New cases recently added to BV Law
S. Muoio & Co., LLC v. Hallmark Entertainment Investments, 2011 WL 863007 (Del. Ch.) (March 9, 2011)
Delaware Chancery urges experts to use “robust” “triangular” valuation approach, including DCF, comparable companies, and comparable transactions.
Experts: Daniel Schecter and Robert Hamada (plaintiffs); Christopher Lee and Jerry Hausman (defendants)
Judge: Chandler
State/Jurisdiction: Delaware
Court: Court of Chancery
Type of case: breach of fiduciary duty
Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, 2011 WL 836418 (C.D. Cal.) (March 4, 2011)
Federal district court strikes portions of expert copyright infringement damages that apply the ex post Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty calculations, because federal law requires ex ante approach.
Experts: Michael Wagner (plaintiff’s)
Judge: Carter
State/Jurisdiction: Federal/California
Court: U.S. District Court
Type of case: IP
Salumbides v. Salumbides, 2011 WL 835102 (Neb. App.) (March 8, 2011)(unpublished)
Divorce court values medical practice based solely on accounts receivable, largely due to lack of evidence and cooperation from owner-spouse.
Experts: Steve Groetke
Judge: Moore
State/Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Court: Court of Appeals
Type of case: Marital dissolution
Flowers Bakeries Brand, Inc. v. Interstate Bakeries Corp., 2011 WL 1004657 (N.D. Ga.) (March 17, 2011)
Federal court admits reasonable royalty rates based on past licensing agreements, but bars lost profits evidence that fails to account for market factors that could have caused the loss.
Experts: Donald Raulerson
Judge: Thrash
State/Jurisdiction: Federal/Georgia
Court: U.S. District Court
Type of case: IP
Rubin v. Murray, 2011 WL 873472 (Mass. App.) (March 16, 2011)
Court relies on expert evidence and survey data to find that reasonable compensation for officers of midsize, closely held corporation comprised 4% to 7% of net revenues, plus 3% “success premium.”
Experts: Howard Gordon (plaintiffs) and Thomas Quinn (defendants)
Judge: Katzmann
State/Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Court: Appeals Court
Type of case: breach of fiduciary duty
American Savings Bank v United States, 2011 WL 1206472 (Fed.Cl.) (April 1, 2011)
Federal Court of Claims awards $83.3 million in lost profits based on bank’s analysis of the growth it would have achieved, based on historic performance and business plans, but for government’s enactment of FIRREA.
Experts: Antonio Ramirez Jr. (plaintiff); Terry Musika, Dr. Anjan V. Thakor, and Dr. William G. Hamm (defendant)
Judge: Smith
State/Jurisdiction: Federal
Court: U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Type of case: breach of contract
Boltar LLC v. Commissioner, 2011 WL 1314445 (U.S. Tax Ct.) (April 5, 2011)
Tax Court rejects charitable easement appraisal under Daubert, finding the appraisers ignored the before and after method and rejected relevant facts in favor of those that exaggerated value.
Experts: Integra Realty Resources (taxpayer); Steven Albert (IRS)
Judge: Cohen
State/Jurisdiction: Federal
Court: U.S. Tax Court
Type of case: federal tax
Ritchie v. Rupe, 2011 WL 206845 (Neb. App.) (Jan. 25, 2011)
Texas Court of Appeals affirmed availability of forced buy-out remedy for shareholder oppression and held that when minority oppressed shareholder wants to sell, the fair market value standard (including discounts) is appropriate.
Experts: Donald Latin, Richard Latin, and Alan Tolmas (minority shareholder)
Judge: Moseley
State/Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Court of Appeals
Type of case: shareholder oppression
Nuveen v. Nuveen, 2011 WL 988826 (N.D.) (March 22, 2011)
Divorce court prefers BV-certified appraiser over broker for valuation of orthodontic practice, in particular his reliance on intangible asset sale three years prior to divorce.
Experts: Leonard Sliwoski (husband); Kevin Shea (wife)
Judge: Kapsner
State/Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Court: Supreme Court
Type of case: marital dissolution
Level 3 Communications v. Floyd, 2011 WL 11000078 (M.D. Tenn.) (March 22, 2011)
Federal district court precludes defendant’s expert from opining on the appropriateness of legal remedy (loss of use damages vs. lost profits), but admits his testimony criticizing the plaintiff’s loss of use calculus and proposing an alternative damage amount.
Experts: Gregory Schuelke (defendant)
Judge: Trauger
State/Jurisdiction: Federal/Tennessee
Court: U.S. District Court
Type of case: tort
Gary’s Implement, Inc. v. Bridgeport Tractor Parts, 2011 WL 1198401 (Neb.) (April 1, 2011)
Nebraska Supreme Court affirms admission of expert lost profits calculations that relied on comparable companies owned by defendant.
Experts: John Wenande (defendant)
Judge: McCormack
State/Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Court: Supreme Court
Type of case: breach of contract