In Gatekeeper Role, Court Trains Attention on Expert Methodology, Not Conclusions

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
January 18, 2019

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,251 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3624 Carbon and Graphite Products
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
ESOP valuations
business valuation, control premium, daubert, expert testimony, gordon growth model, admissibility, breach of fiduciary duty, discounted cash flow (DCF), fair market value (FMV), rule 702, reliability, overpayment, employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), erisa, guideline publicly-traded company method
Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9246
US
Federal Court
Ohio
United States District Court
James A. Krillenberger (plaintiff/DOL); Mark A. Rule (defendant/trustee)
Gwin

Summary

In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.

See Also

Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (I) (Graphite)

Full Text of Court Cases
January 18, 2019

In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.