The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition
Welcome to The Comprehensive Guide To Economic Damages, 7th Edition. This publication is about financial evidence: how to gather it, interpret it, and tell its story in a lawsuit or litigation setting.
The guide includes representational analysis as well as digests and full text of case law on financial damages. Here you are able to search related case law via case type, court, state/jurisdiction and more. Begin your research now.
Already purchased the guide? Login to access its case law content.
Search Featured Cases
IceMOS Tech. Corp. v. Omron Corp.
Plaintiff’s Projections Fail to Meet New York Test for Lost Profits or Lost Business Value
In contract dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motions, finding plaintiff’s experts are qualified based on extensive experience in relevant industry; experts could provide testimony relevant to surviving lost development support costs claim and their testimony is not unreliable as of now.
IceMOS Tech. Corp. v. Omron Corp.
Plaintiff’s Projections Fail to Meet New York Test for Lost Profits or Lost Business Value
In contract dispute, court says claims for lost profits and lost business value fail because, for both, plaintiff is unable to determine damages with reasonable certainty; relying solely on projections of future performance, without any proof of profit, is not enough under New York law.
Cline v. Sunoco
Expert Testimony Offered at Class-Certification Stage Survives Daubert Challenge
In class-certification context, court says plaintiff’s damages expert meets Rule 702/Daubert requirements as they apply in early stage of litigation; expert is qualified, and, damages model, even if not fully developed, provides a sufficiently reliable way to calculate damages on classwide basis.
Simo Holdings, Inc. v. H.K. uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.
Expert’s Reasonable Royalty Properly Captured Value Added by Plaintiff’s Invention
Court denies defendants’ post-trial challenge to jury award; court finds award was based on a theory of reasonable royalty, not lost profits, as defendants claim; plaintiff expert’s royalty rate properly captured value added by plaintiff’s patent and relationship between plaintiff and defendants.
Mem’l Hermann Health Sys. v. Gomez
Damages Expert’s ‘Before/After’ Lost Profits Analysis Bolsters Plaintiff’s Defamation Case
In defamation and business disparagement case against former employer, appeals court affirms jury award to cardiovascular surgeon compensating for injury to reputation and lost profits; expert’s before/after analysis was supported by evidence, and expert ruled out other causes for lost business.
Sabre GLBL, Inc. v. Shan
In Misappropriation Case, Expert’s ‘Head Start’ Damages Calculation Survives Appeal
In breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation case, appeals court upholds arbitration award of “head start” damages; expert for employer calculated value to the employee from owing equity in competing company whose valuation was higher because of employee’s misconduct toward former employer.
Alkayali v. Boukhari
Court Validates Expert’s Reliance on Pratt’s Stats/DealStats for Sales Transaction Analysis
Appeals court upholds valuation of plaintiff’s interest in dissolved company and jury award; plaintiff expert’s analysis of sales transactions of comparable companies was admissible; Pratt’s Stats/DealStats database provided a reliable basis for expert to identify relevant sales, court says.
My Imagination v. M.Z. Berger & Co. (II)
Court Concludes Plaintiff Cannot Satisfy Three-Part New York Lost Profits Test
Court denies plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, affirming earlier finding that the expert did not offer an opinion as to damages for loss of business value; expert never offered any opinion of business’s value at any time, court says.
Cargotec Corp. v. Logan Industries
Court’s Majority Says Expert’s Reliance on Management Projections Was Unreasonable
Appeals court majority strikes down lost profits and diminished business value awards, finding plaintiff failed to show causation and its damages expert based his calculations on management’s business plan without substantiating the plan’s underlying (unreasonable) gross profit goals.
Infogroup, Inc. v. Database USA.com LLC
Court Limits Damages for Copyright Infringement, Noting Lack of ‘Causal Nexus’
Ruling on defendant’s post-trial motions, court reduces damages for copyright infringement where plaintiff’s expert included in damage calculation defendant’s profits for years for which the plaintiff failed to show “causal nexus” between profits claimed and the actual infringement.
Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc.
