Team Banner
Forensic Analysis of Investors’ Share in the Economic Benefits of a Patented Technology

The Accumyn team prepared a forensic analysis of transactions dating back to 1986 to determine a decease CEO’s Heirs’ and investors’ share in economic benefits from a patented technology. The technology was developed in 1990 and was the subject of patents filed in 1991. Subsequently, these patents were the subject of a lawsuit resulting in a settlement of $612.5 million in 2006. Accumyn determined the proportional distribution of the 2006 settlement proceeds the heirs and investors were entitled to as well as a proportional distribution of the sums received for this technology in 2004, 2005, 2012 and thereafter. Accumyn performed a review of S corporation, partnership and individual federal and state income tax returns.

Accumyn prepared detailed funds tracing binders with explanations and support of investor funding before, during and after the development of the patented technology. As a result of Accumyn’s forensic analysis, the underlying sources of funds provided during development of the patented technology, as well as the changing shareholder interests over time, including the conversion of the entity’s convertible debt instruments at issue, were corroborated. Accumyn determined the sources of claimed ownership in the patented technology, and the receipt and distribution of sums subsequently received in connection with monetizing the patented technology. Accumyn prepared an analysis of the magnitude of equity ownership by chief executive officers of companies in the United States and Canada in order to determine a percentage range for granting equity in exchange for services (sweat equity) to the heirs of the deceased CEO. Accumyn’s forensic analysis provided the foundation from which computations could be made for the shareholder’s share of the monetary benefits received from exploitation of the patented technology. Accumyn’s expert calculated the current net worth of certain individuals and entities for the purpose of assessing punitive damages, and rebutted similar calculations by the opposing expert.