Revenue falls after a commercial dispute, and the first damages estimate often equals the missing sales. The second sometimes equals the entire business. Both numbers are easy to calculate, and neither is persuasive without a connection to the injury and the governing legal claim. The assignment begins by identifying what economic benefit was lost, for how long, and because of what conduct.
Match the measure to the injury
Lost profits measure the earnings the business would have generated absent the alleged conduct, compared with the supported actual result over a defined period. Lost business value measures the impairment of the business interest at a specified date. The legal theory and the evidence determine which measure is available and appropriate.
A temporary interruption may support a finite period of lost profits if the business recovers. A lasting reduction in earning capacity may call for a value analysis. That one calculation produces a larger number is not a reason to choose it.
Duration deserves early attention. Customer relationships may recover, a contract may expire, or a replacement operation may become available. Those facts can limit or reshape the modeled loss even when the original disruption was severe.
The valuation assignment needs a defined subject. Operating assets, total equity, and a particular owner’s interest are different measures. Debt, nonoperating assets, and ownership rights have to be treated consistently before any two values can be compared.
Counsel should identify the recoverable categories and the legal assumptions before the expert builds the model: the relevant conduct, the dates, the damages period, and any limitation attached to the claim. A sophisticated forecast cannot repair an assignment that measures the wrong injury.
Establish the business that would have existed
The central financial question is what would probably have happened without the alleged conduct. Historical results help, but they are not the whole answer. Capacity, customer demand, pricing, competition, contracts, and the company’s own contemporaneous plans all shape the supported forecast.
In W.W. Gay Mechanical Contractor v. Wharfside Two, the Florida Supreme Court held that a lost-profits claim requires proof of causation and a standard by which the amount can be adequately determined, and it rejected a categorical rule that a new business cannot recover. A new business is not barred merely because it lacks an established profit history.
For an established operation, examine whether earlier results remain representative. An unusually profitable year may reflect a temporary contract, a competitor’s closure, or deferred expenses. The forecast should explain why its starting point can reasonably be carried into the loss period.
For a newer operation, examine the quality of the available evidence. Signed commitments, demonstrated capacity, comparable operations, and plans prepared before the dispute can support assumptions. A forecast created after litigation began needs particularly clear support for its inputs.
Causation requires considering the competing explanations. Industry decline, supply shortages, management changes, pricing decisions, and unrelated customer losses can affect the same results. Chronology establishes the sequence; sequence alone does not allocate responsibility.
The report should identify which assumptions are established by records, which were supplied by counsel, and which are tested through scenarios. That distinction lets the reader see how the conclusion would change if a disputed premise changed.
Calculate profits after the appropriate costs
Lost sales are not lost profits. The calculation has to address the expenses that would have been incurred to earn the projected revenue and apply the cost treatment the governing law requires. Cost classification is part of the analysis, not a footnote added after the total.
In RKR Motors, the Third District held that a lost-profit calculation must account for the costs related to performing the contract, including applicable fixed costs. The court rejected an approach that subtracted only the costs saved because the work was not performed.
That makes the underlying accounting important. Payroll, occupancy, supervision, equipment, and administrative costs should be examined for their relationship to performance. The expert explains the allocations and reconciles them to the financial records, rather than selecting a margin because it produces an attractive result.
Owner labor needs attention. A business does not earn its reported profit without the work its owner performs. Compensation, replacement labor, and related assumptions should be treated consistently with the model and the legal instructions.
Profit and cash flow are different concepts. Capital expenditures, working capital, financing, and depreciation affect a valuation model differently from a lost-profit calculation. Tax assumptions and the timing of future amounts have to be stated and applied consistently.
Timing needs a stated convention. Losses that would have been earned in the future are ordinarily brought to a present value at an appropriate date, and losses already incurred may carry interest under the governing rules. A schedule that mixes undiscounted future amounts with historical losses, or applies a discount rate chosen without explanation, misstates the result in ways that are hard to unwind on cross-examination. State the date, the rate, and the reason for each, and let counsel confirm the legal treatment.
Mitigation should be tied to the actual opportunity and its costs. Replacement sales may require additional expense or consume capacity that would otherwise have served other customers. The analysis evaluates the relevant economic benefit without mechanically offsetting every dollar of replacement revenue.
Illustration: avoid recovering the same earnings twice
Assume a hypothetical business would have earned $200,000 a year after the appropriate expenses. Because of the alleged conduct, its supported earnings fall to $80,000 for one year and then recover fully. The one-year profit difference is $120,000 before any timing or other adjustment.
Now consider an alternative injury assumption for the same business: the reduction is permanent. Assume properly supported valuations at the same date place the uninjured business at $1 million and the impaired business at $400,000. The value difference is $600,000.
These are alternative assumptions, not cumulative claims. The first measures a temporary earnings interruption. The second assumes lasting impairment and values the resulting change in future economic benefits.
If the $600,000 value loss already reflects the same future earnings reduction, adding those earnings again duplicates the loss. In Montage Group, the Second District treated a business-value recovery and a future-profit recovery as overlapping when the value measure already incorporated the same future earnings. The calculation has to identify and remove any overlap.
That does not mean profit and value evidence always cover identical periods. A model might distinguish an earlier loss period from a later valuation date. Whether a combined recovery is legally available is counsel’s question; the expert’s obligation is to demonstrate that no earnings or benefits appear in both components.
The illustration assumes consistent treatment of debt, cash, taxes, and the ownership interest being valued. Real assignments have to reconcile those items. Otherwise an apparent value decline may partly reflect differences between the two calculations rather than the injury.
Assemble evidence that can test the forecast
The strongest damages package lets the expert test revenue, costs, duration, and alternative causes together:
- Contracts, pleadings, and counsel’s instructions identifying the alleged conduct and the recoverable loss categories.
- Financial statements, tax returns, general ledgers, and bank records before and after the relevant events.
- Budgets, forecasts, board materials, and business plans prepared before the dispute.
- Customer orders, cancellations, pricing records, sales activity, and available capacity information.
- Payroll, vendor, occupancy, and other records supporting projected expenses and cost allocations.
- Evidence of substitute business, mitigation efforts, market conditions, and competing causes.
- Prior valuations, financing materials, purchase offers, and documents supporting any claimed value impairment.
The model should reconcile to actual results before it extends into the hypothetical. Unexplained differences among management reports, tax returns, and the damages schedule weaken otherwise reasonable assumptions. Reconciliation shows that the forecast begins with the business that actually existed.
Sensitivity analysis identifies the assumptions that matter most. A small change in the recovery period or the customer retention rate may move the result materially. Showing that effect helps the reader understand the uncertainty without pretending every scenario is equally supported.
Choose the measure that matches the supported economic injury and the applicable claim. Establish causation, support the forecast, account for the proper costs, and check for overlapping recovery. A damages calculation should explain the loss, not reward the spreadsheet for finding the largest number.
This article is general information, not legal or financial advice. Every case turns on its own facts and on the law of the jurisdiction.
Have a matter that raises this question?
Start with a conflict check.
Samons Harris 