Court Endorses Before and After Method for Lost Profits

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 21 No. 6
Legal and Court Case Update
June 2015

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. (1,712 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3084 Plastics Pipe
326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
contract
damages, lost profits, breach of contract, daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, causation, rule 702, reliability, federal rules of evidence (FRE), earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization (EBITDA), customer relationships, diminution in value
Advanced Drainage Sys. v. Quality Culvert, Inc.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36037
March 23, 2015
US
Federal Court
Illinois
United States District Court
Rebekah Smith (plaintiff); unknown (defendants)
Economus

Summary

In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.

See Also

Advanced Drainage Sys. v. Quality Culvert, Inc.

Full Text of Court Cases
March 23, 2015

In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 21 No. 6
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition