Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Healthcare whistleblower case regarding FMV can proceed

The CFO of a healthcare provider blew the whistle on his former employer, alleging it overpaid for a surgery center in order to induce it to refer future business.

Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp.

The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.

U.S. District Court Partially Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Qui Tam Case on Excess Purchase Price Under the False Claims Act

The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.

Harrison v. Envision Mgmt. Holding, Inc.

The U.S. District Court (Colorado) denied a motion to compel arbitration the defendants brought in a case the plaintiff participants brought (a purported class action) in an ESOP the defendant company, et al. established. “The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ actions related to the sale caused him and all other ESOP participants to suffer significant losses to their ESOP retirement savings.” The court denied the motion.

U.S. District Court Denies Motion of Defendants in an ESOP Case to Compel Plaintiff Into Arbitration

The U.S. District Court (Colorado) denied a motion to compel arbitration the defendants brought in a case the plaintiff participants brought (a purported class action) in an ESOP the defendant company, et al. established. “The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ actions related to the sale caused him and all other ESOP participants to suffer significant losses to their ESOP retirement savings.” The court denied the motion.

Journal of Business Valuation 2021 Edition

From the CBV Institute ...

Equity Planning Corp. v. Westfield Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.

Court Grants Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint That It Suffered Covered Loss of Income Due to COVID-19 Restrictions

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.

Brunswick Panini’s v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Argument That Policy Covered Loss of Full Use of Premises Due to COVID-19-Related Shutdowns and Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s COVID-19-Related Suit, Noting Claimed Loss of Use of Properties Is Not Direct Physical Loss Under the Relevant Policy

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, a federal court granted the defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit over coverage, finding plaintiff’s claim for loss of income based on state orders restricting use does not meet “direct physical loss” prerequisite.

Torgerson Props. v. Cont’l Cas. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, a federal court granted the defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit over coverage, finding plaintiff’s claim for loss of income based on state orders restricting use does not meet “direct physical loss” prerequisite.

Protégé Rest. Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.

Court Says Plaintiff Fails to State Plausible Claim to Relief for COVID-19-Related Losses but Allows Amendment of Complaint

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.

Mem’l Hermann Health Sys. v. Gomez

In defamation and business disparagement case against former employer, appeals court affirms jury award to cardiovascular surgeon compensating for injury to reputation and lost profits; expert’s before/after analysis was supported by evidence, and expert ruled out other causes for lost business.

Damages Expert’s ‘Before/After’ Lost Profits Analysis Bolsters Plaintiff’s Defamation Case

In defamation and business disparagement case against former employer, appeals court affirms jury award to cardiovascular surgeon compensating for injury to reputation and lost profits; expert’s before/after analysis was supported by evidence, and expert ruled out other causes for lost business.

My Imagination v. M.Z. Berger & Co. (II)

Court denies plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, affirming earlier finding that the expert did not offer an opinion as to damages for loss of business value; expert never offered any opinion of business’s value at any time, court says.

Cargotec Corp. v. Logan Industries

Appeals court majority strikes down lost profits and diminished business value awards, finding plaintiff failed to show causation and its damages expert based his calculations on management’s business plan without substantiating the plan’s underlying (unreasonable) gross profit goals.

Court’s Majority Says Expert’s Reliance on Management Projections Was Unreasonable

Appeals court majority strikes down lost profits and diminished business value awards, finding plaintiff failed to show causation and its damages expert based his calculations on management’s business plan without substantiating the plan’s underlying (unreasonable) gross profit goals.

Infogroup, Inc. v. Database USA.com LLC

Ruling on defendant’s post-trial motions, court reduces damages for copyright infringement where plaintiff’s expert included in damage calculation defendant’s profits for years for which the plaintiff failed to show “causal nexus” between profits claimed and the actual infringement.

Court Limits Damages for Copyright Infringement, Noting Lack of ‘Causal Nexus’

Ruling on defendant’s post-trial motions, court reduces damages for copyright infringement where plaintiff’s expert included in damage calculation defendant’s profits for years for which the plaintiff failed to show “causal nexus” between profits claimed and the actual infringement.

MY Imagination v. M.Z. Berger & Co. (I)

Court says plaintiff fails New York test for lost profits; plaintiff lacks coherent damages theory and, by its own admission, is unable to do more than speculate about future profitability; expert calculation represents “the sort of conjecture the reasonable certainty standard prohibits.”

Court Concludes Plaintiff Cannot Satisfy Three-Part New York Lost Profits Test

Court says plaintiff fails New York test for lost profits; plaintiff lacks coherent damages theory and, by its own admission, is unable to do more than speculate about future profitability; expert calculation represents “the sort of conjecture the reasonable certainty standard prohibits.”

Loss of Value Damages Do Not Require Showing of Complete Destruction

In tortious interference with business relations case, 8th Circuit says district court did not err when it allowed plaintiff’s expert to testify to total loss of value where company was not completely destroyed but harmed; damages award was not excessive.

Loss of Value Damages Do Not Require Showing of Complete Destruction

In tortious interference with business relations case, 8th Circuit says district court did not err when it allowed plaintiff’s expert to testify to total loss of value where company was not completely destroyed but harmed; damages award was not excessive.

1 - 25 of 74 results