Celsius Holdings, Inc. v. Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc.
In determining the amount of damages in this contract dispute, the Florida Appellate Court dealt with the appropriate date of value of stock of the defendant in determining the appropriate amount of damages. The date of value was an issue that arose in a number of cases. The court rejected the use of the date of trial but remanded for the court to determine whether to use the date of the breach of contract or the date at which restrictions on the sale of stock lapsed. While the court touched on the restriction issue, no evidence that a value at the date of breach, which included the impact of the restrictions on value, was presented.
Florida Appellate Court Remands for Determination of the Proper Date of Value in a Damages Case
In determining the amount of damages in this contract dispute, the Florida Appellate Court dealt with the appropriate date of value of stock of the defendant in determining the appropriate amount of damages. The date of value was an issue that arose in a number of cases. The court rejected the use of the date of trial but remanded for the court to determine whether to use the date of the breach of contract or the date at which restrictions on the sale of stock lapsed. While the court touched on the restriction issue, no evidence that a value at the date of breach, which included the impact of the restrictions on value, was presented.
TAKTL, LLC v. IWR, N. Am., LLC
This case, a breach of construction contract case, again provided a tutorial on the application of FRE 702 and the Daubert rules as to whether a witness qualified to testify. This case was post-Dec. 1, 2023, so the rule application was subject to the clarification of FRE 702 that became effective on that date. The court went in depth into the “fit” requirement, which was: Did the expert adequately apply testimony and a report that “fit” the case at hand, a requirement clarified by the Dec. 1, 2023, changes?
Court Decides on Motions to Exclude Under Post-Dec. 1, 2023, FRE 702
This case, a breach of construction contract case, again provided a tutorial on the application of FRE 702 and the Daubert rules as to whether a witness qualified to testify. This case was post-Dec. 1, 2023, so the rule application was subject to the clarification of FRE 702 that became effective on that date. The court went in depth into the “fit” requirement, which was: Did the expert adequately apply testimony and a report that “fit” the case at hand, a requirement clarified by the Dec. 1, 2023, changes?
Brown v. Progressive Mt. Ins. Co.
In discussing and ruling on motions to exclude portions of testimony of three experts in a class action case against Progressive Insurance for breach of contract in determining the actual cash value to be paid in valuing a used car, the court provided well-reasoned decisions as to the application of FRE 702. It was in effect a tutorial.
U.S. District Court (Georgia) Rules on Various Motions to Exclude Testimony Under FRE 702 (A Tutorial)
In discussing and ruling on motions to exclude portions of testimony of three experts in a class action case against Progressive Insurance for breach of contract in determining the actual cash value to be paid in valuing a used car, the court provided well-reasoned decisions as to the application of FRE 702. It was in effect a tutorial.
Another expert ‘Dauberted’ out of a damages case
In last week’s issue, we reported on a damages case in which a valuation expert’s testimony was excluded because of the methodology used in the analysis. In this week’s case (also a damages matter), the expert didn’t even get that far before being excluded.
Lost profits calculation goes off the track
In a Missouri breach of contract case, the plaintiffs were carriers who delivered print newspapers to subscribers under an agreement that gave them territorial rights.
Lazar v. Mor
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
Motion to Amend for Consideration of Variable Member Interests Granted
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
Bextermueller News Distribs., Inc. v. Lee Enters.
In determining damages, the plaintiffs’ damages expert used a method of determining damages revolving around a calculation of lost revenue. The defendants argued the testimony was irrelevant and unreliable because the lost revenue calculations were based on the erroneous premise that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages, delivery fees for digital subscribers to a newspaper. The court disagreed and excluded the expert’s testimony under Rule 702.
Plaintiff Expert Is Excluded—Lost Revenue Calculation Is Not an Approach Allowed for Damages in Missouri (Rule 702 Exclusion)
Plaintiff news carriers operated as home delivery carriers under a contract with the defendant newspaper. Around 2017, the defendant began offering an electronic version of the newspaper, allegedly breaching the exclusive territorial provisions of the contract with the carriers. In determining damages, the plaintiffs’ damages expert used a method of determining damages revolving around a calculation of lost revenue. The defendants argued her testimony was irrelevant and unreliable because her lost revenue calculations were based on the erroneous premise that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages, delivery fees for every digital subscriber. The court disagreed and excluded the expert’s testimony under Rule 702.
Testimony of damages expert excluded due to no basis
In a Pennsylvania breach of contract case, the plaintiff’s damages expert was to testify as to lost profits.
Doe v. Trs. of Dartmouth Coll.
The defendant in this action, trustees of Dartmouth College, moved to have the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as to lost wages and lost earning capacity excluded. The plaintiff had filed an action against the defendant for breach of contract and violation of Title IX by expelling him from Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude.
U.S. District Court Allows Expert Testimony on Lost Wages and Lost Earning Capacity in a Title IX Private Action
The defendant in this action, trustees of Dartmouth College, moved to have the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as to lost wages and lost earning capacity excluded. The plaintiff had filed an action against the defendant for breach of contract and violation of Title IX by expelling him from Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude.
Taylor Precision Prods. v. Larimer Grp., Inc.
In the damages portion of this complex suit, the court determined damages based on the plaintiff’s expert’s determination and report of same. It awarded damages on the first component of his damages calculation, the damages based on an adjusted “lost” EBITDA, but not on the second component, which the court deemed to be speculative.
Plaintiff Awarded Direct Damages But Not Speculative ‘Growth Damages’
In the damages portion of this complex suit, the court determined damages based on the plaintiff’s expert’s determination and report of same. It awarded damages on the first component of his damages calculation, the damages based on an adjusted “lost” EBITDA, but not on the second component, which the court deemed to be speculative.
Internal billings trigger M&A damages; GPCM prevails
A case in Delaware Chancery Court shows that the court will not award damages from an M&A transaction gone bad when the calculations are based on speculative lost synergies.
Paramount Fin. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Broadridge Inv’r Commc’n Sols., Inc.
In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.
On Reconsideration, Court Affirms Decision to Exclude Testimony of Damages Expert
In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.
NetApp, Inc. v. Cinelli
The defendant hid improper recording of revenue from use of internal software in unaudited financial statements that were represented to be GAAP-compliant. The defendant was held to have breached the merger/sale contract in a manner that resulted in fraud. The plaintiff was awarded damages. The court accepted the expert’s GPCM as the most “responsible estimate” of the private company’s value as it was presented to the plaintiff.
Seller Breached Terms of Merger Agreement Including That Statements Were GAAP-Compliant—Expert’s GPCM Accepted
The defendant hid improper recording of revenue from use of internal software in unaudited financial statements that were represented to be GAAP-compliant. The defendant was held to have breached the merger/sale contract in a manner that resulted in fraud. The plaintiff was awarded damages. The court accepted the expert’s GPCM as the most “responsible estimate” of the private company’s value as it was presented to the plaintiff.
Damages waiver precludes lost profits claim
In an Illinois case, a contract for consulting services for an online platform was terminated and the terminating party was supposed to return the source code to the other party but did not, breaching the contract.
City of Fort Collins v. Open Int’l, LLC
In a breach of contract suit concerning failure of vendor to deliver software, the court considered and ruled on motions to exclude certain expert witnesses. The court denied most motions while granting some motions in part.
U.S. District Court (Colorado) Rules on Motions to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witnesses
In a breach of contract suit concerning failure of vendor to deliver software, the court considered and ruled on motions to exclude certain expert witnesses. The court denied most motions while granting some motions in part.