AbitibiBowater, Inc. (fka ABWTQ)

[emailjanum]

The development of a valuation narrative drawn from numerous valuation cases
points to an impressive judicial display of mastery of methodology, technical
process, and procedure. Cases like Judge Carey's ACV suggest a thoughtful and
deliberate methodology in developing a robust valuation opinion. Cases like Judge
Peck's Iridium persuasively suggest that for public companies, the market through a
market capitalization assessment, may be the most reliable indicator of value,
particularly in avoidance actions where the valuation standard is a "fair valuation."
These cases often remind us in complex systems, like valuations of businesses, the
party with the ultimate burden of persuasion may simply fail to prove its case.
Cases like Judge Lynn's Mirant thoughtfully suggest that holding a separate hearing
on valuation before the confirmation hearing allows a court and parties the
opportunity to address valuation in a deliberate and thoughtful environment, at least
partially insulated from the momentum and distractions inherent at a confirmation
hearing. These cases further remind us that the role of a bankruptcy court is
modest; has an expert shown that the testimony she is offering will assist the trier of
fact, is relevant to the issues, and is reliable? If the expert's report is flawed, the
court should conclude that it is inadmissible or send the expert back to get the
methodology right. If new facts have developed between the preparation of the
expert report and the valuation hearing, a court should send the experts back to their
analysis with the new facts. The court, however, should generally refrain from the
"search and select" method, compromising valuation estimates, or cobbling its own
"expert" opinion. These cases warn us that courts generally make poor valuation
experts.

http://testwww.stjohns.edu/media/3/72c51e24b0c346e1b756bcf61fd78449.pdf