Central Washington Appraisal, Economic & Forensics, LLC  

 Experienced Appraisal, Economic and Litigation Support Services  

Serving Central Washington's Businesses, Legal Community, and Lenders.. 


Blog

view:  full / summary

Nautilus v Biosig - US Supreme Court Case and Claim Construction

Posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM Comments comments (0)

If you wear a heart monitor when exercising, here is a case for you! You can think of it as you run or bike on the trail sweeting bullets and running away from the mosquitos.

 

All kidding aside, Nautilus v Biosig​ was a case that practitioners--mainly patent counsel--and their invetors eagerly anticipated and ... they will be very disappointed with the end result. The question before the Court was essentially how clear must patent claims be?

 

Now, I am not a patent attorney, I am an attorney, business broker and valuation/appraisal geek so this is a good case to think about as I consider the value (if any) of a patent, value of the company (if any), and saleability of a business owning IP. That said, patent prosecutors earn their "bread and butter" writing the claims to uphold the application (yes, they do more than that ... but writing claims is a substantial part of the business and not doing it properly can be a problem, a big problem). The Patent Act requires that a patent specification "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the] invention." 35 U.S.C. sec. 112.

 

The Federal Circuit (which hears patent cases) has recognized patents --that is the patent threshhold is meet--so long as the claim, as construed, is "amenable to construction," and the claim, as construed, is not "insolubly ambiguous." Merriam-Webster defines "insoluble" as "cannot be dissolved in a liquid" and "not able to be solved or explained". What is "insolubly ambiguous" is a mystery to me and a huge pay-day for patent attorneys and their law firms. So, what did the U.S. Supreme Court have to say about this standard? Here are the bullets:

The Federal Circuit's "formulation, which tolerates some ambiguous claims but not others, does not satisfy the statute's definiteness requirement."

 

They proposed a new standard, which goes like this:

 

"[W]e hold that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention."

It appears that the initial inquiry for definiteness involves evaluating the claim(s) "from the perspective of someone skilled in the relevant art.

Second, "in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent's specification and prosecution history".

​Third, "definitiness is measured from the viewpoint of a person skilled in the art at the time the patent was filed.

Here, Nautils argued that the patent --of the opposing party--was invalid and that "definteness" fails when a claim is "ambiguous, such that readers could reasonably interpret the claim's scope differently." Biosig and the Solicitor General would require only "that the patent provide reasonable notice of the scope of the claimed invention."

 

Nautilus' counsel was asked whether the challenged claims where "amenable to construction" or "insolubly ambiguous"; the answer was, of course, favorable to their client and position.

 

The Court therefore created this new four-prong standard and observed that it agreed with Nautilus and its amici "that such terminology can leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass." More on point, the Court observed that "Nautilus maintains that the claim term "spaced relationship" is open to multiple interpretations reflecting markedly different understandings of the patent's scope, as exemplified by the disagreement among members of the Federal Circuit panel. Biosig responds that 'space relationship,' read in light of the specification and as illustrated in the accompanying drawings, delineates the permissible spacing with sufficient precision."

 

This case has been remanded so that the Court of Appeals "can reconsider, under the proper standard, whether the relevant claims in '753 patent are sufficiently definite."

 

As some lawyers (and some others may say), "the Court punted". The compass they provided is not--in my opinion--any better than the "insoluble ambiguity". Furthermore, the case exemplifies the importance of drafting claims and the vague standards and problems that arise in these high dollar cases where the defendant raises the ambiguity argument to defeat the infringement and damages claims brought by a plaintiff.

Multi-Family and Return on Investment Example

Posted on May 14, 2014 at 12:10 AM Comments comments (0)

The subject of commercial real estate is not one I have posted on ... so, it is time to post something on commercial real estate.  Multi-family housing seems like a good starting point.  I picked a Chelan County posting where the purported cap rate is 8.0%, which is a bit generous (currently) for this type of investment.    I ran the numbers and made some assumptions about the expenses.  Was the asking price consistent with the 8% cap rate?? No, not even close.  A buyer buying into that would have seriously overpaid.


