Computer Systems Design
This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in planning and designing computer systems that integrate computer hardware, software, and communication technologies. The hardware and software components of the system may be provided by this establishment or company as part of integrated services or may be provided by third parties or vendors. These establishments often install the system and train and support users of the system.
Information Technology Companies
This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in planning and designing computer systems that integrate computer hardware, software, and communication technologies. The hardware and software components of the system may be provided by this establishment or company as part of integrated services or may be provided by third parties or vendors. These establishments often install the system and train and support users of the system.
Computer Consulting
This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in planning and designing computer systems that integrate computer hardware, software, and communication technologies. The hardware and software components of the system may be provided by this establishment or company as part of integrated services or may be provided by third parties or vendors. These establishments often install the system and train and support users of the system.
Sipko v. Koger, Inc.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in its second attempt to resolve this long-running shareholder dispute, a “thoroughly chewed apple”, and buyout, reversed the appellate court and remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of its valuation of the shareholder’s interest in two businesses and also agreed with the trial court that no marketability discount should be allowed to reduce the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff. The defendants chose not to call their own expert to provide an opinion of the fair value of the shareholder’s interests.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey Accepts Trial Court’s Value of Companies and Denies a Marketability Discount in a Contentious Buyout Dispute
The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in its second attempt to resolve this long-running shareholder dispute, a “thoroughly chewed apple”, and buyout, reversed the appellate court and remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of its valuation of the shareholder’s interest in two businesses and also agreed with the trial court that no marketability discount should be allowed to reduce the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff. The defendants chose not to call their own expert to provide an opinion of the fair value of the shareholder’s interests.
Court Affirms Inclusion of Personal Goodwill in Marital Estate, Decides Trial Court Erred in Granting a Judgment Against Husband’s Business
In this divorce case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming allowed the valuation of the husband’s business, which likely included personal goodwill. It also decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it valued the husband’s business or ordered him to make an equalization payment. However, the district court erred in granting a judgment against the husband’s business for the equity payment due the wife since the business was not a party to the divorce action.
Snyder v. Snyder
In this divorce case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming allowed the valuation of the husband’s business, which likely included personal goodwill. It also decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it valued the husband’s business or ordered him to make an equalization payment. However, the district court erred in granting a judgment against the husband’s business for the equity payment due the wife since the business was not a party to the divorce action.
Cont'l Investors Fund LLC v. TradingScreen Inc.
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Company Did Not Breach Its Redemption Agreement Because of Diligence of Directors
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Oudheusden v. Oudheusden (II)
In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).
Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies Double Counting Rule in Divorce Cases Involving Valuation of a Business and Determination of Alimony
In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).
Kruse v. Synapse Wireless, Inc.
In appraisal action arising out of controller’s buyout of minority stockholders, court finds there is no reliable market evidence as to target’s fair value on merger date; none of expert valuations are “wholly reliable,” but one expert’s DCF analysis offers a “proportionately reliable conclusion.”
Lacking Any Wholly Reliable Indicators of Fair Value, Court Adopts Respondent's DCF Model
In appraisal action arising out of controller's buyout of minority stockholders, court finds there is no reliable market evidence as to target's fair value on merger date; none of expert valuations are "wholly reliable," but one expert's DCF analysis offers a "proportionately reliable conclusion."
Oudheusden v. Oudheusden (I)
Appellate court remands because of trial court’s impermissible double dipping, where trial court awarded wife half of the fair market value of husband’s two solely owned businesses, which represented husband’s sole income stream, and based spousal support on annual income generated by businesses.
Connecticut Appellate Court Remands Because of Impermissible Double Dipping
Appellate court remands because of trial court’s impermissible double dipping, where trial court awarded wife half of the fair market value of husband’s two solely owned businesses, which represented husband’s sole income stream, and based spousal support on annual income generated by businesses.
Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded
Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.
Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded
Federal Circuit rejects challenge to lost profits award; patentee showed entitlement to lost profits from whole product by satisfying Panduit; although infringing product had multiple components, further apportionment in this case was not necessary.
Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded
Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.
Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. (II)
Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.
Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded
Federal Circuit rejects challenge to lost profits award; patentee showed entitlement to lost profits from whole product by satisfying Panduit; although infringing product had multiple components, further apportionment in this case was not necessary.
Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. (I)
Federal Circuit rejects challenge to lost profits award; patentee showed entitlement to lost profits from whole product by satisfying Panduit; although infringing product had multiple components, further apportionment in this case was not necessary.
Pivotal Ruling on Damage Calculation for SEP Infringement
In dispute over infringement of standard-essential patent (SEP), Federal Circuit holds royalty must be apportioned to the value of the patented feature and must exclude any added value to the patented feature from standard’s widespread adoption.
Expert Rebuttal Fails to Engage With Initial Valuation
Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”
Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (II)
Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”
Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (I)
Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”