What do you do, as an arbitrator, when presented with quantum assessments and expert evidence that are significantly divergent? How do you cut through the complexity and focus on the issues that really matter? Would it be appropriate to pick the more convincing parts of one expert’s calculations and drop them into the other expert’s model? Is there only one right answer?
To help arbitrators — present and aspiring — to deal with these challenges effectively, EY, together with the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge Young Practitioners Subcommittee and ArbitralWomen, with support from the Rising Arbitrators Initiative, is hosting a virtual workshop series. The series will give you an understanding of the key aspects of quantum and expert evidence, the drivers of differences between experts, and the options available to narrow down and/or resolve the differences.
The series is sponsored by Maggie Stilwell (Partner) and Sanaa Babaa (Director) from EY’s Forensic & Integrity Services practice and will be led by experienced quantum professionals from EY’s Claims & Disputes team.
Session 1: When experts disagree — Business valuations
This session will focus on the reasons why experts, working on opposite sides of a dispute, may form different opinions. The discussion will centre on a business valuation case study where participants will have the opportunity to apply business valuation concepts and to explore some of the reasons why two experts’ valuations of the same business can differ. We will also consider the impact that particular characteristics of the business may have on its valuation, for example the industry or country where the business operates. In the course of this session we will cover:
- The technical basis for business valuations and commonly accepted approaches
- Common reasons why business valuation experts may disagree
- Practical examples of how those differences arise and their impact