Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

‘Blunderbuss of Objections’ Aims to Kill Loss of Goodwill Calculation

Defendant’s “blunderbuss of objections” to opposing expert’s valuation of loss of goodwill misses mark, 7th Circuit says; expert used a standard business valuation method and his reliance on company financials was justified under rules of evidence.

Tilstra v. Boumatic LLC

Defendant’s “blunderbuss of objections” to opposing expert’s valuation of loss of goodwill misses mark, 7th Circuit says; expert used a standard business valuation method and his reliance on company financials was justified under rules of evidence.

FRE 702 Ruling Puts Expert in ‘Uncommon Position’

Court affirms magistrate judge’s decision to exclude expert’s ultimate conclusions but to admit his factual statements; under Rule 702, he had the specialized knowledge to provide background information helpful to court’s understanding of the evidence.

Court Endorses Before and After Method for Lost Profits

In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.

Expert’s Failure to Adhere to Objective Standard Spoils Analysis

Court excludes lost profits analysis under Daubert where expert calculates value of plaintiff’s book of business without documenting comparables, verifying plaintiff’s claims as to number of lost clients, and employing objective work-life expectancy data.

What Role for Revenue Ruling 59-60 Factors in Valuing Closely Held Business?

Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.

High Company-Specific Risk Adjustment Distorts Valuation

In a buyout case, the court finds that, in reselling company, defendants undervalued rollover equity interest by double counting risks specific to the company in order to avoid triggering windfall provision in prior sales agreement favorable to plaintiff.

Advanced Drainage Sys. v. Quality Culvert, Inc.

In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.

Ross v. Rothstein

Court affirms magistrate judge’s decision to exclude expert’s ultimate conclusions but to admit his factual statements; under Rule 702, he had the specialized knowledge to provide background information helpful to court’s understanding of the evidence.

26 - 50 of 638 results