Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

Chico’s Fas, Inc. v. Clair

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.

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.”

Cartwright v. Jackson Capital Partners, Ltd. P'ship

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.

In re Groupon Secs. Litig.

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.

Am. Aerial Servs. v. Terex United States

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 ...

Expert’s Failure to Adhere to Objective Standard Spoils Analysis

Court excludes lost profits analysis under Daubert where expert calculates value of plaintiff’s book of business without documenting comparables, verifying plaintiff’s claims as to number of lost clients, and employing objective work-life expectancy data.

Washington v. Kellwood Co. (I)

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.

Canadian Ruling on Use of Expert Draft Reports Crumbles on Appeal

Ontario Court of Appeal strikes down prior ruling mandating documentation and disclosure of communication between counsel and expert, noting expert-attorney collaboration is “essential” to ensure careful case preparation and timely delivery of justice.

Delaware Chancery Orders Disclosure of Nonexpert Internal Valuations

In discovery dispute over prelitigation valuation-related information, Chancery orders dissenting shareholders to disclose internal assessments of stock value finding information likely is admissible reflecting “real-world” opinion of “astute” investors.

Advanced Drainage Sys. v. Quality Culvert, Inc.

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.

Ross v. Rothstein

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.

Am. Eagle Waste Indust., LLC v. St. Louis County

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 ...

Moore v. Getahun

Ontario Court of Appeal strikes down prior ruling mandating documentation and disclosure of communication between counsel and expert, noting expert-attorney collaboration is “essential” to ensure careful case preparation and timely delivery of justice.

Russell v. Allianze Life Ins. Co. of N.A.

Court excludes lost profits analysis under Daubert where expert calculates value of plaintiff’s book of business without documenting comparables, verifying plaintiff’s claims as to number of lost clients, and employing objective work-life expectancy data.

In re Dole Food Co. (Dole I)

In discovery dispute over prelitigation valuation-related information, Chancery orders dissenting shareholders to disclose internal assessments of stock value finding information likely is admissible reflecting “real-world” opinion of “astute” investors.

Expert’s Tax Appraisal Weathers Frontal Daubert Attack

Appeals court says tax tribunal did not abdicate its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 when admitting taxpayer expert’s appraisal, where the expert was qualified and used a reliable methodology; a searching inquiry into the underlying data was not necessary.

Court Trusts Process to Test Expert’s Calculation of Value

Calculation reports periodically become a point of contention in litigation in trial and appeals courts. Courts have responded in different ways to questions about their usefulness and reliability. A recent case explores the issue of whether expert testimony based on a calculation of value is admissible under Daubert. Prior to marriage, the husband founded a company that marketed and sold Steel Seal, a car repair product that sealed blown head gaskets. The company ...

B & L Development LLC v. City of Norton Shores

Appeals court says tax tribunal did not abdicate its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 when admitting taxpayer expert’s appraisal, where the expert was qualified and used a reliable methodology; a searching inquiry into the underlying data was not necessary.

Hipple v. SCIX, LLC

Trial court finds plaintiff expert’s testimony based on a calculation of value instead of a full appraisal is admissible under Daubert because it is a form of engagements approved by the AICPA and the expert explained his methodology and assumptions.

Court Proscribes Litigant’s Efforts to Foil Expert’s Valuation

Court admits expert’s testimony despite his failure to appear for scheduled deposition where husband’s refusal to provide necessary corporate information delayed expert’s completion of the business valuation and says any error in the opinion was “invited”

Expert Trips Over Fundamental Damage Concepts

Court strikes rebuttal testimony under Daubert, where expert admitted he lacked an understanding of the damages concepts central to the opposing expert’s calculation, failed to identify a specific method for his conclusions, and included his clients’ tria ...

Chattree v. Chattree

Court admits expert’s testimony despite his failure to appear for scheduled deposition where husband’s refusal to provide necessary corporate information delayed expert’s completion of the business valuation and says any error in the opinion was “invited”

176 - 200 of 214 results