Prevailing expert comments on ‘moonshine’ case
In an earlier issue, we reported on an appellate court case involving the valuation of an owner’s one-third share in a Tennessee moonshine distillery (click here for the prior coverage).
Furrer v. Siegel & Rouhana, LLC
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
Maryland Appellate Court Remands for Valuation of Withdrawing Member’s Interest in Law firm and Affirms Damages Award
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
Tennessee moonshine formula caught up in business divorce
A partner in a Tennessee distillery making flavored moonshine felt the other two partners improperly disaffiliated him.
Manbro Energy Corp. v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
U.S. District Court (New York) Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
Update on COVID-19 Economic Loss and Lost Profits Cases
Take a look at how the aftereffects of COVID-19 are still being felt in the courtroom.
Redcell Corp. v. A.J. Trucco, Inc.
In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.
Parties' Motions to Exclude Each Other’s Experts Are Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.
Boesch v. Holeman (II)
This case revolved around the value to be paid for a one-third interest in a business partnership for a business that produces and sells flavored “moonshine” liquor. The trial court initially resolved all issues and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the fair value of his one-third interest in the partnership. Defendant appealed, among other things, the trial court determination of value for his interest. The appellate court remanded for elimination of the discount for lack of control. On this appeal, the plaintiff disagreed with the trial court value and believed the DLOM should also be eliminated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The value affirmed was a conclusion of value issued in a summary report.
A Tennessee Appellate Court Affirms the Allowance of a DLOM and Affirms Calculations Under the Income Approach
This case revolved around the value to be paid for a one-third interest in a business partnership for a business that produces and sells flavored “moonshine” liquor. The trial court initially resolved all issues and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the fair value of his one-third interest in the partnership. Defendant appealed, among other things, the trial court determination of value for his interest. The appellate court remanded for elimination of the discount for lack of control. On this appeal, the plaintiff disagreed with the trial court value and believed the DLOM should also be eliminated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The value affirmed was a conclusion of value issued in a summary report.
Calculating Infringement Damages (A BVR Workshop)
In 2019, the AICPA published the latest guide on calculating intellectual property (IP) infringement damages. Chaffe’s IP professionals will discuss a how-to of best practices for valuing IP for infringement purposes, including walking through a case study.
Economic Damages and the Depp-Heard Trial
Determining damages in any court case is a matter of information. Having the wrong information can result in a painful defeat. Having the right information can result in a stunning victory and even a substantial boost to your reputation. One only must look to recent events for an example of this.
Something from Nothing? Valuing Synergies in Acquisitions and Litigation
Acquisitions (and the prices paid for them) are often rationalized on the basis that the combined enterprise will be more valuable than the two businesses were separately. For both the business appraiser tasked with quantifying the potential synergy value in a business combination and the management team tasked with achieving those synergies, verifying and quantifying this potential value creates a unique set of challenges. In Something From Nothing? Valuing Synergies in Acquisitions and Litigation, expert ...
U.S. District Court Denies Use of Discounts in Determining the Fair Value of a Hotel Holding Corporation in a Dissolution Case
In this lengthy opinion dealing with the fair value of a 12.5% interest the plaintiff held in a Florida hotel holding corporation, the U.S. District Court determined that discounts for minority interest and for marketability are not allowed. The court also determined damages for the breach of contract, or, in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty, on the part of the plaintiff.
Agnelli v. Lennox Miami Corp.
In this lengthy opinion dealing with the fair value of a 12.5% interest the plaintiff held in a Florida hotel holding corporation, the U.S. District Court determined that discounts for minority interest and for marketability are not allowed. The court also determined damages for the breach of contract, or, in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty, on the part of the plaintiff.
Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Tucker, Albin and Assocs.
An Ohio appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction to the plaintiff because the evidence did not show that it faced immediate and irreparable injury or harm. It was also held that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference because the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant induced a third party not to continue to do business with the plaintiff.
Ohio Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of Permanent Injunction and Dismisses a Claim of Tortious Interference
An Ohio appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction to the plaintiff because the evidence did not show that it faced immediate and irreparable injury or harm. It was also held that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference because the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant induced a third party not to continue to do business with the plaintiff.
IP damages experts dodge exclusion in trademark case
In a trademark infringement case in Florida, the plaintiff’s expert (an economist) was to testify as to corrective advertising damages, but the defendant made a motion that she be excluded.
Experts in, lay witnesses out in damages case
In a Michigan case, there were a number of motions to exclude expert witnesses in a damages case that involved employee poaching in the automotive industry.
Therapeutics MD, Inc. v. Evofem Biosciences, Inc.
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
In Trademark Infringement Case, Parties Cross-Motions to Exclude Consumer Survey Experts
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
The Long Arm of the Bankruptcy Court: Valuation in Fraudulent Transfer Matters
When a company files for bankruptcy, the first analysis is to determine what the company has and what the company owes as of the filing date. Next is a thorough analysis of what had been paid out of the company before the filing date to determine whether such payments can be clawed back into the estate for the benefit of creditors. Payments made within 90 days of the filing may automatically be considered preferential. Beyond ...
Auto Konnect, LLC v BMW of North America, LLC
The U.S. District Court (Michigan) denied motions to exclude the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expert witnesses and granted motions from both parties to exclude “expert” testimony from lay witnesses. The case involved alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants regarding raiding of the plaintiff’s employees, and damages related thereto.
U.S. District Court Denies Motions to Exclude Experts but Grants Motions to Exclude Lay Witnesses ‘Expert’ Testimony
The U.S. District Court (Michigan) denied motions to exclude the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expert witnesses and granted motions from both parties to exclude “expert” testimony from lay witnesses. The case involved alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants regarding raiding of the plaintiff’s employees, and damages related thereto.