‘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.
Expert Fee Dispute Devolves Into Malpractice Claim
In fee dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s rejection of disgruntled client’s attempt to defend against accounting firm’s suit with allegations of malpractice; client failed to offer expert testimony to support attack on appraiser’s valuation.
J&M Distrib., Inc. v. Hearth & Home Techs., Inc.
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.
Russell v. Allianze Life Ins. Co. of N.A.
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.
Court Emphasizes Benefit of Hindsight in Evaluating Loss Period
Court finds business valuator is qualified under Daubert to proffer lost profits calculation relying on statistics methods and says expert’s loss period is not a mere “guess” because hindsight reduces years of uncertainty as to relevant market conditions.
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Appeals court affirms Daubert exclusion of plaintiff's damages expert because she analyzed the wrong problem and her conclusion did not assist the trier of fact; also, her economic model and regression analysis failed to measure “effect of the violation.”
Charron v. Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc.
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.
Usurped Opportunity Case Justifies Use of Defendant’s Profits
Appeals court validates expert’s use of defendant’s net profits as measure of damages in usurped business opportunity case; hypothesizing a facility that the plaintiff could have had and the profits it might made in competition “would not make sense.”
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp. (I)
Court finds business valuator is qualified under Daubert to proffer lost profits calculation relying on statistics methods and says expert’s loss period is not a mere “guess” because hindsight reduces years of uncertainty as to relevant market conditions.
Cohen & Company v. Breen
In fee dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s rejection of disgruntled client’s attempt to defend against accounting firm’s suit with allegations of malpractice; client failed to offer expert testimony to support attack on appraiser’s valuation.
Forecast’s Assumption Imperils Conjoined Expert Opinions
In breach of contract suit, court strikes expert’s revenue forecasts, using Monte Carlo simulation, finding key assumption resulted from expert’s misreading of contract; court also strikes second expert’s valuation resting on inadmissible forecasts.
St. Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP
Appeals court validates expert’s use of defendant’s net profits as measure of damages in usurped business opportunity case; hypothesizing a facility that the plaintiff could have had and the profits it might made in competition “would not make sense.”
Buyout Agreement Short-Circuits Court’s Scrutiny of Appraisals
Court says determination of repurchase price of departing partner’s stake is subject to operating agreement giving defendants absolute control over valuation; absent bad faith conduct, court declines to scrutinize appraisals underlying buyout offer.
Courts Wrestle With Discount Rate for Future Stock Price Increase
In retaliation suit requiring valuation of company restricted stock, district court, despite hesitation, affirms expert’s proposed zero percent net discount rate finding expert provided some support for it.
‘Stand-Alone’ Lost Profits Claim Sinks, as Does Expert Opinion
In lost licensing opportunity suit, court excludes damages opinion where expert failed to vet assumptions in plaintiff’s business plan; issue is to determine market value of loss not lost profits as such.
Myservice Force v. Am. Home Shield
In breach of contract suit, court strikes expert’s revenue forecasts, using Monte Carlo simulation, finding key assumption resulted from expert’s misreading of contract; court also strikes second expert’s valuation resting on inadmissible forecasts.
Leone v. Owsley
Court says determination of repurchase price of departing partner’s stake is subject to operating agreement giving defendants absolute control over valuation; absent bad faith conduct, court declines to scrutinize appraisals underlying buyout offer.