to convert anticipated economic bene‐
Buy/Sell Agreements ▪ Estate and Gift Taxes ▪ Mergers flective of the return on investment required by the hy‐ fits of a single period into value. and Acquisitions ▪ Succession Planning ▪ Divorce ▪ Share‐ pothetical investor. Capital Structure—the composition of the invested cap‐
holder Disputes ▪ Intellectual Property Disputes ▪ Media‐ Discounted Future Earnings—which discounts the ital of a business enterprise; the mix of debt and equity tion and Arbitration ▪ Business Damages and Lost Profits projected future earnings of the company to determine financing. ▪ Employee Stock Ownership Plans the fair market value at the valuation date. Cash Flow—cash that is generated over a period of time VALUATION FACTORS Specific Company Transaction Method—which pro‐ by an asset, group of assets, or business enterprise. It may duces an estimate of value by a review of relevant past be used in a general sense to encompass various levels of Revenue Ruling 59‐60 states that a sound valuation transactions of the company stock. specifically defined cash flows. When the term is used, it should consider eight factors: should be supplemented by a qualifier (for example, Guideline Company—which produces an estimate of “discretionary” or “operating”) and a specific definition in 1. The nature and history of the business; value by comparing the company with various valuation the given valuation context. of multiples of publicly traded companies. 2. The economic and industry outlook; Common Size Statements—financial statements in Merger and Acquisition (Transaction or Direct Mar‐ which each line is expressed as a percentage of the total. 3. The financial condition of the business; ket Data) Method—which produces an estimate of val‐ On the balance sheet, each line item is shown as a per‐
ue by comparing the company with comparable privately centage of total assets, and on the income statement, 4. The earnings capacity of the business; held companies that have been sold. each item is expressed as a percentage of sales. 5. The dividend paying capacity of the business; MAJOR IRS GUIDANCE Control—the power to direct the management and poli‐
6. Whether or not the enterprise has goodwill or other cies of a business enterprise. intangible value; Revenue Ruling 59‐60—Valuing closely‐held business Control Premium—an amount or a percentage by interests. 7. Sales of stock; and which the pro rata value of a controlling interest exceeds 8. The market price of stocks of corporations engaged Revenue Ruling 65‐192—Extends 59‐60 to all types of the pro rata value of a noncontrolling interest in a busi‐
business interests and to income taxes as well as gift and ness enterprise to reflect the power of control. in the same or similar lines of business. estate taxes. Cost Approach—a general way of determining a value VALUATION ORGANIZATIONS Revenue Ruling 68‐609—”Formula method” (excess indication of an individual asset by quantifying the earnings). amount of money required to replace the future service American Institute of Certified Public Accountants capability of that asset. (AICPA), Forensic and Valuation Section (FVS) Revenue Ruling 77‐287—Valuing preferred stock. Cost of Capital—the expected rate of return that the National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts Revenue Ruling 93‐12—Allows minority discounts when market requires in order to attract funds to a particular (NACVA) valuing minority interest of family members in family‐ investment. controlled businesses. The Institute of Business Appraisers (IBA) Discount for Lack of Control—an amount or percent‐
EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL GLOSSARY age deducted from the pro rata share of value of 100% of American Society of Appraisers (ASA) an equity interest in a business to reflect the absence of OF BUSINESS VALUATION TERMS (IGBVT) some or all of the powers of control. CFA Institute COMMON REASONS FOR VALUATIONS Asset (Asset‐Based) Approach—a general way of deter‐ Discount for Lack of Marketability—an amount or mining a value indication of a business, business owner‐ percentage deducted from the value of an ownership interest, or security using one or more methods interest to reflect the relative absence of marketability. Adjusted Net Assets—which produces an estimate of ship based on the value of the assets net of liabilities. value by adjusting the company’s assets and liabilities to Discount Rate—a rate of return used to convert a future market value, and subsequently subtracting those liabili‐ Business Valuation—the act or process of determining monetary sum into present value. ties from the assets. the value of a business enterprise or ownership interest Economic Benefits—inflows such as revenues, net in‐
therein. Liquidation Value—which produces an estimate of val‐
