Case Collapses When Experts Apply Wrong Measure of Damages
District court adopts Bankruptcy Court’s finding that expert testimony was inadmissible because the plaintiff’s experts used the wrong method to calculate damages; lost profits were not available where the plaintiff’s business was completely destroyed.
Case Collapses When Experts Apply Wrong Measure of Damages
District court adopts Bankruptcy Court’s finding that expert testimony was inadmissible because the plaintiff’s experts used the wrong method to calculate damages; lost profits were not available where the plaintiff’s business was completely destroyed.
Sherwood Invs. Overseas Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Scot. N.V. (In re Sherwood Invs. Overseas Ltd., Inc.)
District court adopts Bankruptcy Court’s finding that expert testimony was inadmissible because the plaintiff’s experts used the wrong method to calculate damages; lost profits were not available where the plaintiff’s business was completely destroyed.
Is Expert Opinion Based Solely on Experience Admissible?
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Is Expert Opinion Based Solely on Experience Admissible?
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Court Approves Winstar Plaintiff’s Tax Gross Up Calculation
Court finalizes damages award to Winstar bank by adopting plaintiff’s projected tax liability on damages related to government’s breach of contract and by ordering an additional gross up award “to make plaintiff whole.”
Anchor Savings Bank v. United States
Court finalizes damages award to Winstar bank by adopting plaintiff’s projected tax liability on damages related to government’s breach of contract and by ordering an additional gross up award “to make plaintiff whole.”
Court Upbraids Expert Who Discusses Subject Outside Area of Expertise
Under Daubert, federal court curtails trial testimony of defendant’s expert finding he lacked the appropriate qualifications; in a case centering on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), his financial economics expertise is not even “sufficiently proxim ...
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tourre
Under Daubert, federal court curtails trial testimony of defendant’s expert finding he lacked the appropriate qualifications; in a case centering on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), his financial economics expertise is not even “sufficiently proxim ...
‘Level 3’ Valuations Are Not Shielded by Business Judgment Rule
Securities fraud claim survives motion to dismiss by alleging that municipal fund managers used Level 3 (unobservable) inputs to value highly risky derivative instead of the observable inputs (actual sales date), as promised in fund disclosures.
Shiftan v. Morgan Joseph Holdings, Inc.
In merger-related appraisal action Del. Chancery agrees with petitioning shareholders that fair value assessment of company as going concern must include the redemption value provided for in the original Certificate of Incorporation.
In re Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation
Securities fraud claim survives motion to dismiss by alleging that municipal fund managers used Level 3 (unobservable) inputs to value highly risky derivative instead of the observable inputs (actual sales date), as promised in fund disclosures.
Subprime Litigation: Did the Bank Use Level 3 Inputs Instead of Observable Indexes?
Court denies motion to dismiss subprime asset litigation, based on plaintiff’s allegations that Citigroup overvalued its collateral debt obligations and understated its risk.
In re Citigroup, Inc. Securities Litigation
Court denies motion to dismiss subprime asset litigation, based on plaintiff’s allegations that Citigroup overvalued its collateral debt obligations and understated its risk.
Divorce Expert Helps Determine In-Kind Versus Economic Division of Stock
Appellate court reverses the trial court’s in-kind division of 50,000 shares of company stock, finding that wife’s share would be redeemed at below-market, formula price while husband would continue to enjoy dividends and stock appreciation.
Experts Face ‘Formidable Hurdle’ in Proving Lost Profits for Failed Banks
Court finds bank expert fails to prove federal legislation caused bank’s lost profits in breach of contract/Winstar case, when a variety of external and internal factors forced bank to shrink assets and divest risky portfolio.
Winstar Bank Claims Lost Profits During Contract; Feds Argue FMV at Breach
Federal court confirms damages award in Winstar case based on lost profits of a company that bank was forced to divest as a result of the government’s breach.
In re Marriage of Armour
Appellate court reverses the trial court’s in-kind division of 50,000 shares of company stock, finding that wife’s share would be redeemed at below-market, formula price while husband would continue to enjoy dividends and stock appreciation.
Anchor Savings Bank v. United States
Federal court confirms damages award in Winstar case based on lost profits of a company that bank was forced to divest as a result of the government’s breach.
Northeast Savings, F.A. v. United States
Court finds bank expert fails to prove federal legislation caused bank’s lost profits in breach of contract/Winstar case, when a variety of external and internal factors forced bank to shrink assets and divest risky portfolio.
Another Savings and Loan Case Sets Precedent for Expert Proof in Valuing Failed Banks
Bank purchases ailing federal thrift before passage of FIRREA; afterward, the government’s regulatory forbearances become worthless and bank loses $13.7 million of the purchase price, as supported by expert evidence regarding value of forbearances.
Lost Value of Failed Bank Turns on Expert Evidence of Market Cap and Control
U.S. Court of Appeals affirms Court of Claim’s award of $373 million for lost business value of troubled bank during savings and loan scandals, including a 50% control premium for lost enterprise/franchise value.
First Annapolis Bancorp., Inc. v. the United States
Bank purchases ailing federal thrift before passage of FIRREA; afterward, the government’s regulatory forbearances become worthless and bank loses $13.7 million of the purchase price, as supported by expert evidence regarding value of forbearances.
Slattery v. U.S.
U.S. Court of Appeals affirms Court of Claim’s award of $373 million for lost business value of troubled bank during savings and loan scandals, including a 50% control premium for lost enterprise/franchise value.