Courts Finds ‘Numerous’ Reasons to Exclude an Otherwise Qualified Expert

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 15 No. 9
Legal and Court Case Update
September 2009

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. (903 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
2844 Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
contract
MDG International v. Australian Gold, Inc.
2009 WL 1916728 (S.D. Ind.)
June 29, 2009
US
Federal Court
Indiana
United States District Court
Peter Jon Prettyman
James Whalen
Barker

Summary

Court excludes an otherwise “supremely qualified” expert for flaws in his experience and his expert report, including accepting attorney-provided data without independent verification.

See Also

MDG International v. Australian Gold, Inc.

Full Text of Court Cases
June 29, 2009

Court excludes an otherwise “supremely qualified” expert for flaws in his experience and his expert report, including accepting attorney-provided data without independent verification.