Disputes Valuations

The Peloton team has extensive experience assisting parties involved in commercial, tax, family and regulatory disputes.

Our team has provided expert testimony and reports in various jurisdictions including:

• Federal Court
• Supreme Court (Vic, WA, NSW)
• Federal Circuit and Family Court
• WA State Administrative Tribunal
• Telecommunications Ombudsman hearing
• Postal price regulation (ACCC)
• Australian Electricity Regulator hearings (AER)
• South Australian water regulator (ESCOSA)
• Victorian electricity regulator (ESC Vic)
• NSW price regulator (IPART)
• Queensland energy regulator (QRA)

Our team has worked with clients including government agencies, parties subject to compulsory acquisition processes, large ASX-listed companies, infrastructure owners, revenue authorities (Australia and New Zealand), shareholders in unlisted businesses, partners in unincorporated businesses, parties involved in Family Law disputes and individuals who have suffered personal injury.

We are well-versed in the requirements and expectations of the Federal Court Expert Witness Guidelines and share the judicial philosophy and objective of seeking answers to commercial and regulatory problems with an open, independent and unbiased mind.

What type of disputes can Peloton help us with?

The Peloton team has been involved in a wide variety of disputes involving valuation and valuation-related issues including:

• Loss of profits in relation to compulsory acquisition and personal injury claims
• Compulsory acquisition by government agencies and infrastructure operators
• Business valuation in commercial and regulatory contexts
• Complex international transfer pricing disputes
• Intangible asset valuations for regulatory and commercial purposes
• Cost of capital formulation for regulatory purposes
• Value of minority discounts in shareholder disputes
• Complex valuation issues involving securities and cross-border transactions
• A wide range of tax (ITAA) matters

As in independent, specialist valuation firm, Peloton is free of many of the commercial and actual conflicts which constrain multi-service firms such as audit and insolvency practices.

Peloton’s work is appreciated by the lawyers involved

Very few of the disputes in which we are involved proceed to hearing – the vast majority settling in advance.

The lawyer for a major client made the following statement with respect to landmark litigation led by Michael Churchill’s report and evidence: “I congratulate you on your performance in the witness box during last month’s hearing.  You were professional, clear and concise and, most importantly of all, very helpful to the Court.  More generally, I commend you for providing considered advice on the issues raised in the proceedings, timely responses to requests from Counsel and timely preparation of a thorough report.”

The mediator (retired High Court judge) in a major mining and refining stamp duty dispute commented that our report – one of seven expert opinions presented – addressed the valuation of the company’s assets in the most clear and logical manner and consequently was the one he preferred.

Examples of our work

In Origin Energy Power Ltd and Commissioner of State Revenue [2007] WASAT 302, Justice Barker said (293 and 298) “…In the event, I consider there is considerable force in the analysis made [by Mr Churchill] on behalf of the Commissioner in relation to the consideration of goodwill in this case….In the particular factual circumstances presented to the Tribunal, the expert opinion of Mr Churchill supports the view that the legal notion of goodwill is not satisfied in this case.”

In Hosking  v  Ipex  Software Services Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 299 (25 August 2004) Justice Habersrberger said (at 135) “… I found Mr Churchill to be a credible witness in respect of the limited evidence he was able to give.”

In the judgement in the Supreme Court of Victoria in a dispute related to the Timbercorp managed investment schemes (BOSI Security Services Limited v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Ors). , Davies J commented “Mr Churchill adequately explained his reasons for using the IRRs of other similar managed investment schemes and in my view, those reasons have cogency” (paragraph 155). In relation to Mr Churchill’s evidence on discount rate, Davies J commented “Senior counsel for the growers criticised the [Churchill] logic of the grossing up. I do not accept the criticism as the analysis did not lack logic, in my view, but was well reasoned and realistic” (paragraph 159) and “I am persuaded by Mr Churchill’s reasoning that the discount rate of 25% is justified and appropriate”