The following is a summary of a quick analysis done to test the purported number.; the price consistent with an 8% cap rate, based on my calculation and estimates, is shown below:

 

Multi-family Apartment Building Acquisition - Central Washington Appraisal, Economic & Forensics, LLC

www.cwa-appraisal.com (509) 679-3668

 

Project Name/Address:   Chelan  Cty Apt Example

Today's Date 5/13/2014 Value

Number of Units 3 Units Lot Size 0.40 Acres

Year Built 1982 Building SF 3,000 GSF

Acquisition Uses and Sources of Funds Going-in Cap Rate: 8.03% GRM: 4.84 Per Unit

Purchase Price $48 PSF /$145,148 /$48,383

Acquisition Costs 4.00% $5,806

Renovation Budget $10,000

Total Uses of Funds (Total Cost) $160,953

% Total Cost * Interest

Total Equity (includes Acquisition Costs) 40.00%  $67,865 Annual PMT

Mezzanine Loan Amount 0.00% 12.00% $0 $0

Senior Loan Amount 60.00% 6.00% $93,089 ($6,763)

Total Sources of Funds 100.00% $160,953 ($6,763)

* Loan Amounts calculated exclude Acquisition Costs

Months to Stabilization 6 months 11/13/2014

Hold Duration after Stabilization 72 months 11/13/2020

Total Hold Duration 78 months

Global Income Growth Rate: 2.0%

Global Expense Growth Rate: 1.0%

Income TTM Actuals Pro Forma Year 7

Gross Potential Rent (GPR) $30,000 increasing to $33,785

Gross Potential Income $30,000 increasing to $33,785

Plus Vacancy and Credit Loss - 8.90% ($2,670) ($3,007)

Effective Gross Income $27,330 $30,778

Less: Expenses (See Detail below) $14,400 48.0% GPR $15,286 45.2% GPR

Net Operating Income $12,930 43.1% Op. Mgn. $15,492 45.9% Op. Mgn.

Operating Cash Flow $6,167 $8,729

Cash On Cash Return 9.09% 12.86%

Real Estate Taxes $3,000 (estimate yr 1)   $3,185 (estimate yr 7)

Total Expenses $14,400 (estimate yr 1)  $15,286 (estimate yr 7)

Disposition Sale Date: 11/13/2020 

The asking price is $299K; the modelling suggests this cap rate is overstated, as is the price.


Ready to get a serious analysis? We can assist with storage facilities, hotels, lease v buy analysis.  Call us at (509) 679-3668

 

.

Data Analysis with Microsoft Excel by Berk & Carey

Posted on May 12, 2014 at 7:05 PM Comments comments (0)

Another book in the proverbial plate to review is Data Analysis with Microsoft Excel by Berk & Carey.  Wow!  This is a book that Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory might find interesting and useful to detail the information from observations made using his linear particle accelerator. Ha!  In all serousness, it looks like a good read and useful information one can incorporate into the practice.

Economics for Money Managers by Farnham

Posted on May 12, 2014 at 7:05 PM Comments comments (0)

I will be reviewing Economics for Money Managers by Paul G. Farnham in the next few weeks. This is exciting stuff ... only a geek could love!  That is me.

NACVA Conference in June 2014 - What is Covered in this Conference? See Here!

Posted on May 12, 2014 at 3:00 PM Comments comments (0)

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Case Analysis in Person (CAP)

6:30 a.m.–8:15 a.m.

Pre-Conference Symposium Current Update in Valuations (CUV)

8:30 a.m.–10:15 p.m.

7:00 a.m.

Partnering on Client M&A Transactions: A New Client Service Opportunity for CPAs

7:00 a.m.–7:50 a.m.

(Chris Blees)

Risky Business—How to Avoid it in Your Practice

7:00 a.m.–7:50 a.m.

