When the Court Sets the Standard, the Valuation Has to Be Built for Federal Scrutiny.

Yes — I have served all three. The debtor-in-possession (DIP) often retains me to support a Chapter 11 plan or a §363 going-concern sale. Chapter 7 and Subchapter V trustees retain me to test the debtor's valuation, support liquidation-distribution forecasts, and underwrite §506(a) lien-strip motions. Secured creditors and creditors' committees retain me to challenge debtor-friendly conclusions or to support adequate-protection motions. The work is independent and standards-based regardless of the retaining party — that is the only way the valuation survives federal-court scrutiny.

Yes. Subchapter V was took effect in 2020 and most appraisers have not yet developed real Sub V experience. I have served as the appraiser in Sub V matters — most notably a Heavy Machinery Rentals reorganization (22-30007-JCO) spanning the Southern District of Alabama and the Middle District of Florida. Sub V engagements are time-compressed: the disclosure statement is simplified, the Sub V trustee gets the report fast, and the valuation has to integrate cleanly into the small business debtor's projected disposable income calculation under 11 U.S.C. § 1191. I deliver Sub V valuations on the timeline the chapter actually requires.

The premise is driven by the Code section being invoked and the disposition the parties contemplate. Chapter 11 plan confirmation typically requires a going-concern valuation paired with an orderly-liquidation-value comparison for the best-interests test. Chapter 7 distribution forecasting and §506(a) lien valuations typically use orderly liquidation value. §363 going-concern sales use going-concern value with a fallback piece-by-piece analysis if the going-concern transaction does not clear. Solvency analyses for §548 fraudulent-transfer claims look at fair value of assets vs. fair value of liabilities at the relevant date. I confirm the operative premise with retaining counsel before opening the financials.

Yes. The best-interests test under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(7) requires that each non-accepting impaired creditor receive under the plan at least what it would receive in a Chapter 7 liquidation. That requires two valuations in parallel: the going-concern value supporting the proposed plan distribution and the orderly-liquidation value benchmarking the Chapter 7 alternative. I prepare both within a single report so the comparison is transparent, the assumptions are aligned, and the court can see the math without flipping between exhibits.

Yes. Section 506(a) values a secured creditor's collateral interest at the value of the collateral, with the rest of the claim treated as unsecured. The Supreme Court's Rash decision held that, in the cramdown context, the proper measure is the cost the debtor would incur to obtain a like asset for the proposed use — typically a replacement-value standard rather than a strict orderly-liquidation value. I value §506(a) collateral to the standard the controlling forum has applied, document the methodology in a dedicated exhibit, and stand behind it on cross-examination.

Yes. Section 548 fraudulent-transfer claims and §547 preference actions frequently turn on whether the debtor was solvent at the time of the challenged transfer. That is a fair-value-of-assets-vs.-fair-value-of-liabilities determination at a specific historical date, not at the petition date. Reconstructing solvency at a backward-looking valuation date requires the same financial archeology that goes into a divorce business valuation traced to the date of marriage — and the methodology I use in family-law work transfers directly. The solvency exhibit reads like a valuation rather than a forensic audit, which is what the bankruptcy court expects.

That is the standard the report is built to. My CV documents 11 court testimony appearances and 11 deposition appearances. I have served as the business appraiser in federal bankruptcy matters involving the U.S. Department of Justice (Case 6:17-bk-02004-KSJ, Middle Dist. FL Orlando Division) and the FDIC (Case 8:13-bk-14296-CPM, In re Scarfia (FDIC was a party to the proceeding), Middle Dist. FL) as litigation parties. My valuation methodology has been challenged through full Florida appellate review in adjacent litigation contexts and was affirmed both times. The CBA designation is the only U.S. business-appraisal credential that requires peer review of completed reports as a condition of certification, which is one reason the methodology survives federal-court cross-examination.

For most engagements: the bankruptcy petition, schedules, and statement of financial affairs (SOFA); the proposed plan or §363 motion if filed; any cash-collateral or DIP-financing orders; three to five years of business tax returns and audited or compiled financials; the most recent year-to-date P&L and balance sheet; the §341 transcript if available; any contested adversary pleadings; owner compensation history; a fixed-asset schedule; the lease; and a 60- to 90-minute management interview by Zoom (with debtor's counsel present where appropriate). I send a tailored information request after the intake call once we have fixed the operative Code section and the valuation date.

Yes. For many bankruptcy engagements — particularly Subchapter V matters and §363 sale motions on accelerated calendars — a Phase I preliminary calculation of value gets the parties to a defensible number range in two to three weeks at a fraction of the cost of a full Conclusion of Value report. Phase I supports plan negotiations, cash-collateral budgeting, and §506(a) preliminary positions. Phase II — the full Conclusion of Value with all three approaches developed — is the right deliverable for plan-confirmation hearings, contested cramdowns, and adversary proceedings.

Yes. While the bulk of my bankruptcy work is in the Middle District of Florida, the CV documents engagements in the Southern District of Alabama (Heavy Machinery Rentals Sub V), the Northern District of Illinois (a Chicago property management company bankruptcy), and the District of Puerto Rico (FDIC institutional valuation). The CBA credential and NACVA standards are recognized in every U.S. bankruptcy court, and I work with local counsel to confirm any district-specific procedural requirements before issuing the report.