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
1---2name: financial-analysis-summary3description: Generates structured summaries of financial analyses for commercial litigation. Use when summarizing expert financial reports, economic damages analyses, lost profits calculations, business valuations, or financial dispute evidence for litigation support.4---5
6# Financial Analysis Summary
7
8Distills forensic accounting reports, economic damage studies, and expert financial findings into structured litigation summaries.
9
10## Prerequisites
11
12- **Source analysis** — expert reports, forensic accounting workpapers, or damage studies
13- **Financial records** — statements, tax returns, transaction ledgers relied upon by the expert
14- **Case context** — dispute type, relevant time period, jurisdiction, intended use (settlement, trial, appellate)
15
16## Quick Start
17
181. Identify the dispute type and damage theory
192. Extract principal conclusions and dollar figures from the expert report
203. Map each conclusion to its methodology and supporting evidence
214. Build the summary following the output structure below
225. Calibrate tone to the target audience (jury, judge, opposing counsel)
23
24## Output Structure
25
26### 1. Executive Overview
27
28Table with: nature of dispute, examination time period, principal conclusions (top-line damages or valuation range), expert name/credentials/scope.
29
30### 2. Methodology
31
32For each analytical approach, document:
33
34- Method name and plain-language explanation
35- Why selected for this case
36- Applicable standards (GAAP, AICPA, ASA, NACVA)
37- Key assumptions and inputs
38
39Reference by claim type:
40
41| Claim Type | Typical Methods |
42|---|---|
43| Lost profits | Before-and-after, yardstick, sales projection |
44| Business valuation | DCF, market multiples, asset-based |
45| Economic damages | But-for analysis, mitigation offset |
46| Fraud/disgorgement | Tracing, net equity analysis |
47
48### 3. Key Financial Findings
49
50Present in causal sequence:
51
521. **Wrongful act** — financial impact chain
532. **Quantification** — calculations with stated assumptions
543. **Supporting evidence** — source documents, corroborating data
554. **Damage period** — start/end dates with rationale
565. **Total damages/valuation** — breakdown by component
57
58Use tabular format: damage component, amount, method, period.
59
60### 4. Data Sources & Limitations
61
62- List each source with reliability assessment
63- Identify record gaps and how addressed (interpolation, proxy data, conservative assumptions)
64- Note documents requested but not produced
65
66### 5. Sensitivity Analysis
67
68Table comparing scenarios: base case, conservative, aggressive, and opposing expert position — each showing variable changed and resulting range.
69
70### 6. Visual Exhibits
71
72Include where they clarify analysis: trend charts, actual-vs-projected tables, waterfall charts, timeline diagrams. Number sequentially and cross-reference in text.
73
74### 7. Summary of Opinions
75
76Restate each conclusion in clear, quotable language with dollar amounts and basis.
77
78## Pitfalls & Checks
79
80- **Daubert/Frye readiness** — confirm methods are generally accepted and reliably applied to case facts; flag the jurisdiction's admissibility standard
81- **Audience calibration** — settlement: leverage points and ranges; trial: clarity for lay jurors; appellate: methodological soundness
82- **Objectivity** — present persuasively within the bounds of evidence; never overstate certainty
83- **Precision** — all dollar amounts at appropriate precision; always include time periods and qualifications
84- **Citations** — reference source documents, expert report page numbers, and supporting financial records for each conclusion
85- **Competing experts** — acknowledge opposing methodologies and explain divergence points
86- **Jurisdiction** — U.S.-focused by default; adapt admissibility standards and professional frameworks for non-U.S. matters
CaseMark