(James Frazier, Kevin Ottley)

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

7:00 a.m.

Around the Valuation World, Vegas 2014—Highlights from the 2014 Current Update in Valuations Symposium

7:00 a.m.–7:50 a.m.

8:00 a.m.

Keynote Address—Cost of Capital Update

8:00 a.m.–9:55 a.m.

(Roger J. Grabowski, Shannon P. Pratt)

10:15 a.m.

Keynote Address—Ivory Tower Irony: How Many Appraisers Can Dance on the Head of the Private Capital Markets?

10:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(John K. Paglia)

12:55 p.m.

Managing the Engagement

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Marc D. Bello, Rod P. Burkert, Mark G. Kucik)

What's that Mean? Five Principles to Avoid Overvaluing a Company

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Lari B. Masten)

Role of the Expert

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Rebekah A. Smith, Howard A. Zandman)

Gift & Estate Tax—Grading the Report and Supporting the Attorney's Objectives

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Peter H. Agrapides)

How Valuation of Healthcare Services and Entities Have Changed Under the Affordable Care Act

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Curtis Bernstein, Alex Kajan)

2:05 p.m.

Normalizing and Control Adjustments

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(Marc D. Bello, Rod P. Burkert, Mark A. Hanson)

What Makes a Proper Calculation Report and What Development Standards Apply?

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(James R. Hitchner)

Managing the Engagement

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(Rebekah A. Smith, Howard A. Zandman)

Conducting Successful Fraud Investigations—Navigating Risk and Avoiding Pitfalls

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(Brieh Guevara)

Emerging Issues in Healthcare Valuation

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(Curtis Bernstein, Cindy Collier, Timothy Smith)

4:00 p.m.

Conversations with the Masters Panel Discussions and Q&A—Valuation Accelerator Q&A

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

(Marc D. Bello, Rod P. Burkert, Mark G. Kucik)

Conversations with the Masters Panel Discussions and Q&A—Valuation Panel

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

(Roger J. Grabowski, James R. Hitchner, Lari B. Masten, John K. Paglia, Shannon P. Pratt)

Conversations with the Masters Panel Discussions and Q&A—Financial Forensics Panel

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

(Peter H. Agrapides, Brieh Guevara, Rebekah A. Smith, Howard A. Zandman)

Industry Specialty Round Table—Commercial and Heavy Construction Contractors

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

Industry Specialty Round Table—Commercial Real Estate Brokerage and Management

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

Industry Specialty Round Table—Dental Practices

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

Industry Specialty Round Table—Physician Practices

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

Industry Specialty Round Table—Restaurants

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

5:40 p.m.

Viva Las Vegas Networking Reception and Exhibits

5:40 p.m.–6:30 p.m.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

7:00 a.m.

Around the Valuation World, Vegas 2014—Highlights from Day One (Wednesday, June 18) of the 2014 Annual Consultants Conference

7:00 a.m.–7:50 a.m.

8:15 a.m.

Income and Asset Approaches

8:15 a.m.–9:55 a.m.

(Rod P. Burkert, Mark G. Kucik, Lari B. Masten)

How to Prepare a Discount for Lack of Marketability for the IRS

8:15 a.m.–9:55 a.m.

(Michael A. Gregory)

Lost Profits and Damages Calculations

8:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(Michael G. Kaplan, Rebekah A. Smith, Howard A. Zandman)

Divorce—Financial Forensics Solutions for Complex Assets

8:15 a.m.–9:55 a.m.

(Robert Vance)

Exit Planning—Transition Planning: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

8:15 a.m.–9:55 a.m.

(Steven M. Egna)

10:15 a.m.

Market Approach

10:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(Rod P. Burkert, Mark A. Hanson, Lari B. Masten)

Normalizing Owner Compensation in Business Valuations

10:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(Stephen D. Kirkland)

Finding Hidden Income and Assets with a Lifestyle Analysis

10:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(Tracy L. Coenen)

Mergers & Acquisitions—Valuation Issues in M&A: Standards, Accounting, and Due Dilligence

10:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(Kent D. Pummel)

12:55 p.m.

