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.
Court Sets Aside Big Lost Profits Award Based on Bad Yardstick Analysis
Court strikes down multimillion-dollar lost profits award, finding it was based on expert testimony that was “sheer surmise and conjecture”; using yardstick method, expert claimed upstart company would have achieved 50% of sales of market leader.
Court Sets Aside Big Lost Profits Award Based on Bad Yardstick Analysis
Court reconsiders earlier order for retrial on lost value damages, finding plaintiffs “had no intention of pursuing a realistic damages award” and lack admissible evidence supporting multimillion-dollar value claims; instead, court awards one dollar.
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.
Court Sets Aside Big Lost Profits Award Based on Bad Yardstick Analysis
Court reconsiders earlier order for retrial on lost value damages, finding plaintiffs “had no intention of pursuing a realistic damages award” and lack admissible evidence supporting multimillion-dollar value claims; instead, court awards one dollar.
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.
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (III)
Court reconsiders earlier order for retrial on lost value damages, finding plaintiffs “had no intention of pursuing a realistic damages award” and lack admissible evidence supporting multimillion-dollar value claims; instead, court awards one dollar.
Delaware Supreme Court Judge Boos Chancery's Option Valuation Case Analysis
In reviewing one of the Delaware Court of Chancery's most noteworthy rulings from 2015, one judge on the state Supreme Court wrote a stinging critique of the trial court's analysis.
Court Sets Aside Big Lost Profits Award Based on Bad Yardstick Analysis
Court strikes down multimillion-dollar lost profits award, finding it was based on expert testimony that was “sheer surmise and conjecture”; using yardstick method, expert claimed upstart company would have achieved 50% of sales of market leader.
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (II)
Court strikes down multimillion-dollar lost profits award, finding it was based on expert testimony that was “sheer surmise and conjecture”; using yardstick method, expert claimed upstart company would have achieved 50% of sales of market leader.
Destruction of financial evidence trips up guilty party's own experts
As a damages expert, what do you do when your own client has destroyed vital financial information? Two highly educated finance professionals working on a contract case solved this dilemma by relying exclusively on the opposing side's sales projections, only to see their analysis buckle under a Daubert challenge.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
High Company-Specific Risk Adjustment Distorts Valuation
In a buyout case, the court finds that, in reselling company, defendants undervalued rollover equity interest by double counting risks specific to the company in order to avoid triggering windfall provision in prior sales agreement favorable to plaintiff.
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.
Averaging Multiple Appraisals Yields Most Reliable FMV
In ESOP case, court finds trustees unreasonably relied on appraiser’s valuations and overpaid for company stock; court credits parties’ three experts equally and arrives at fair market value by averaging results from experts’ multiple calculations.
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 ...
Charron v. Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc.
In a buyout case, the court finds that, in reselling company, defendants undervalued rollover equity interest by double counting risks specific to the company in order to avoid triggering windfall provision in prior sales agreement favorable to plaintiff.
Failure to Specify Offset Value Does Not Preclude Expert’s Admissibility
In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.
Perez v. Bruister (I)
In ESOP case, court finds trustees unreasonably relied on appraiser’s valuations and overpaid for company stock; court credits parties’ three experts equally and arrives at fair market value by averaging results from experts’ multiple calculations.
A Time Limit on Use of Destruction of Business Method?
Court finds damages expert’s use of destruction of business method is not improper despite a four-year gap between the alleged offending conduct and the company’s demise, and it does not render his calculation inadmissible under Daubert.