Lack of Valuation Credentials Does Not Disqualify Expert, but Failure to Perform Valuation Does, Court Finds

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
February 14, 2020

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,485 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
5999 Miscellaneous Retail Stores, NEC
453910 Pet and Pet Supplies Stores
economic damages & lost profits
damages, daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, economic damages & lost profits, rule 702, reliability, business tort, diminution in value, relevance
Eurochem North America Corp. v. Ganske
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26539; 2020 WL 747008
US
Federal Court
Wisconsin
United States District Court
Michael Schwantes (third-party plaintiff); unknown (counterdefendants)
Crocker

Summary

Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.

See Also

Eurochem North America Corp. v. Ganske

Full Text of Court Cases
February 14, 2020

Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition