In a federal court in Georgia, an employee benefits lawyer prepared a report and was deposed regarding the process by which employment agreements were negotiated as part of a transaction involving an ESOP. The lawyer concluded that the process “was not consistent with the standards expected of a fiduciary in conducting such process.” The defendants filed a motion to exclude the lawyer’s testimony and report, arguing that he had no formal ESOP training, had given tax advice, and had not written any publications on executive compensation or valuation. But the court denied the motion, finding that the expert was qualified to issue his opinions and to testify. Among other comments the court made, it noted that the expert need not be the most qualified authority on a subject to be admitted.
The case is Gamache v. Hogue, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54492; 2023 WL 2658033, and a case analysis and full court opinion are on the BVLaw platform.