come, net cash flows, etc. ue by adjusting the company’s assets to liquidation value, Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)—a model in reducing that number by respective liabilities and in‐ which the cost of capital for any stock or portfolio of Economic Life—the period of time over which property come tax implications, and determining cash flow, which stocks equals a risk‐free rate plus a risk premium that is may generate economic benefits. will benefit the owner. proportionate to the systematic risk of the stock or port‐ Excess Earnings—that amount of anticipated economic Excess Earnings Return on Assets—which determines folio. benefits that exceeds an appropriate rate of return on the the company’s fair market value by establishing a value Capitalization—a conversion of a single period of eco‐ value of a selected asset base (often net tangible assets) for its adjusted net assets and its intangible assets by cap‐ nomic benefits into value. used to generate those anticipated economic benefits. italizing the earnings of the business that exceed a rea‐
Capitalization Factor—any multiple or divisor used to sonable rate of industry return. convert anticipated economic benefits of a single period into value. VALUATION METHODS Rosenfarb LLC ▪ www.rosenfarb.com ▪ (855) 415‐1100 825 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 ▪ 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068 © Rosenfarb LLC BUSINESS VALUATION QUICK REFERENCE Fair Market Value—the price, expressed in terms of cash equivalents, at which property would change hands between a hypothetical willing and able buyer and a hy‐
pothetical willing and able seller, acting at arms length in an open and unrestricted market, when neither is under compulsion to buy or sell and when both have reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts. Investment Value—the value to a particular investor Rate of Return—an amount of income (loss) and/or based on individual investment requirements and expec‐ change in value realized or anticipated on an investment, expressed as a percentage of that investment. tations. Key Person Discount—an amount or percentage de‐ Residual (Terminal) Value—the value as of the end of ducted from the value of an ownership interest to reflect the discrete projection period in a discounted future the reduction in value resulting from the actual or poten‐ earnings model. tial loss of a key person in a business enterprise. Risk‐Free Rate—the rate of return available in the mar‐
Liquidation Value—the net amount that would be real‐ ket on an investment free of default risk. ized if the business is terminated and the assets are sold piecemeal. Liquidation can be either “orderly” or Risk Premium—a rate of return added to a risk‐free rate to reflect risk. “forced.” Going Concern Value—the value of a business enter‐
prise that is expected to continue to operate into the fu‐
ture. The intangible elements of Going Concern Value result from factors such as having a trained work force, an operational plant, and the necessary licenses, systems, and procedures in place. Market (Market‐Based) Approach—a general way of Goodwill—that intangible asset arising as a result of determining a value indication of a business, business name, reputation, customer loyalty, location, products, ownership interest, security, or intangible asset by using one or more methods that compare the subject to similar and similar factors not separately identified. businesses, business ownership interests, securities, or Income (Income‐Based) Approach—a general way of intangible assets that have been sold. determining a value indication of a business, business ownership interest, security, or intangible asset using one Marketability—the ability to quickly convert property or more methods that convert anticipated economic ben‐ to cash at minimal cost. efits into a present single amount. Minority Discount—a discount for lack of control appli‐
Intangible Assets—nonphysical assets such as fran‐ cable to a minority interest. chises, trademarks, patents, copyrights, goodwill, equi‐ Net Book Value—with respect to a business enterprise, ties, mineral rights, securities, and contracts (as distin‐ the difference between total assets (net of accumulated guished from physical assets) that grant rights and privi‐ depreciation, depletion, and amortization) and total lia‐
leges and have value for the owner. bilities as they appear on the balance sheet (synonymous Intrinsic Value—the value that an investor considers, with Shareholder’s Equity). With respect to a specific on the basis of an evaluation or available facts, to be the asset, the capitalized cost less accumulated amortization “true” or “real” value that will become the market value or depreciation as it appears on the books of account of when other investors reach the same conclusion. When the business enterprise. the term applies to options, it is the difference between Nonoperating Assets—assets not necessary to ongoing the exercise price and strike price of an option and the operations of the business enterprise. market value of the underlying security. Premise of Value—an assumption regarding the most Invested Capital—the sum of equity and debt in a busi‐ likely set of transactional circumstances that may be ap‐
