Financial Analysis Summary
Distills forensic accounting reports, economic damage studies, and expert financial findings into structured litigation summaries.
Prerequisites
- Source analysis — expert reports, forensic accounting workpapers, or damage studies
- Financial records — statements, tax returns, transaction ledgers relied upon by the expert
- Case context — dispute type, relevant time period, jurisdiction, intended use (settlement, trial, appellate)
Quick Start
- Identify the dispute type and damage theory
- Extract principal conclusions and dollar figures from the expert report
- Map each conclusion to its methodology and supporting evidence
- Build the summary following the output structure below
- Calibrate tone to the target audience (jury, judge, opposing counsel)
Output Structure
1. Executive Overview
Table with: nature of dispute, examination time period, principal conclusions (top-line damages or valuation range), expert name/credentials/scope.
2. Methodology
For each analytical approach, document:
- Method name and plain-language explanation
- Why selected for this case
- Applicable standards (GAAP, AICPA, ASA, NACVA)
- Key assumptions and inputs
Reference by claim type:
| Claim Type | Typical Methods |
|---|
| Lost profits | Before-and-after, yardstick, sales projection |
| Business valuation | DCF, market multiples, asset-based |
| Economic damages | But-for analysis, mitigation offset |
| Fraud/disgorgement | Tracing, net equity analysis |
3. Key Financial Findings
Present in causal sequence:
- Wrongful act — financial impact chain
- Quantification — calculations with stated assumptions
- Supporting evidence — source documents, corroborating data
- Damage period — start/end dates with rationale
- Total damages/valuation — breakdown by component
Use tabular format: damage component, amount, method, period.
4. Data Sources & Limitations
- List each source with reliability assessment
- Identify record gaps and how addressed (interpolation, proxy data, conservative assumptions)
- Note documents requested but not produced
5. Sensitivity Analysis
Table comparing scenarios: base case, conservative, aggressive, and opposing expert position — each showing variable changed and resulting range.
6. Visual Exhibits
Include where they clarify analysis: trend charts, actual-vs-projected tables, waterfall charts, timeline diagrams. Number sequentially and cross-reference in text.
7. Summary of Opinions
Restate each conclusion in clear, quotable language with dollar amounts and basis.
Pitfalls & Checks
- Daubert/Frye readiness — confirm methods are generally accepted and reliably applied to case facts; flag the jurisdiction's admissibility standard
- Audience calibration — settlement: leverage points and ranges; trial: clarity for lay jurors; appellate: methodological soundness
- Objectivity — present persuasively within the bounds of evidence; never overstate certainty
- Precision — all dollar amounts at appropriate precision; always include time periods and qualifications
- Citations — reference source documents, expert report page numbers, and supporting financial records for each conclusion
- Competing experts — acknowledge opposing methodologies and explain divergence points
- Jurisdiction — U.S.-focused by default; adapt admissibility standards and professional frameworks for non-U.S. matters
