Valuation evidence lawyers can interrogate

When a dispute turns on value — a shareholding bought out, a contract breached, a business diminished — the evidence placed before a court or tribunal is rarely just a number. It is a chain of reasoning: a question defined, a basis of value chosen, approaches selected, data weighed, assumptions disclosed. For disputes lawyers and arbitrators, the practical question is whether that chain can be interrogated link by link.

Why cross-border disputes need a common reference point

Valuation evidence now routinely crosses borders. An arbitration seated in one jurisdiction may involve experts trained in two others, applying methods shaped by different professional traditions. The IVSC has set out why the International Valuation Standards (IVS) matter to lawyers, judges, expert witnesses and arbitrators: they offer credibility in cross-border disputes, consistency between experts, and a principles-based framework flexible enough to accommodate different assets and contexts.

That common ground is widely available. IVS are used as a framework in more than 100 countries, so asking opposing experts to explain their work by reference to IVS is rarely an exotic request.

The anatomy of a valuation counsel can test

The General Standards within IVS follow the sequence of a valuation engagement itself: IVS 101 Scope of Work, IVS 102 Bases of Value, IVS 103 Valuation Approaches, IVS 104 Data and Inputs, IVS 105 Valuation Models and IVS 106 Documentation and Reporting, all sitting beneath the IVS 100 Valuation Framework.

Each stage offers a line of inquiry. Was the scope of work defined before the conclusion was reached? Which basis of value was adopted, and does it match the question the tribunal must answer? Why was one approach preferred over another? Where did the data come from, and how was its reliability assessed? A report prepared with IVS in mind should be able to answer these questions on its face.

A range is not an admission

Counsel sometimes treat a range of outcomes, or a candid statement of uncertainty, as a weakness to be exploited. The IVSC’s Valuation Risk Working Group takes a different view. Its perspectives paper on managing and communicating value uncertainty describes value uncertainty as inherent in valuation rather than evidence of failure, and distinguishes it from valuation risk — errors of process, which can be mitigated. Even a fully IVS-compliant valuation may yield a range of credible outcomes, and the paper argues that transparency about uncertainty strengthens, rather than undermines, confidence in a conclusion.

For a tribunal, the distinction is useful. An expert who explains the sources of uncertainty in a valuation, and how they were managed, is demonstrating discipline. A single figure presented with apparent precision, but without that explanation, invites harder questions, not fewer.

Questions worth asking of any expert report

A working checklist follows naturally from the standards. Does the report state its basis of value and explain why it fits the matter in dispute? Are significant assumptions identified as such, and is their effect on the conclusion visible? Could another competent valuer follow the documentation from inputs to conclusion? Where management-supplied information was used, was it tested or merely accepted?

None of this requires counsel to become valuers. It requires a framework against which evidence can be examined — which is what the standards provide. The role of the valuation expert in legal settings continues to evolve, a theme the IVSC explores in On the Future of the Valuation and Damages Expert and through its ongoing legal outreach work, including its Legal Outreach Survey. For practitioners on either side of a dispute, the direction of travel is consistent: valuation evidence is strongest when it can be interrogated, and a common framework is what makes interrogation possible.