ness enterprise. Debt is typically (a) all interest‐bearing plicable to the subject valuation; for example, going con‐
debt or (b) long‐term, interest‐bearing debt. When the cern, liquidation. term is used, it should be supplemented by a specific definition in the given valuation context. Present Value—the value, as of a specified date, of fu‐
ture economic benefits and/or proceeds from sale, calcu‐
lated using an appropriate discount rate. Rule of Thumb—a mathematical formula developed from the relationship between price and certain variables based on experience, observation, hearsay, or a combina‐
tion of these; usually industry specific. Standard of Value—the identification of the type of value being utilized in a specific engagement; for exam‐
ple, fair market value, fair value, investment value. Tangible Assets—physical assets (such as cash, accounts receivable, inventory, property, plant and equipment, etc.). Valuation Approach—a general way of determining a value indication of a business, business ownership inter‐
est, security, or intangible asset using one or more valua‐
tion methods. Valuation Date—the specific point in time as of which the valuator’s opinion of value applies (also referred to as “Effective Date” or “Appraisal Date”). Valuation Method—within approaches, a specific way to determine value. Valuation Procedure—the act, manner, and technique of performing the steps of an appraisal method. Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)—the cost of capital (discount rate) determined by the weighted average, at market value, of the cost of all financing sources in the business enterprise’s capital structure. THE FIRM Rosenfarb LLC is a firm of leading forensic accounting, valuation and economic professionals that offers financial expertise in litiga‐
tion, valuation, and investigation to the legal, business, and not‐for
‐profit communities. Rosenfarb professionals are regularly retained to provide valuation services. Such services include valuing a business, partial business interests, business segments and divisions, and family limited partnership interests (FLPs). Rosenfarb’s clients also require valua‐
tion of intangible and intellectual assets—such as patents, trade‐
marks, and copyrights. The firm is also often sought for its exper‐
tise in performing valuation services in connection with bankrupt‐
cies, mergers and acquisitions, and other business scenarios. The firm recognizes that for effective performance in a litigation setting, a business valuation professional—in addition to having the requisite credentials, education, and experience—must be responsive, agile, and rigorous. Rosenfarb LLC ▪ www.rosenfarb.com ▪ (855) 415‐1100 825 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 ▪ 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068 © Rosenfarb LLC Faculty Biographies
CURRICULUM VITAE
Sam Rosenfarb
sam@rosenfarb.com
(855) 415-1500
CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Public Accountant (CPA),
licensed in the States of New York
and New Jersey
Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV)
Certified Business Appraiser (CBA)
Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE)
Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF)
Chartered Global Management
Accountant (CGMA)
Certified Valuation Analyst (CVA)
EDUCATION
B.A., Accounting, Queens College
SUMMARY
Sam Rosenfarb, CPA,ABV,CFE,CVA,CBA, is Managing
Director of Rosenfarb LLC, a firm of forensic accounting and
valuation experts, with offices in New York City and New
Jersey. He originates, supervises and reviews client
engagements in the areas of financial consulting,
investigations, valuations and expert witness services. With
more than 40 years of experience, including Partner-inCharge of the forensic accounting practice at a large CPA
firm, Mr. Rosenfarb is a proven and demonstrated leader.
Mr. Rosenfarb’s forensic accounting skills arise from his
significant experience advising business owners, as well as
the investigation of fraud, financial damages and business
crimes.
Mr. Rosenfarb is frequently retained by clients to
provide deposition and trial testimony. Throughout his
career, he has testified as an expert witness in numerous
matters including damage calculations, matrimonial
litigation, accounting malpractice, estate issues,
partnership disputes, business valuations and insolvencies.
Mr. Rosenfarb has served as a court appointed expert and
arbitrator, including appointment to the Panel of
Arbitrators by the American Arbitration Association.
Mr. Rosenfarb is a recognized industry expert and
has presented seminars and continuing legal education
courses on various topics including calculating lost profits,
valuation techniques, mergers and acquisitions, valuation
aspects of divorce, forensic accounting and alternative
dispute resolutions. In addition, he has hosted the cable
television programs “White Collar Crime Report” and “It’s
All About Money.”
PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
New Jersey Society of Certified Public Accountants
(NJSCPA),
• Past Vice President & Trustee
• Litigation Services Committee, Chair
• Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, Chair
New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants
(NYSSCPA)
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Institute of Business Appraisers
National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts
Rosenfarb LLC ▪ www.rosenfarb.com ▪ (855) 415-1100
825 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 ▪ 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068
T R I A L AND HEARING T E S T I M O N Y O F S A M R O S E N F A R B
DATE
JUDGE
ON BEHALF
OF
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY
LAW FIRM
COURT
TOPIC
2015
Panel
Claimant
Chatham Capital Holdings,
Inc., v. Continental Casualty
Company
Martin E. Karlinsky
Karlinsky LLC
Arbitration, New
York, NY
Insurance Coverage
2014
Panel
Claimant
Eulen, S.A., et al. v. Jose C.
Lorenzo et al
Allan J. Sullivan
Sullivan.Ruvoldt,
PLLC
International
Arbitration Miami,
FL
Post Closing
Dispute
2014
De La Cruz
Defendant
Perelman v. Cohen
Michael Stein
Pashman Stein
Superior Court
Bergen County, NJ
Damages from
Undue Influence
2013
Mauskoff
Defendant
United States of America v.
Christopher Finazzo
Robert J. A. Zito
Carter Ledyard &
Milburn, LLP
Federal District
Court Brooklyn, NY
Alleged Kickback
Scheme
2013
Panel
Claimant
Texas Gas & Oil, Ltd. v. PMI
Trading (PeMex subsidiary)
Peter J. Gutowski
Freehill Hogan &
Mahar, LLP
International
Arbitration New
York, NY
Lost Profits
2012
Forrest
Plaintiff
Great Lakes Dredge &
Dock et al. v. M/T Orange
Sun et al.
Wayne D. Meehan
Freehill Hogan &
Mahar, LLP
Federal District
Court New York,
NY
Lost Profits
2011
Bennett
Respondent
Metzger, Inc. v. FujiFilm
et al.
Vincent N. Avallone
K&L Gates, LLP
Arbitration New
York, NY
Breach of Contract
2011
Sheridan
Plaintiff
Sharp Corporation v.
Dell, Inc.
Richard S. Taffet
Bingham
McCutchen, LLP
Federal District
Court Trenton, NJ
Trademark
Infringement
2011
Hellerstein
Defendant
Deep Woods Holdings
v. SDIF of Turkey
John A. Basinger
Baker &
McKenzie, LLP
Federal District
Court New York,
NY
Bank Valuation
T R I A L AND HEARING T E S T I M O N Y O F S A M R O S E N F A R B
DATE
JUDGE
ON BEHALF
OF
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY
LAW FIRM
COURT
TOPIC
2010
Panel
Respondent
Battery Park City
Authority v. Brookfield
Properties
Peter Wang
Foley &
Lardner, LLP
Arbitration New
York, NY
GAAP Dispute
2010
Panel
Counter
Claimants
1818 Mezzanine Fund v.
Glenn Edwards and
Scott R. Mixer
R. Scott Thompson
Lowenstein
Sandler, P.C.
Arbitration New
York, NY
Breach of Reps &
Warranties
2009
Hard
Plaintiff
Signature Health
Center, LLC v. The State of
New York
Douglas Sanders
Baker, Sanders,
Barshay, LLC et
al
Court of Claims
Albany, NY
Health Care
Damages
2009
Contillo
Defendants
Perelman as Executor v.
Booth Computers and
James Cohen
Frank Huttle
DeCotiis,
FitzPatrick &
Cole, LLP
Superior Court
Bergen County NJ
Real Estate
Partnership
2009
Gammerman
Plaintiff
Herson et al v. Troon
Management, Inc, and
Noel Levine
Michael Zaransky
Chapman
Zaransky, LLP
Supreme Court
New York, NY
Real Estate
Management
2008
Baer
Defendant
Cerveceria Modelo,
S.A. v. USPA
Accessories, LLC
Ira Tokayer
Law Offices of Ira
Tokayer
Federal District
Court New York,
NY
Trademark
Infringement
2008
Francis
Defendant
Gerald Gershaw v. Stuart
Carlitz and Therapedic
Sleep Products, Inc. et al.
Laurence B. Orloff
Orloff,
Lowenbach,
Stifelman &
Siegel, P.A.
Superior Court
Middlesex County.
NJ
Tax Fraud
2008
Gerges
Plaintiff
Ray Realty, Inc. v.
Kwang Hee Lee
Edward G. McCabe
Certilman Balin
Adler & Hyman,
LLP
Supreme Court
Kings County NY
Lost Profits
2007
Milonas
Respondent
Dalia Genger v.
Arie Genger
David W. Lentz
Lentz & Gengaro,
LLP
Arbitration New
York, NY
Business Valuation
T R I A L AND HEARING T E S T I M O N Y O F S A M R O S E N F A R B
DATE
JUDGE
ON BEHALF
OF
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY
LAW FIRM
COURT
TOPIC
2007
Panel
Respondent
Convergia Networks, Inc.v.
Huawei Technologies Co.
Ltd et al.
Jay Alexander
Baker Botts, LLP
International
Arbitration New
York, NY
Contract Damages
2006
Rudolph
Defendant
Steven Solomon et al. v.
Urban Dental
Management, Inc. et al
Edward G. McCabe
Certilman Balin
Adler & Hyman,
LLP
Supreme Court
Westchester
County, NY
Damages
2006
Brown
Plaintiff
U.S Trust Corporation v.
Jamison et al.
Lawrence Carnevale
Carter Ledyard &
Milburn, LLP
Federal District
Court Trenton, NJ
Lost Profits
2006
Bernstein
Plaintiff
Merrill Lynch et al. v.
American
Reprographics et al.
Jantra Van Roy
Zeichner Ellman
& Krause, LLP
US Bankruptcy
Court New York,
NY
Damages from
Diverted Business
2005
Bissell
Defendant
Charles Lomack, et al. v.
City of Newark, et al.
Carolyn McIntosh
City of Newark
Corporate
Counsel
Federal District
Court Newark, NJ
Compliance with
Consent Decree
2004
Reiss
Defendant
Dawn Hotel, LLC, et al. v.
Robert Peters, et al.
Nathan Ferst
Law Office of
Nathan Ferst
Arbitration New
York, NY
Lost Profits
Calculation
2004
Schmidt
Plaintiff
Ray Realty Fulton, Inc.
v. Kwang Hee Lee
Edward G. McCabe
Certilman Balin
Adler & Hyman,
LLP
Supreme Court
Kings County NY
Fraudulent
Conveyance
2003
Andren
Respondent
Taiwanese
Representative v. US
Engineering Co.
William Sondericker
Carter Ledyard &
Milburn, LLP
ICC Arbitration
New York, NY
Damages
Calculation
2002
JCMUACom
mission
Plaintiff
Cali Harborside
Associates v. Jersey City
Municipal Util. Auth.
Richard L. Rudin
Weiner Lesniak,
LLP
Jersey City
Utilities Authority
Rate Calculation
T R I A L AND HEARING T E S T I M O N Y O F S A M R O S E N F A R B
DATE
JUDGE
ON BEHALF
OF
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY
LAW FIRM
COURT
TOPIC
2001
Voorhees
Respondent
Marcia Goldstein v. Leon
Goldstein
Pamela Cerruti
Law Office of
Pam Cerruti
Arbitration Essex
County NJ
Alimony Adjustment
2001
Michels
Plaintiff
Samuel Weinstock v.
Herman Weinstock
Tab Rosenfeld
Rosenfeld &
Kaplan, LLP
Arbitration Essex
County NJ
Business Valuation
2001
Mecca
Plaintiff
Mathias Zemel v. Dr. & Mrs.
Mahmud Bengash, et al.
Margo Zemel
Zemel & Zemel,
P.C.
Superior Court
Bergen County NJ
Personal Injury
Damages
2001
Tribunal
Respondent
US Manufacturer v.
Japanese Trading
Company
William. Sondericker
Carter Ledyard &
Milburn, LLP
Arbitration New
York, NY
Breach of Contract
Damages
2001
Bissell
Defendant
United States v. Robert
W. Lee Sr. and Robert W.
Lee, Jr.
Gerald Krovatin
Krovatin &
Klingeman, LLC
U.S. District Court
Newark, NJ
Income tax issues
Superior Court
Morris County NJ
Business Valuation
1999
Wilson
Plaintiff
Hansen v. Hansen
Gary Newman
Newman,
McDonough,
Schofel & Giger,
P.C.
1999
Klein
Plaintiff
North Dover Ob-Gyn
Keith Burns
Burns &
Associates
Arbitration Ocean
County NJ
Valuation of
Components of
Goodwill
1998
Schaeffer
Defendant
Robert Starbuck v.
