Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Business as usual (so far) under tougher Rule 702

The first reported appellate decision to cite the new Rule 702 changes has appeared, but there’s no sea change to report.

Working Effectively With Attorneys (How to Be a Better Expert)

You’ve honed your valuation skills through education, training, and experience and have been educating clients about what their businesses have been worth for years. Now litigation counsel is asking you to educate judges and juries about the economics of a complex commercial dispute. The best way to be an effective expert, in addition to having those well-honed skills, is to gain an understanding of both the litigation forum and the general needs of counsel. This ...

Lack of BV credential triggers a Daubert challenge

In a bankruptcy case in South Carolina, the defendants moved to exclude evidence of an expert, which included his exhibits and valuation report.

New Rule 702 crackdown already impacting expert witnesses

Although they don’t officially go into effect until December 1, expert witnesses are already feeling the effects of the changes designed to strengthen Rule 702, which is the federal rule of evidence regarding testifying experts.

Vieira v. Think Tank Logistics, LLC (In re Levesque)

In this adversary Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee sought to avoid the debtor’s transfer of his interest in two corporate entities and either recover the interests or the value of such interests from the defendants. As part of this proceeding, the court was asked to decide on two motions in limine regarding an valuation expert from each side. The motions (Daubert) asked that the experts not be allowed to testify. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the parties.

Bankruptcy Court (South Carolina) Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motions to Exclude Experts in Daubert Motions

In this adversary Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee sought to avoid the debtor’s transfer of his interest in two corporate entities and either recover the interests or the value of such interests from the defendants. As part of this proceeding, the court was asked to decide on two motions in limine regarding an valuation expert from each side. The motions (Daubert) asked that the experts not be allowed to testify. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the parties.

Use of Forensic Evidence in a Lost Profits Case

Financial forensics experts are often called upon to measure the lost profits a business suffered as a result of the actions of another party. The measurement typically compares the profits of the company had the defendant not acted inappropriately to the profits that the company actually realized. Because lost profits measurement involves the calculation of the value of something that should have happened but did not, the process must incorporate assumptions and significant reliance upon ...

Appraisers Continue to Be Excluded Most Under Daubert, Per PwC Study

Under Daubert, appraisers were excluded more often in 2021 than any other type of financial expert witness, according to the latest edition of an annual PwC survey. Of the three most common financial experts (economists, accountants, and appraisers), appraisers had a 38% exclusion rate in 2021, followed by accountants (32%) and economists (27%). The article gives more insights into the survey and some ways to avoid a Daubert challenge.

Appraisers have highest exclusion rate under Daubert, per PwC study

Under Daubert, appraisers were excluded more often in 2021 than any other type of financial expert witness, according to the PwC survey, “Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts (2000-2021).”

Appraisers Have the Highest Exclusion Rate Under Daubert, Per PwC Study

A look at the latest study from PwC that analyzes challenges to financial expert witnesses (appraisers, accountants, economists, and others) under the Daubert standards from 2000 to 2020. Also, some classic advice on how to survive a Daubert challenge.

Solvency opinion based on management projections faces Daubert challenge

In a bankruptcy-cum-Daubert case that turned on solvency, a court recently rejected both parties’ claims that the opposing financial expert testimony was inadmissible.

Maryland commits to Daubert for evaluating admissibility of expert testimony

In a critical move, Maryland’s highest court recently changed the standard for the admission of expert testimony when it abandoned the existing two-channel approach in favor of Daubert.

Rochkind v. Stevenson

In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.

Split Maryland High Court Adopts Daubert for Testing Admissibility of Expert Testimony

In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.

BVLaw Case Update

Join Jim Alerding, a veteran valuator, and Sylvia Golden, BVR’s legal editor, for a discussion of some of the most consequential recent valuation decisions. This selection of state and federal cases includes two key state court rulings on the use of discounts in valuing minority interests in buyback situations, a state court decision on the admissibility of calculations of value in divorce proceedings, an expansive statutory appraisal ruling involving a public company from a North ...

Experts Need Not Be ‘Blue-Ribbon Practitioners’ to Meet Rule 702 Qualification Requirement

In bankruptcy dispute, court rejects parties’ Daubert challenge to opposing expert testimony; defense expert did not blindly rely on management projections for capital adequacy and balance sheet tests, and plaintiff’s expert did not use hindsight to find debtor was insolvent on fund transfer dates.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Calpers Corp. Partners, LLC

In bankruptcy dispute, court rejects parties’ Daubert challenge to opposing expert testimony; defense expert did not blindly rely on management projections for capital adequacy and balance sheet tests, and plaintiff’s expert did not use hindsight to find debtor was insolvent on fund transfer dates.

Calculations of value are admissible in divorce, Alabama appeals court confirms

About two years ago, in Rohling v. Rohling, an Alabama appeals court upheld a trial court’s decision to admit into evidence a qualified expert’s estimate about the value of the owner spouse’s business based on a calculation engagement.

Stowe v. Stowe

In divorce case, appeals court overturns trial court’s valuation for an independent insurance agency; the trial court, without analysis, accepted there was goodwill and adopted expert’s calculation of goodwill using multiple “derived from a non-analogous source applying un-adjusted factors.”

Expert’s Goodwill Calculation Based on Rule of Thumb Sinks Under Appellate Scrutiny

In divorce case, appeals court overturns trial court’s valuation for an independent insurance agency; the trial court, without analysis, accepted there was goodwill and adopted expert’s calculation of goodwill using multiple “derived from a non-analogous source applying un-adjusted factors.”

Expert’s Damages Calculation Based on Extensive Experience in Field Is Reliable, Court Finds

Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”

Geiger v. Creative Impact Inc.

Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”

Eurochem North America Corp. v. Ganske

Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.

Lack of Valuation Credentials Does Not Disqualify Expert, but Failure to Perform Valuation Does, Court Finds

Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.

Court Rejects Parties’ Expert Valuations of Unique Sailing Vessel as Unreliable

In damages case involving unique ship for which there was no active market, court says parties’ experts provided some data points relevant to valuing ship but failed to give adequate explanations of rationales and calculations, making testimony unreliable; court performs its own analysis.

1 - 25 of 212 results