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.
No ‘Circular Reasoning’ in Expert’s Lost Profits Calculation
Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.
Defendant’s Move to Exclude Damages Expert at Class Certification Stage Fails
Court performs Daubert inquiry at class certification stage, finding plaintiffs’ expert testimony is admissible; expert has shown it is possible to calculate damages by applying common, reliable formula to entire class, court says, certifying class.
Defendant’s Move to Exclude Damages Expert at Class Certification Stage Fails
Court performs Daubert inquiry at class certification stage, finding plaintiffs’ expert testimony is admissible; expert has shown it is possible to calculate damages by applying common, reliable formula to entire class, court says, certifying class.
In re Stericycle, Inc.
Court performs Daubert inquiry at class certification stage, finding plaintiffs’ expert testimony is admissible; expert has shown it is possible to calculate damages by applying common, reliable formula to entire class, court says, certifying class.
No ‘Circular Reasoning’ in Expert’s Lost Profits Calculation
Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp. (II)
Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.
Breach of Noncompete Means Damages for ‘Loss Sustained’ and Lost Profits
In breach of noncompete case, appeals court finds measure of damages is not limited to net loss; statute allows damages “for the loss sustained” in addition to lost profits, and trial court properly credited and adjusted expert’s typical damages models.
Flawed Lost Profits Analysis Leaves Plaintiff Bereft of Damages Evidence
Court excludes damages opinion where expert relied on historical data from one construction project to calculate lost profits for subject project without establishing comparability as to type of contract and scope of work and by using “ad hoc” method.
Unilateral Partnership Dissolution Exacts Steep Price From Wrongdoer
New York appellate court says trial court erred when it declined to apply minority discount in determining “value” of minority shareholder’s interest in partnership where shareholder wrongfully dissolved partnership and buyout was not a fair value proceed ...
Rebuttal Opinion Helpful to Jury Because Valuation ‘Not a Common-Sense Subject’
Court declines to exclude rebuttal damages testimony, noting rebuttal expert’s professional background and qualifications were similar to that of principal expert and rebuttal opinion was helpful to jury in assessing principal expert’s damages calculation.
8th Circuit Validates Employment Contract and Damages Related to Breach
Appeals court affirms plaintiff’s employment contract with employee is enforceable, and competitor interfering with it is liable for profits plaintiff employer lost; court notes plaintiff established causation and proved loss with reasonable certainty.
Defendant’s Obfuscatory Tactics to Preclude Expert Testimony Fail
Court rejects defendant’s relevance attack on plaintiff expert’s opinion, noting under Daubert testimony need not “fit” a particular cause of action but is relevant where it assesses damages based on harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s misconduct.
Congel v Malfitano (I)
New York appellate court says trial court erred when it declined to apply minority discount in determining “value” of minority shareholder’s interest in partnership where shareholder wrongfully dissolved partnership and buyout was not a fair value proceed ...
RMS of Wisconsin, Inc. v. S-K JV
Court excludes damages opinion where expert relied on historical data from one construction project to calculate lost profits for subject project without establishing ...
Buyer’s Failure to Assign Value to Practice Goodwill Nullifies Noncompete
Appeals court says noncompete/nonsolicitation clauses accompanying sale of solo practitioner’s medical practice to large healthcare provider are unenforceable where buyer allocated zero dollar value to practice’s goodwill; court strikes down injunction.
Spencer Franchise Servs. of Ga. v. WOW Café & Wingery Franchising Account, LLC
Court declines to exclude rebuttal damages testimony, noting rebuttal expert’s professional background and qualifications were similar to that of principal expert and rebuttal opinion was helpful to jury in assessing principal expert’s damages calculation ...
St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Biosense Webster, Inc.
Appeals court affirms plaintiff’s employment contract with employee is enforceable, and competitor interfering with it is liable for profits plaintiff employer lost; court notes plaintiff established causation and proved loss with reasonable certainty.
Court Excludes Pro Forma-Based Economic Damages Analysis
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Value Determination Accords With Parties’ Contract, Chancery Says
Court says valuation firm’s determination of value of defendants’ put units accords with agreement to which plaintiff and defendants committed themselves; since contract does not provide for judicial review, court won’t “second-guess” valuator’s judgment.
Pattridge v. Starks
In breach of noncompete case, appeals court finds measure of damages is not limited to net loss; statute allows damages “for the loss sustained” in addition to lost profits, and trial court properly credited and adjusted expert’s typical damages models.
Covol Fuels No. 4 v. Pinnacle Mining Co.
Court rejects defendant’s relevance attack on plaintiff expert’s opinion, noting under Daubert testimony need not “fit” a particular cause of action but is relevant where it assesses damages based on harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s misconduct.
Healthcare v. Orr
Appeals court says noncompete/nonsolicitation clauses accompanying sale of solo practitioner’s medical practice to large healthcare provider are unenforceable where buyer allocated zero dollar value to practice’s goodwill; court strikes down injunction.
PECO Logistics, LLC v. Walnut Inv. Partners, L.P.
Court says valuation firm’s determination of value of defendants’ put units accords with agreement to which plaintiff and defendants committed themselves; since contract does not provide for judicial review, court won’t “second-guess” valuator’s judgment.
Bruno v. Bozzuto’s, Inc.
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.