Jafar v. Mohammed
In partnership dispute, appeals court affirms redemption award based on multiple-of-earnings valuation, finding valuation was reliable and admissible under state equivalent of Daubert and trial court had discretion to disregard other indicators of value.
Showers v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig.)
Second Circuit says district court “went astray” when, under Daubert, it excluded entire loss causation and damages testimony of plaintiffs’ expert instead of just eliminating unreliable part; appeals court ruling revives securities fraud class action.
Daubert Flexible as to Solvency Determination for Multiple Debtor Entities
Court finds Daubert centers on reliability, not persuasiveness, and can accommodate experts’ different approaches to determining solvency in case with multiple debtor entities; court rejects exclusion of expert opinion relying on GAAP-based financials.
Post-Confirmation Comm. for Small Loans, Inc. v. Martin
Court finds Daubert centers on reliability, not persuasiveness, and can accommodate experts’ different approaches to determining solvency in case with multiple debtor entities; court rejects exclusion of expert opinion relying on GAAP-based financials.
Business Debt Renders Expert’s Lack of BV Credentials Inconsequential
Appeals court says trial court’s decision to admit opinion of seasoned CPA expert who was not a credentialed business valuator was not error because valuation was a “non-issue” where evidence showed the indebted company was no longer a going concern.
Court Decides Daubert Attack ‘Misses the Mark’
Court calls Daubert challenger’s attack on expert’s lost profits opinion “misguided”; it unduly focuses on expert’s familiarity with legal standards and fails to explain what is wrong with expert’s use of software program for projecting future damages.
Court Excludes Pro Forma-Based Economic Damages Analysis
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Covol Fuels No. 4 v. Pinnacle Mining Co.
Court rejects defendant’s relevance attack on plaintiff expert’s opinion, noting under Daubert testimony need not “fit” a particular cause of action but is relevant where it assesses damages based on harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s misconduct.
Damages Opinion Reveals ‘Serious Misconception’ of Role of Expert
Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...
Bruno v. Bozzuto’s, Inc.
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Deflecto, LLC v. Dundas Jafine Inc.
Court calls Daubert challenger’s attack on expert’s lost profits opinion “misguided”; it unduly focuses on expert’s familiarity with legal standards and fails to explain what is wrong with expert’s use of software program for projecting future damages.
Sternat v. Sternat
Appeals court says trial court’s decision to admit opinion of seasoned CPA expert who was not a credentialed business valuator was not error because valuation was a “non-issue” where evidence showed the indebted company was no longer a going concern.
‘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.
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.”
Uncritical Use of Royalty Rate Data Spoils Damages Opinion
Court excludes most of damages testimony under Daubert because expert based reasonable royalty calculation on data from IP databases and publications without subjecting information to rigorous analysis and establishing its relevance to case at hand.
Daubert Allows for Generous View on Yardstick Analysis
Court rejects bright-line reliability test for yardstick analysis, saying expert’s failure to find a “nearly identical” comparator did not render analysis unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert and finding companies were similar in material respects.
No Place for Asset Appraisal in Trust Dispute, Court Says
In trust dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s exclusion of expert’s “asset appraisal and valuation,” finding business valuator’s approach for measuring damages was inconsistent with scope of the case, irrelevant, and not helpful to trier of fact.
Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods
Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...
Failure to Test Causation Narrative Clouds Analysis of Lost Profits
Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...
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.
Admissibility Does Not Depend on Personal Knowledge of Facts
Appeals court says expert’s lack of personal knowledge of information undergirding lost profits calculation does not disqualify his opinion, as long as he can show experts in his field would rely on this information and it is otherwise reasonably reliable ...
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.
Fraud Litigation Highlights Dispute Over ‘Market Efficiency’
Court rebuffs Daubert challenge to investor expert’s efficient market opinion, saying securities law only requires showing that false statements affected stock price and caused loss to investors, not that market perfectly reflected all public information.
StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc.
Court says market approach is “sound and reliable methodology” for calculating reasonable royalty and denies defendants’ Daubert motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert from testifying why he declined to use Georgia-Pacific factors in this case.