New legal cases added to BVLaw this month
Here's a sampling of some recent cases where the courts have evaluated the testimony of financial experts to arrive at their final conclusions. As always, BVLaw Alerts' digests and the court documents, are available at BVLaw.
IQ Holdings, Inc. v. Am. Commercial Lines Inc., Case No. 6369-VCL (August 30, 2012)
Delaware Chancery Court declines to establish a valuation preference for “normalized” discounted cash flow analysis.
Experts: David Fuller (petitioner); Melissa Kibler Koll (respondent)
Judge: Laster
State/Jurisdiction: DE
Court: Court of Chancery
Type of case: dissenting shareholder
SIC code: 4449 Water Transportation of Freight, Not Elsewhere Classified
In re Certified HR Service Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136956 (Sept. 25, 2012)
Federal district court affirms bankruptcy court’s avoidance of the debtor’s $17.5 million purchase of failing company, based in large part on evidence by trustee’s expert that the debtor was insolvent at the time and the target company was worthless.
Experts: Lawrence D. Morriss Jr. (trustee)
Judge: Marra
State/Jurisdiction: Florida/federal
Court: U.S. District Court
Type of case: bankruptcy
SIC code: 8721 Accounting, Auditing, and Bookkeeping Services
In re Certified HR Service Co., Case No. 05-22912-BKC-RBR (Bankr. S.D. Fla.)(Sept. 29, 2011)
Bankruptcy court permits trustee to avoid the debtor’s $17.5 million purchase of failing company, based in large part on evidence by trustee’s expert that the debtor was insolvent at the time and the target company was worthless
Experts: Lawrence Morriss Jr. (trustee)
Judge: Ray
State/Jurisdiction: Florida/federal
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Type of case: bankruptcy
SIC code: 8721 Accounting, Auditing, and Bookkeeping Services
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120560 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2012)
District court rejects defendants’ Daubert challenge finding plaintiff’s expert’s reference to total revenue was legitimate starting point of apportionment analysis and did not amount to use of Entire Market Value Rule.
Experts: Catherine M. Lawton (plaintiff); Creighton Hoffman (defendants)
Judge: Fischer
State/Jurisdiction: Federal/Pennsylvania
Court: United States District Court
Type of case: Intellectual Property
SIC code: 3674 Semiconductors and Related Devices
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120560 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2012)
District court rejects plaintiff’s Daubert challenge finding defendants’ expert may “inaugurate” reasonable royalty analysis by referring to plaintiff’s existing licenses; however, licenses did not demonstrate an established royalty considering their lack of uniformity and small number.
Experts: Catherine M. Lawton (plaintiff); Creighton Hoffman (defendants)
Judge: Fischer
State/Jurisdiction: Federal/Pennsylvania
Court: United States District Court
Type of case: Intellectual Property
SIC code: 3674 Semiconductors and Related Devices
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158718 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2012)
District court denies defendants’ pretrial motion claiming expert failed to consider non-infringing alternatives in her apportionment analysis and affirms Daubert ruling in favor of plaintiff.
Experts: Catherine M. Lawton (plaintiff); Creighton Hoffman (defendants)
Judge: Fischer
State/Jurisdiction: Federal/Pennsylvania
Court: United States District Court
Type of case: Intellectual Property
SIC code: 3674 Semiconductors and Related Devices
Giaimo v. Vitale, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8706 (Dec. 20, 2012)(slip op.)
In dissenting shareholder case, appellate court affirms application of DLOM to statutory fair value of real estate holding companies, as well as present-value discount for taxes on built-in gains (BIG).
Experts: Z. Christopher Mercer (petitioner); Joan Lipton and Jeffery Baliban (respondent)
Judge: Panel
State/Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Type of case: Dissenting Shareholder
SIC code: 6513 Operators of Apartment Buildings
Colclasure v. Colclasure, 2012 Okla. LEXIS 106 (Nov. 20, 2012)
State Supreme Court finds trial court erred in valuing husband’s business interest based on buy-out agreement the parties ignored; on remand, valuation must meet statutory requirement of a fair and just division.
Experts: Kenneth W. Klingenberg (wife); Ralph E. Blodgett (husband)
Judge: Kauger
State/Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Court: Supreme Court
Type of case: Marital Dissolution
SIC code: 2426 Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills