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

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
January 18, 2019

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are 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. (2,140 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.
Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.1
PDF, Size: 99 KB

See Also

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

Court Case Digests
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.

This article also appears in:
BVR Guide to Management Projections and Business Valuation: Analysis and Case Law