Court Says Daubert’s ‘Gatekeeper’ Role Favors Inclusion, Not Exclusion
In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.
Zayo Group v. Latisys Holdings, LLC
Expert’s Use of Wrong Damages Methodology Results in ‘Grossly Inflated’ Damages
In contract dispute, Chancery rejects plaintiff’s damages analysis, noting expert lacked valuation experience and chose a methodology (EBITDA multiple) that did not fit facts of case; court says there was no evidence that the alleged breach permanently diminished value of the acquired company.
Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.
Federal Circuit Majority Says ‘Premium’ License Calculation Includes Noninfringing Products
Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.
MY Imagination v. M.Z. Berger & Co. (I)
Court Concludes Plaintiff Cannot Satisfy Three-Part New York Lost Profits Test
Court says plaintiff fails New York test for lost profits; plaintiff lacks coherent damages theory and, by its own admission, is unable to do more than speculate about future profitability; expert calculation represents “the sort of conjecture the reasonable certainty standard prohibits.”
In re PLX Tech. Stockholders Litig.
‘Real-World Market Evidence’ Does Not Support Dissenters’ Damages Claim, Chancery Says
Chancery says plaintiffs proved directors breached fiduciary duties and duty to disclose but failed to prove damages; court rejects plaintiff expert's DCF analysis, noting problematic projections and beta; “real-world market evidence” shows company was not worth more than deal price.
Meridian Mfg. v. C&B Mfg.
Underdeveloped Comparability Analysis Means Exclusion of Reasonable Royalty Opinion
Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.
Rover Pipeline LLC v. 10.55 Acres
Expert’s Failure to Explain Basis for Compensation Analysis Renders Testimony Inadmissible
In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”
Zaffarkhan v. Domesek
Damages Claim Fails to Provide Yardsticks Capturing Defunct Startup’s Value
Appeals court upholds zero damages finding in dispute involving short-lived software startup, where plaintiff’s expert had no experience valuing software companies, misapprehended basic facts, and developed multimillion-dollar valuations for a company with no product, no revenue, and no investors.
Crocker v. Greater Colo. Anesthesia
Deal Price Represents Unreliable Starting Point for Fair Value Calculation
Appeals court agrees with trial court that deal price does not reflect target’s fair value because price resulting from merger of medical entities compensated shareholders for agreeing to substantial future pay reduction and for making other concessions.
Li v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc.
Failure to Do Independent Price Impact Analysis Begets Class Certification
Court certifies securities fraud class action where plaintiff expert’s analysis shows market efficiency and where defense expert fails to perform independent event study to show lack of price impact and disprove effect of alleged misrepresentations.
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (II)
Court Doubles Down on Apportionment for Multifunctional Smallest Salable Unit
Federal Circuit strikes down portion of damages, finding expert’s royalty base was unsupported because she merely apportioned to the “smallest identifiable technical component,” which itself was a multicomponent software engine that performed both noninfringing and infringing functions.
Radiologix, Inc. v. Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, LLC
Under Daubert, Damages Calculation Need Not Replicate Corporate Structure
Court admits expert calculation that determines one set of damages for two related plaintiff entities and that relies on data from nonparty parent entity; court finds calculation need not precisely track corporate structure to meet Daubert requirements.
In re Finisar Corp. Secs. Litig.
Defense Event Study Rebuts Plaintiff’s Price Impact Claim
Court denies class certification in securities fraud case, finding defense financial expert is able to rebut presumption of reliance by way of event study that shows defendant’s alleged misrepresentation had no significant impact on company’s stock price.
Baker v. Seaworld Entm’t, Inc.
Court Balks at Event Study’s Singular Focus on Misrepresentation
Court grants class certification in securities fraud case; defense expert’s event study to show absence-of-price-impact fails to rebut presumption of reliance; plaintiff meets predominance requirement and its expert offers valid classwide damages model.
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp.
Combined Expert Testimony May Provide Valid Damages Framework
In Daubert case, court finds government’s combined expert testimony concerning financial impact of negative publicity on sponsor (USPS) of Lance Armstrong and his cycling team provides “sufficiently non-speculative framework for determining damages.”