Jacqueline Munro
John N. Post
Post Polak
Goodsell MacNeill
& Strauchler,P.A.
Superior Court of
NJ, Morris County
Accounting Theory
1998
Weiss
Plaintiff
Dwight Weeks v. James
& Louise Pinkin, et al.
Patrick Collins
Franzblau &
Dratch, P.C.
Superior Court
Union County NJ
Breach of Contract
Damages
D E P O S I T I O N T E S T I M O N Y O F S AM R O S E N F AR B
DATE
ON BEHALF OF
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY
LAW FIRM
TOPIC
2014
Counterclaim Plaintiffs
Michelin, et al. v. Inter City
Tire, et al
Michael J. Connolly
Hinckley, Allen & Snyder
LLP
Antitrust/Price
Discrimination
Damages
2014
Claimant
Eulen, S.A., et al. v. Jose
C. Lorenzo et al
Allan J. Sullivan
Sullivan.Ruvoldt, PLLC
Post Closing
Dispute
2014
Defendant
Knockout Vending
Worldwide, LLC et al. v.
Grodsky Caporrino &
Kaufman CPA's et al.
Tab Rosenfeld
Rosenfeld & Kaplan,
LLP
Accounting
Malpractice
2014
Defendant
Vincent Crepy v. Reckitt
Benckiser LLC
Vincent N. Avallone
K&L Gates, LLP
Employment
Damages
2013
Plaintiff
James Cramer et al.
v. The Stone
Foundation et al.
Lisa A. Grattan
Bourne, Noll & Kenyon,
P.C.
Accounting
Malpractice
2013
Defendant
Jing Zhang et al. v.
Jenzabar, Inc et al.
Mark A. Beckman
Gordon & Rees, LLP
Embezzlement
2013
Defendant
Samantha O. Perelman v.
James Cohen
Jonathan Bauer
DeCotiis, FitzPatrick &
Cole, LLP
Estate Litigation
2013
Plaintiff
International Flavors &
Fragrances, Inc. v. Day
Pitney, LLP et al.
William R. Fried
Herrick, Feinstein, LLP
Legal
Malpractice
2013
Defendant
Kenneth Neary et al.
v. Robert H. Williams,
Esq. et al.
Sean X. Kelly
Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien,
Doherty & Kelly, P.C.
Legal
Malpractice
2011
Respondent
Metzger, Inc. v. FujiFilm
et al.
Vincent N. Avallone
K&L Gates, LLP
Breach of
Contract
D E P O S I T I O N T E S T I M O N Y O F S AM R O S E N F AR B
DATE
ON BEHALF OF
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY
LAW FIRM
TOPIC
2011
Plaintiff
SCF Arizona
v. Wachovia Bank
Martin Karlinsky
Butzel Long, P.C.
Fiduciary Breach
2010
Defendant
Deep Woods Holdings
v. SDIF of Turkey
John A. Basinger
Baker &
McKenzie, LLP
Bank Valuation
2010
Plaintiff
Sharp Corp. v. Dell
Computer Corp.
Edward F. Maluf
Bingham
McCutchen, LLP
Trademark
Infringement
2010
Defendant
Port Authority v. Pittston
Warehouse Corp.
Lewis Cohn
Witman
Stadtmauer, P.A.
Breach of Lease
2010
Defendant
Denac and Pala v.
Patasnik
Stephen M. Charme
Witman
Stadtmauer, P.A.
Reasonable
Compensation
2009
Defendant
Ronald Perelman, as
Executor v. Booth
Computers
Jason D. Attwood
DeCotiis, FitzPatrick &
Cole, LLP
Accounting Issue
2009
Respondent
Battery Park City
Authority v. WFP Tower
A Co. L.P.
Jeremy Wallison
Foley & Lardner, LLP
Accounting
Dispute
2008
Plaintiff
Goldwell of New Jersey,
Inc. v. KPSS, Inc.
Jeff Zucker
Fisher & Zucker LLC
Breach of
Franchise
Agreement
2008
Defendant
Gershaw v. Stuart Carlitz
and Therapedic Sleep
Products, Inc.
Laurence B. Orloff
Orloff, Lowenbach,
Stifelman & Siegel, P.A.