Discounts and Premiums

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Rod P. Burkert, Mark A. Hanson, Lari B. Masten)

Implied Private Company Pricing Line

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Peter J. Butler, Robert M. Dohmeyer, Toby Tatum)

Rebuttal Reports and the Defense Expert's Role

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Michael G. Kaplan, Rebekah A. Smith, Howard A. Zandman)

Establishing Lost Profits in the Context of Violating a Non-Compete Agreement

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Michael D. Pakter)

Personal Injury Inputs—Life and Worklife Expectancy Calculations in Valuations

12:55 p.m.–1:50 p.m.

(Scott Kush, Jeremy Sharpe)

2:05 p.m.

Synthesis of Conclusions

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(Rod P. Burkert, Mark A. Hanson, Lari B. Masten)

Governance, Relationships, Risks, and Knowledge—The Cornerstones of Your Valuation Practice

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(Carl L. Sheeler)

Deposition and Testimony

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(Michael G. Kaplan, Rebekah A. Smith, Howard A. Zandman)

Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Economic Damage Calculations

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(James A. Koerber)

Financial Reporting—Is Baby GAAP on the Horizon for Private Companies?

2:05 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

(Mark L. Zyla)

4:00 p.m.

Conversations with the Masters Panel Discussions and Q&A—Valuation Accelerator Q&A

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

(Rod P. Burkert, Mark G. Kucik, Lari B. Masten)

Conversations with the Masters Panel Discussions and Q&A—Valuation Panel

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

(Peter J. Butler, Robert M. Dohmeyer, Richard Gray, Michael A. Gregory, Stephen D. Kirkland, Carl L. Sheeler, Toby Tatum)

Conversations with the Masters Panel Discussions and Q&A—Financial Forensics Panel

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

(Tracy L. Coenen, Michael G. Kaplan, James A. Koerber, Michael D. Pakter, Rebekah A. Smith, Robert Vance, Howard A. Zandman)

Industry Specialty Round Table—Accounting and CPA Services

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

Industry Specialty Round Table—Fast Food and Quick Service Restaurants

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

Industry Specialty Round Table—Legal Services

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

Industry Specialty Round Table—Residential Construction Contractors

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

Industry Specialty Round Table—Food Wholesalers

4:00 p.m.–5:40 p.m.

5:40 p.m.

Aloha Radio Reception and ExhibitsAround the Valuation World, Vegas 2014—Highlights from Day Two (Thursday, June 19) of the 2014 Annual Consultants' Conference

5:40 p.m.–6:30 p.m.

Friday, June 20, 2014

7:00 a.m.

7:00 a.m.–7:50 a.m.

8:15 a.m.

Business Valuation Report Writing Clinic

8:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(Brian C. Davidson, Richard Gray)

Litigation Report Writing Clinic

8:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(P. Dermot O'Neill, Howard A. Zandman)

Microsoft® Excel for Valuators

8:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(David Ringstrom)

Real World Valuation Data: Understanding the Top Databases

8:15 a.m.–9:55 a.m.

(Frank A. Wisehart)

10:15 a.m.

Real World BVM Pro: Getting the Most Out of Valuation Software

10:15 a.m.–11:55 a.m.

(Frank A. Wisehart)

Herbert v Kohler US Tax Court Case - What is the Cost of the Valuation for Estate Tax Purposes?? Gift tax purposes?

Posted on May 9, 2014 at 5:35 PM Comments comments (0)

I am in the process of bidding for a project with an SBA 7a lender.  That is not an estate or gift valuation.  Furthermore, there is a significant difference between a calculation and a valuation; the fomer involves abbreviated procedures ad costs far less!!!


