Whether there is a divorce and the value of marital assets is questioned or there is a partner or shareholder dispute over the value of a closely held company, the parties involved generally approach the value from two very different vantage points. Managing the expectations of the parties involved can result in substantially lower professional fees and more satisfied clients.

For example, in a divorce case, the spouse who will be retaining the marital assets is generally seeking a low value since (s)he will be paying the other spouse for his/her share of the marital assets. On the other hand, the spouse looking to be bought out of the marital assets is usually looking for a higher value.

Many times it is left up to the opposing attorneys to negotiate this wide gap in value. The valuation expert can help bridge this gap. Much of the valuation process is a tool in educating the various parties as to reasonable values. Once all parties are equally and adequately educated as to all the specific facts and circumstances that affect value, bridging this gap is much easier.

A current trend in divorce litigation and other dispute resolution cases is for both parties to jointly retain one independent expert to determine the issue of value. The role of the valuation expert in this case is critical. The benefits are:

• The independent expert can educate each party to the dispute and can better manage each party’s expectations and (hopefully) bring the parties to a common middle ground regarding the resolution process and the potential outcomes.
  
  
• By using one, neutral expert, both parties can achieve significant cost savings. Often, there is no need to have two opposing valuation experts engaged.
  
  
• Tension and stress between parties are often reduced. The dispute resolutions can become more of a cooperative work out arrangement than a battle over value, with the valuation expert as a mediator.
  
  
• Protection of asset values. The value of portfolio or marital assets often lose significant value during extended litigation. Proper investment decisions may be foregone because the assets are tied up in dispute or because the owner’s focus is on the dispute rather than maximizing the value of the assets. Additionally, closely held operating businesses may suffer should the dispute become public and both parties begin airing "dirty laundry."