Valuation lessons from the High Court
26 July 2017
This 2012 High Court case is interesting for the comments made by Justice Eder about Expert valuations.
Stabilus was a leading German manufacturer of gas springs and hydraulic vibration dampers used in the automotive industry which was the subject of a number of transactions. In 2008 it was bought by Paine & Partners LLC for €519M. Shortly afterwards got into financial difficulty and underwent a major restructuring in 2009 which carved up all the value to the Senior Lenders leaving nothing for the Mezzanine lenders.
Unsurprisingly – with €83M at stake in the Mezz layer – the Mezzanine lenders challenged the validity of the restructuring. Three different valuation firms gave opinions and three of the “big four” accounting firms were involved one way or another.
The judgement 100 pages long judgement had some key lessons for business valuation.
Use of previous valuations
If they’ve been prepared for internal reporting purposes rather than “fair market value” then they’re not suitable support
Business plans
Adjusting forecasts without considering the reasons for variations is not acceptable, and past variations from plan are not an automatic indication that there will be future variations.
Other Experts Reports
The Expert must request to see other Witness reports to check assumptions and any deviations from their viewpoint. Any deviations must be fully supported.
Discount to EBITDA multiples relative to guideline companies
The judge was happy that EBITDA multiples should be discounted. He commented that applying a discount is qualitative rather than quantitative.
The Expert needs to compare the risk, size, growth pattern of the business being valued to the guideline company when estimating a suitable discount. Stabilius had a lower growth rate than the rest of the industry which justified a lower multiple.
Hindsight
The valuer must focus on the facts and business outlook as at the valuation date. Hindsight is not a sense check for assumptions at the valuation date.
Ultimately the Judge agreed for the most part with the American Appraisal valuation – that the mezzanine debt had no economic value at the date of valuation.