With the SBA 7a program, the lenders will call asking for the project now, not in 2 weeks.  They want the project now.  Now is not always possible; there are "honey-do" jobs and other family obligations that may impede undertaking a vauation.   SBA SOP's require a valuation, not a calculation!  Further, the people preparing the valuation mut be accredited by one of three accrediting orgs; I have a CVA (Certified Valuation Analust) designation and the experience needed to bid for this type of work.


That said, historically, the banks and SBA 7a lenders have contracted with the lowest priced service providers.  These services providers are (in my opinion) valuation mills. Invariably, they do not conduct a site visit, interview management, key employees, look at contracts, assess the competitors (local, regional or national) and their competitors' strength, weaknesses, and assess the subject company's owner's and employees ability to respond to change or new competition.  In 99% of the mill reports, there are some gapping holes.  The SBA 7a lender buys the "valuation" project for $2,300 to $3,000.  


While the "mills" (these are national firms) are staffed by accredited professionals, that fact provides little solace to the buyer that may over pay or the bank that will be left with a business.  Sometimes, the valuation leads to a lower price.  That is the valuation missed important points that are important and set the firm in question apart.  Ultimately, it is bank that hires the valuation expert and makes a judgment call.  In law, that is the equivalent of hiring a newly minted attorney to handle a complex tax or matrimonial matter. Good luck.  


One case worth reading, because in the area of tax, estate and gift and M &A, the courts are beginning to understand that valuation professionals are not all the same (just like, there is a difference amongs attorneys), is Herbert v Kohler.   The critique helps explain the risks of cutting corners. http/ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/kohler.TCM.WPD.pdf.  The case does not get into understatement penalties and other risks that are very real.  In a recent case, aggressive valuation and appraisal professionals were called on their judgment and ... have been banned from ever appearing before the US Tax Court.  These professionals are now (possibly/very likely) going to loose their professional licenses.  If they loose their licenses ... they had it coming! (Sorry for being harsh)


Going for the lowest cost providers is an option and there are risks that may end up costing alot.  Central Washington Appraisal, Economic & Forensics, LLC is a new firm in Central Washington.  We compete on value and are reasonably priced. We also provide USPAP machinery and equipment appraisals.  We bring experience but ... as a start up in Central Washington, we want to build a business and establish relationships. Call us and let's visit if pricing is an issue in our bid.  Thank you!

Judge Laro, US Tax Court - Calls for "Hot Tubbing" Experts

Posted on May 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM Comments comments (0)

Judge Laro is a pre-eminent US Tax Court judge that authored the Mandelbaum opinion.  He has been active with the different business valuation and appraisal societies.  He is back in the news.   He has called for a new way of eliciting the testimony of experts, this proposed method is referred to as "expert hot tubbing".


"Expert hot tubbing" is used outside the US and it calls for concurrent testimony of the experts.  While he has advocated this approach, this approach was recently used in the Buyuk, LLC v CIR, a late 2013 case. See http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/BuyukMemo.Laro.TCM.WPD.pdf


This is an approach that would work well in other venues. One other option not used frequently enough is for the court to retain its own expert.  That possibility could reduce the intensity of litigation and impression that the expert's are really not impartial.   Will experts temper their judgment if they know the court has its own expert and/or the court will "hot tub" the experts.  Whether this is adopted in WA is an open question (in my opinion).  


For unbiased expert consulting services, please contact Central Washington Appraisal, Economic & Forensics, LLC.

Copyright and Trademark Damages & Litigation - Friday

Posted on May 8, 2014 at 5:05 PM Comments comments (0)

This topic is one that could be of interest to my fellow NACVA BV professionals and the Chelan-Douglas Cty Bar Association. I have reached out and let's see if they are active and if they are active, the level of interest in this and other topics.  A roundtable discussion could work well--I think--if there is an interest.


Patent Damages Part III - Webinar

Posted on May 8, 2014 at 4:10 PM Comments comments (0)

Again, the focus is on quantifying damages, but today the focus is not so much on Panduit, but of the Georgia-Pacific factors and the hypothetical negotiation to arrive at a reasonable royalty rate. The EMV rule is also being discussed.


