Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

1 - 25 of 60 results