Breach of
Shareholders’
Agreement
2007
Plaintiff
Med Alert Ambulance,
Inc. v. Atlantic Health
System, Inc. et al.
Ralph C. Hofer
Blecher & Collins, P.C.
Damages from
Antitrust
Violation
2007
Plaintiff
GFI Brokers, LLC v. John
Santana
Lawrence Carnevale
Carter Ledyard &
Milburn, LLP
Liquidated
Damages
D E P O S I T I O N T E S T I M O N Y O F S AM R O S E N F AR B
DATE
ON BEHALF OF
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY
LAW FIRM
TOPIC
2007
Defendant
Convergia Networks, Inc.
et al. v. Huawei
Technologies Co. Ltd et al.
Jay Alexander
Baker Botts, LLP
Contract
Damages
2007
Defendant
Paul Marcus v.
Lincolnshire Management,
Inc.
Gregory T. Heyman
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Business
Valuation
2006
Defendant
Stanley Capital v.
NovaStar Home Mortgage,
Inc. et al.
Adam N. Saravay
McCarter & English, LLP
Damages from
Employee Raid
2006
Plaintiff
Dicar, Inc. et al. v. Alan D.
Kirkpatrick, Jr. et al.
David L. Harris
Lowenstein
Sandler, P.C.
Intangible Asset
Valuation
2006
Plaintiff
U.S. Mineral Products v.
Anderson Kill & Olick
Gerald Krovatin
Krovatin &
Klingeman, LLC
Damages from
Legal
Malpractice
2006
Plaintiff
U.S Trust Corporation v.
Jamison et al.
Lawrence Carnevale
Carter Ledyard &
Milburn, LLP
Lost Profits
2005
Claimant
NJ Manufacturer v.
Sonoco Products
Company
William D. Wallach
McCarter & English, LLP
Breach of Supply
Contract
2005
Plaintiff
Vance Wilson v. Daffy's,
Inc. et al.
Roger B. Kaplan
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Projected
Operations
2005
Plaintiff
Merrill Lynch, et al. v.
American
Reprographics, et al.
Jantra Van Roy
Zeichner Ellman &
Krause, LLP
Intangible
Business
Value
2005
Defendant
Charles Lomack, et al. v.
City of Newark, et al.
Carolyn McIntosh
City of Newark Corporate
Counsel
Compliance with
Consent Decree
2005
Defendant
Robert L. DeWelt v.
Measurement Specialties,
Inc., et al.
Tab Rosenfeld
Rosenfeld & Kaplan, LLP
Restatement of
Financial
Statements
D E P O S I T I O N T E S T I M O N Y O F S AM R O S E N F AR B
DATE
ON BEHALF OF
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY
LAW FIRM
TOPIC
2003
Defendant
Gregory F. Sullivan, M.D.
v. McCarter & English
Laurence B. Orloff
Orloff, Lowenbach,
Stifelman & Siegel, P.A.
Damages from
Legal
Malpractice
2003
Plaintiff
Donna Fried Calcaterra v.
Joseph R. Pagano
Bennett J. Wasserman
Stryker, Tams & Dill LLP
Damages from
Legal
Malpractice
2003
Defendant
Amerace Corp. v. Aetna
Casualty & Surety
Company, et al.
Dennis Monaghan
Graham Curtin, P.A.
Pre-judgment
Interest
2002
Defendant
Rohm and Haas v.
American Cyanamid, et al.
Mark S. Olinsky
Sills Cummis Radin
Tischman Epstein &
Gross, P.A.
Costs of
Environmental
Cleanup
2001
Defendant
Carroll v. Estate of Ross
Weiss
Keith Burns
Burns & Associates
Fiduciary
Accounting
2001
Plaintiff
Sherrie Krupnick v. Ronald
Klein, CPA
Donald Bab
Sokolow & Carreras LLP
Accounting
Malpractice
1999
Defendant
Shui v. Zipf
Frank Lloyd
Harwood Lloyd, LLC
Wrongful
Termination
Damages
1998
Plaintiff
Air & Water Technologies
Corp., et al.
v. Jeffrey Cantwell
Gerald Krovatin
Krovatin &
Klingeman, LLC
Accounting
Errors and
Damages
1998
Defendant
Picinich v. Hiza
Dolph Corradino
Law Office of Dolph
Corradino
Accounting
Malpractice
1997
Plaintiff
Lad Construction v.