Good webinar by Rick Bero, a seasoned expert witness from Wisconsin.  This is also a good review of the subject matter. I am unsure whether to use this for a WA State NACVA Chapter meeting.


Any thoughts?

Lost Profits Methods and Procedures - Day 3 What is Covered in this type of Webinar

Posted on May 8, 2014 at 2:10 PM Comments comments (0)

It is Thursday and I am listening in on this webinar that is being presented by Michael Pakter (Chicago) and Michael Kaplan (Los Angeles).  Both, whom I know, are terrific experts and  readily available to answer questions.  The two are pitching the MastersAnalyst in Financial Forensics (MAFF), which is offered by NACVA.  This is a program that I took and includes a mock jury trial where the jury will grade counsel and the experts.  It is worth attending, especially for attorneys and those hoping to be expert consultants and witnesses.


Thursday, May 8, 2014

 

11:00 a.m. Central time (CT) and 12:00 p.m. Eastern time (ET)

 

These Commercial Damages and Lost Profits Webinars, together with the Legal Theory and Case Law Webinar and Forensic Accounting/Investigative Methodologies Webinar, and the Litigation Bootcamp for Financial Experts live training, are required for individuals seeking the Master Analyst in Financial Forensics (MAFF) credential. Applicants must also meet prerequisite requirements and pass the MAFF proctored exam.

 

Program Content

 

Financial forensics experts are often typically called upon in these matters to review and analyze the underlying foundational evidence and measure the lost profits and other related damages. For an expert’s analysis and conclusions to survive the rigors of the litigation environment, the expert’s work must be within the realm of conventional damages theory and be based upon generally accepted approaches and methods of damages measurement. In addition the calculation of lost profits and other recoverable business damages are typically governed by federal, state, or other jurisdictional code sections and case law.

 

These Commercial Damages and Lost Profits Webinars of the MAFF curriculum focus upon the foundations and fundamentals of economic damages measurement, including alternative approaches and methodologies, notable code sections and case law, foundational evidence and research sources, reporting guidelines, and strategies embraced by the most effective economic damages experts. Financial experts are retained, among other areas, to perform, review, or opine on damage calculations. Different legal theories allow for different measures of damages. This specialty module will explore the accepted approaches used for the various types of economic damages as well as the accepted methodologies of damages calculations.

 

Focus of the curriculum will be on lost profit calculations, lost business value versus lost profits, and accounting for different industry and loss scenarios. The instructors will examine models and cases used in the measurement and presentation of economic damages, including economic and industry data. They will also provide an understanding of the integration of statistical and economic concepts into the formation of damages models.

 

Learning Objectives

 

 

  • After completing this session, attendees will be able to:
  • Apply the traditional methodologies used for economic damages
  • Explore and evaluate alternative approaches in the measurement of damages
  • Apply models used in the measurement and presentation of economic damages
  • Identify sources of information, including economic and industry data
  • Integrate the use of statistical and economic concepts into damages models
  • Discuss case law that impacts damages measurement

 

 

Who Should Attend

 

CPAs, valuation experts, economists, and other financial professionals who render services designed to assist in the resolution of legal disputes involving financial matters.

 

The Commercial Damages and Lost Profits Webinars are required training to obtain the Master Analyst in Financial Forensics (MAFF) credential.

 

Presenters

 

Michael Kaplan, CPA, ABV, CVA, MAFF

Rebekah Smith, CPA, CVA, MAFF, CFF

 

Howard Zandman, CPA, CFF,


If you are in a damages or lost profits case, contact us at Central Washington Appraisal, Economic & Forensics, LLC at (509) 679-3668, we can advise on the value of the case and assist with strategy.  Yes, there are upfront costs, but the information provided shapes the strategy and is cost effective.  In fact, the case may settle.


Rss_feed