Experts Need Not Be ‘Blue-Ribbon Practitioners’ to Meet Rule 702 Qualification Requirement

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
July 17, 2020
2621 Paper Mills
322121 Paper (except Newsprint) Mills
bankruptcy, expert testimony
daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, asset approach, discounted cash flow (DCF), rule 702, reliability, projections, insolvency, capital adequacy, balance sheet, relevance

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Calpers Corp. Partners, LLC
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125769
US
Federal Court
Maine
United States District Court
Craig T. Elson (plaintiff); Edward M. McDonough (defendant)
Torresen

Summary

In bankruptcy dispute, court rejects parties’ Daubert challenge to opposing expert testimony; defense expert did not blindly rely on management projections for capital adequacy and balance sheet tests, and plaintiff’s expert did not use hindsight to find debtor was insolvent on fund transfer dates.

See Also

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Calpers Corp. Partners, LLC

In bankruptcy dispute, court rejects parties’ Daubert challenge to opposing expert testimony; defense expert did not blindly rely on management projections for capital adequacy and balance sheet tests, and plaintiff’s expert did not use hindsight to find debtor was insolvent on fund transfer dates.