J&M Distrib., Inc. v. Hearth & Home Techs., Inc.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
January 9, 2015

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. (5,419 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3433 Heating Equipment, Except Electric and Warm Air Furnaces
333414 Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing
contract
damages, lost profits, daubert, expert testimony, cash flow, closely held corporation, fair market value (FMV), reliability, revenue rulings (RR)
J&M Distrib., Inc. v. Hearth & Home Techs., Inc.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2314
US
Federal Court
Minnesota
United States District Court
Michael DeProspero (plaintiff); Melissa Snelson (defendant)
Nelson

Summary

Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.
J&M Distributing, Inc. v. Hearth & Home Technologies, Inc
PDF, Size: 156 KB

See Also

What Role for Revenue Ruling 59-60 Factors in Valuing Closely Held Business?

Legal and Court Case Update
April 2015

Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.

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