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.”
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.”
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.
Don’t assume causation, AICPA panel warns damages experts
Causation presents one of the most vexing problems for damages experts. But ignoring causation and simply working off the assumption that it exists may end up being the biggest problem for an expert.
Combined Expert Testimony May Provide Valid Damages Framework
In Daubert case, court finds government’s combined expert testimony concerning financial impact of negative publicity on sponsor (USPS) of Lance Armstrong and his cycling team provides “sufficiently non-speculative framework for determining damages.”
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp.
In Daubert case, court finds government’s combined expert testimony concerning financial impact of negative publicity on sponsor (USPS) of Lance Armstrong and his cycling team provides “sufficiently non-speculative framework for determining damages.”
Federal Circuit drills down into Panduit, apportionment, and lost profits
The Federal Circuit recently examined a paramount damages issue that comes up in patent cases: whether, in terms of calculating lost profits, the patent holder’s ability to meet the Panduit factors makes a separate apportionment analysis unnecessary.
Loss of Value Damages Does 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.
West Plains, LLC v. Retzlaff Grain Co. (II)
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.
Trial court leans on peer review service for Daubert determination
When, in a Mississippi accounting malpractice case, the trial court used an outside "technical advisor" to determine the admissibility of the parties’ proposed expert testimony, the Daubert hearing assumed a whole other dimension. It was no longer simply a battle between the opposing experts, but an occasion for outside experts to judge the work of the parties’ experts.
No ‘Circular Reasoning’ in Expert’s Lost Profits Calculation
Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.
Expert’s Exclusion Dooms ‘Frozen Market’ Theory and Loss of Value Claims
Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.
Federal Circuit Discusses Rationale Behind Different Measures of Damages
Federal Circuit says expert’s royalty analysis was not improper “pseudo” lost profits analysis that tried to circumvent higher standard of proof, where expert considered plaintiff’s profits as one of many factors in her hypothetical-negotiation model.
Federal Circuit reacts coolly to ‘pseudo’ lost profits argument; royalty analysis may consider profits
The Federal Circuit recently found a reasonable royalty calculation that took into account the plaintiff’s profit margin was not a lost profits analysis in disguise. The plaintiff’s expert did not try to circumvent the “but for” causation requirement that applied to a lost profits claim.
No ‘Circular Reasoning’ in Expert’s Lost Profits Calculation
Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp. (II)
Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.
Expert’s Exclusion Dooms ‘Frozen Market’ Theory and Loss of Value Claims
Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.
TiVo Research & Analytics, Inc. v. TNS Media Research
Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.
Danmark v. CMI USA, Inc.
Federal Circuit says expert’s royalty analysis was not improper “pseudo” lost profits analysis that tried to circumvent higher standard of proof, where expert considered plaintiff’s profits as one of many factors in her hypothetical-negotiation model.
Federal Circuit Discusses Rationale Behind Different Measures of Damages
Federal Circuit says expert’s royalty analysis was not improper “pseudo” lost profits analysis that tried to circumvent higher standard of proof, where expert considered plaintiff’s profits as one of many factors in her hypothetical-negotiation model.
2nd Circuit Chafes at Wholesale Exclusion of Loss Causation Testimony
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.
8th Circuit Validates Employment Contract and Damages Related to Breach
Appeals court affirms plaintiff’s employment contract with employee is enforceable, and competitor interfering with it is liable for profits plaintiff employer lost; court notes plaintiff established causation and proved loss with reasonable certainty.
Defendant’s Obfuscatory Tactics to Preclude Expert Testimony Fail
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.
Loss of Value Damages Does Not Require Showing of Complete Destruction
In tortious interference with business relations case, trial court rejects post-trial attack, finding sufficient evidence to support jury award to plaintiff, including expert testimony about total loss of value to company based on defendants’ misconduct.