Anyone who has ever litigated a valuation issue knows that valuation is more art than science. Experts often arrive at widely divergent valuations. Yet, these valuations are of the same company, for the same time period, based on the same data, and often invoke the same model. How then can the valuations be so different and, more importantly, which expert is right? Valuations of course can vary for a number of reasons, including different assumptions and inputs, and sometimes because of the methodology itself. But as one of my very astute students in Corporate Finance recently pointed out, valuations also likely differ because of the legal position (he actually used the term "self-interest") of the party employing the expert and offering the particular valuation into evidence.
I actually am a strong proponent of judicial valuation, despite the potential gamesmanship and uncertainty inherent in valuation testimony. I think the process subjects the valuation to greater scrutiny, better protects under-represented parties, and encourages consensual resolutions. The ABI Commission endorsed the continued use of judicial valuation, as well as the ability of judges to appoint valuation experts to perform an independent assessment of the valuation (see here