In an antitrust lawsuit in Nevada, the expert for a company that alleges it was forced to close due to anticompetitive practices used the discounted cash flow (DCF) method to calculate damages. The court granted a motion to strike the expert’s testimony on the grounds that the DCF was too speculative. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that the DCF was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages. In allowing the DCF, the court noted: “Relying on future lost profits does not eliminate the rule that a party may not recover both future lost profits and going-concern value.”

The case is V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, Ltd., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216426; 2021 WL 5237228. An analysis and full opinion are available on the BVLaw platform.