Taylor Woodrow
Construction Corps
Steven Brawer
Lowenstein
Sandler, P.C.
Construction
Damages
1997
Plaintiff
Haselkorn v. Haselkorn
Edward Snyder
Wolff & Samson P.C.
Business
Valuation
CURRICULUM VITAE
Roman Z. Matatov
Roman.Matatov@rosenfarb.com
(855) 415‐5500
CERTIFICATIONS
Certified
Public
Accountant
(CPA), licensed in New York State
Certified in Financial Forensics
(CFF)
Certified Valuation Analyst (CVA)
Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE)
Certified Forensic Accountant
(Cr. FA)
ACADEMIC
PURSUITS
AND
ACHIEVEMENTS
2008 – Present, Adjunct Lecturer,
Principles of Forensic Accounting,
Baruch College
M.S., Accountancy, Beta Gamma
Sigma, Baruch College
B.B.A., Finance and Investments,
magna cum laude,Baruch College
SUMMARY
Roman Zaurovich Matatov is a Forensic Accountant and
Business Appraiser, specializing in business and intellectual
property disputes. Mr. Matatov’s practice also includes
appraising intangible assets, intellectual properties and
business interests; commercial and matrimonial litigation
support; investigative accounting; and insolvency and
reorganization work for troubled businesses.
Mr. Matatov is engaged by clients to assist with disputes
and valuations in various industries including animation,
branded apparel, consumer electronics, food technology,
hospitality, insurance underwriting, internet and
traditional retail and wholesale, pharmaceutical
development and manufacturing, real estate development,
and telecommunications. He has been involved in several
high‐profile and complex matters, including determining
trademark damages related to billions of dollars of alleged
infringing sales; valuing the brand and patented
technology for a food technology company; calculating the
destroyed value of several businesses affected by the
September 11th terrorist attacks; investigating malpractice
related to a “Big Four” audit of an international company;
and tracing recoverable assets in connection with a well‐
known, multi‐million dollar mortgage fraud.
Mr. Matatov’s earlier diverse background includes
private industry accounting and taxation for small
businesses and entrepreneurs. Mr. Matatov frequently
presents before professional associations and currently
teaches M.B.A. students Principles of Forensic Accounting
at his alma mater.
PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), Forensic and Valuation Services Section, CFF Champion
New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants (NYSSCPA), Manhattan/Bronx Chapter, Past President
National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts (NACVA)
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), New York City Chapter, Past President and Training Director
American College of Forensic Examiners Institute (ACFEI)
UJA Federation of New York, Russian Leadership Division Member
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Observer to the Board of Directors
Shorefront Jewish Community Council, Board Member
Rosenfarb LLC ▪ www.rosenfarb.com ▪ (855) 415‐1100
825 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 ▪ 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068
Jorge A. Amador is of counsel to The Grant Law Firm, PLLC. Mr. Amador is a member of the
Bar of California, a Certified Public Accountant, Certified in Financial Forensics, a Certified
Fraud Examiner, and is fluent in Spanish. For over 20 years, Mr. Amador has prosecuted
class actions and private actions on behalf of defrauded investors, particularly in the area
of accounting fraud. He has investigated and participated in the litigation of highly
complex accounting scandals involving some of America’s largest corporations including
Enron, Tyco, Rite Aid, Countrywide, and Xerox. Mr. Amador regularly lectures on a variety
of accounting and legal topics. He is an adjunct lecturer at Baruch College where he
teaches a graduate level course on Financial Statement Analysis. He has also been a
speaker and the co-chair of the Practising Law Institute’s Accounting for Lawyers 2-day
conference.
Professional Affiliations
•
•
•
•
Bar of California
Certified Public Accountant
Certified in Financial Forensics
Certified Fraud Examiner
Practices
•
•
•
Case Evaluation & Litigation
Securities Fraud
Accounting Malpractice
Education
•
•
Concord School of Law, 2005
Norwich University, B.S., 1985, Business Administration – Accounting 1985
Admissions*
•
•
California
United States District Courts for the Northern District of California
Languages
•
Spanish
*Admitted only in California