Expert’s critique of opposing valuation gets excluded
In a Tennessee damages case, the defense engaged a valuation expert to do two things: (1) critique the valuation report of the opposing side; and (2) offer his own estimate of damages.
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.
Rieves v. Town of Smyrna
The plaintiffs’ business was allegedly damaged by the actions of the defendant. The plaintiffs engaged an expert in economic damages and lost profits. The defendants engaged their own expert to provide his opinions as to why he believed the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions were unreliable. The court ultimately excluded this portion of the defendants’ expert’s testimony. The defendants’ expert’s calculation of damages, however, was a matter for cross-examination and will be allowed.
U.S. District Court Excludes Expert’s Testimony on Critique of Plaintiffs’ Damages but Allows Same Expert Testimony on His Damages Calculation
The plaintiffs’ business was allegedly damaged by the actions of the defendant. The plaintiffs engaged an expert in economic damages and lost profits. The defendants engaged their own expert to provide his opinions as to why he believed the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions were unreliable. The court ultimately excluded this portion of the defendants’ expert’s testimony. The defendants’ expert’s calculation of damages, however, was a matter for cross-examination and will be allowed.
Motobilt, Inc. v. Bystronic, Inc.
In this breach of warranty case, the plaintiff offered opinions of a damages expert but found the expert’s opinions inadmissible. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s expert “applies accounting and economic principles” to assess the value of the equipment, but his report did not identify any such principles or explain how they supported his valuation methodology. Since the plaintiff had no damages evidence to offer, the defendant was granted summary judgment.
U.S. District Court Finds Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony Inadmissible and Grants Summary Judgement to Defendant
In this breach of warranty case, the plaintiff offered opinions of a damages expert but found the expert’s opinions inadmissible. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s expert “applies accounting and economic principles” to assess the value of the equipment, but his report did not identify any such principles or explain how they supported his valuation methodology. Since the plaintiff had no damages evidence to offer, the defendant was granted summary judgment.
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.
Calculating But-For Profits
Do you feel like being asked to calculate but-for-profits feels like an engagement in another dimension? Calculating the position the harmed party would have been in “but for” the alleged acts is an advanced skill for appraisers. Join expert and contributing author to The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Stacey Udell, for a discussion of different strategies to determine net lost profits including the critical step of removing incremental costs that did not occur. Every ...
VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. Wulf
In this complex case, which the district court judge called “a doozy,” the subject of this subissue was a motion by the defendants to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s (VeroBlue Farms USA Inc.) damages expert, Brandi Kleinman, CPA/CFF. The district court judge assigned the case to the court’s magistrate judge for recommendation of decision. The motion alleged a multitude of issues and flaws with the opinions of Kleinman. The magistrate, despite these alleged issues and flaws, denied the motion, thereby allowing Kleinman to testify.
U.S. District Court (Texas) Allows Testimony of Damages Expert Despite Alleged ‘Flawed Opinions’
In this complex case, which the district court judge called “a doozy,” the subject of this subissue was a motion by the defendants to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s (VeroBlue Farms USA Inc.) damages expert, Brandi Kleinman, CPA/CFF. The district court judge assigned the case to the court’s magistrate judge for recommendation of decision. The motion alleged a multitude of issues and flaws with the opinions of Kleinman. The magistrate, despite these alleged issues and flaws, denied the motion, thereby allowing Kleinman to testify.
Furrer v. Siegel & Rouhana, LLC
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
Maryland Appellate Court Remands for Valuation of Withdrawing Member’s Interest in Law Firm and Affirms Damages Award
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
Use of DCF for damages survives challenge
In an antitrust lawsuit in Nevada, the expert for a company that alleges it was forced to close due to anticompetitive practices used the discounted cash flow (DCF) method to calculate damages.
Walsh v. Vinoskey
This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.
Court Affirms Violation of ERISA but Allows Offset of Debt Forgiveness in Determining Damages
This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.
Court Reverses Its Order to Strike Expert Testimony That Utilized the Discounted Cash Flow Method in Valuing a Business
This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.
V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, Ltd.
This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.
Court Denies Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Damages
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
Forecasting Expenses for an Economic Damages and Lost Profits Analysis
Several experts at the two-day BVR National Economic Damages Virtual Conference discussed projections in a damages and lost profits context. This article focuses on projecting expenses.
Innovation Ventures, L.L.C. v. Custom Nutrition Labs., L.L.C.
This case involves a consideration of motions by both the plaintiff and the defendant to exclude the testimony of the other party’s expert witness on the basis of Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The plaintiff’s expert offered testimony on how to calculate lost profits based on the plaintiff’s market share. The defendant’s expert offered testimony as to weaknesses in the plaintiff’s calculations and opinions on damages. The court denied both of these cross-motions.
The District Court Refuses to Throw Out Experts Under Daubert Motions, Citing Differences in Admissibility and Scrutiny Under Cross-Examination
This case involves a consideration of motions by both the plaintiff and the defendant to exclude the testimony of the other party’s expert witness on the basis of Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The plaintiff’s expert offered testimony on how to calculate lost profits based on the plaintiff’s market share. The defendant’s expert offered testimony as to weaknesses in the plaintiff’s calculations and opinions on damages. The court denied both of these cross-motions.
