Abstract
HQ was a medium-sized Swedish banking group whose licenses were revoked in 2010. The parent company sued the board members and the audit firm for damages. NN was an expert witness for plaintiff and submitted a valuation using DCF and comparables for a but-for scenario where HQ would have survived. This valuation is an example of setting assumptions to obtain a particular result, depending on the purpose of the valuation. Two possible purposes are considered, maximizing the but-for value, and legitimizing a value that has been set in advance based on other considerations. From an analysis of unusual evidence in the DCF part of the valuation model, it appears that the purpose was to legitimize a value that had been set in advance. The author served as expert witness to defendant, with the task of rebutting NN. This paper is based on expert reports by NN and the author.