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.
Lazar v. Mor
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
Motion to Amend for Consideration of Variable Member Interests Granted
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
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.
Testimony of damages expert excluded due to no basis
In a Pennsylvania breach of contract case, the plaintiff’s damages expert was to testify as to lost profits.
Doe v. Trs. of Dartmouth Coll.
The defendant in this action, trustees of Dartmouth College, moved to have the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as to lost wages and lost earning capacity excluded. The plaintiff had filed an action against the defendant for breach of contract and violation of Title IX by expelling him from Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude.
U.S. District Court Allows Expert Testimony on Lost Wages and Lost Earning Capacity in a Title IX Private Action
The defendant in this action, trustees of Dartmouth College, moved to have the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as to lost wages and lost earning capacity excluded. The plaintiff had filed an action against the defendant for breach of contract and violation of Title IX by expelling him from Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude.
Taylor Precision Prods. v. Larimer Grp., Inc.
In the damages portion of this complex suit, the court determined damages based on the plaintiff’s expert’s determination and report of same. It awarded damages on the first component of his damages calculation, the damages based on an adjusted “lost” EBITDA, but not on the second component, which the court deemed to be speculative.
Plaintiff Awarded Direct Damages But Not Speculative ‘Growth Damages’
In the damages portion of this complex suit, the court determined damages based on the plaintiff’s expert’s determination and report of same. It awarded damages on the first component of his damages calculation, the damages based on an adjusted “lost” EBITDA, but not on the second component, which the court deemed to be speculative.
Internal billings trigger M&A damages; GPCM prevails
A case in Delaware Chancery Court shows that the court will not award damages from an M&A transaction gone bad when the calculations are based on speculative lost synergies.
Paramount Fin. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Broadridge Inv’r Commc’n Sols., Inc.
In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.
On Reconsideration, Court Affirms Decision to Exclude Testimony of Damages Expert
In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.
NetApp, Inc. v. Cinelli
The defendant hid improper recording of revenue from use of internal software in unaudited financial statements that were represented to be GAAP-compliant. The defendant was held to have breached the merger/sale contract in a manner that resulted in fraud. The plaintiff was awarded damages. The court accepted the expert’s GPCM as the most “responsible estimate” of the private company’s value as it was presented to the plaintiff.
Seller Breached Terms of Merger Agreement Including That Statements Were GAAP-Compliant—Expert’s GPCM Accepted
The defendant hid improper recording of revenue from use of internal software in unaudited financial statements that were represented to be GAAP-compliant. The defendant was held to have breached the merger/sale contract in a manner that resulted in fraud. The plaintiff was awarded damages. The court accepted the expert’s GPCM as the most “responsible estimate” of the private company’s value as it was presented to the plaintiff.
Damages waiver precludes lost profits claim
In an Illinois case, a contract for consulting services for an online platform was terminated and the terminating party was supposed to return the source code to the other party but did not, breaching the contract.
City of Fort Collins v. Open Int’l, LLC
In a breach of contract suit concerning failure of vendor to deliver software, the court considered and ruled on motions to exclude certain expert witnesses. The court denied most motions while granting some motions in part.
U.S. District Court (Colorado) Rules on Motions to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witnesses
In a breach of contract suit concerning failure of vendor to deliver software, the court considered and ruled on motions to exclude certain expert witnesses. The court denied most motions while granting some motions in part.
Gutierrez v. Padilla
The plaintiffs bought two automotive supply businesses from the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant and the defendant’s broker made representations about the condition of the businesses during the sale and breached various terms of the sale contract. The district court dismissed complaints against the defendant’s broker and awarded damages to both parties regarding alleged actions in regard to the sale contract. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions.
New Mexico Appeals Court Affirms Awards of Damages to Both Parties on Claims of Breach of Contract
The plaintiffs bought two automotive supply businesses from the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant and the defendant’s broker made representations about the condition of the businesses during the sale and breached various terms of the sale contract. The district court dismissed complaints against the defendant’s broker and awarded damages to both parties regarding alleged actions in regard to the sale contract. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions.
Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2023 Edition
January 2023 PDF, Softcover (195 pages)
BVR (editor)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
Donnelly v. ProPharma Grp. Topco LLC
The plaintiff sued for breach of contracts relating to ProPharma’s offer to have Donnelly join the board in 2016 and for not paying him for his incentive equity shares, implemented in 2017, at fair market value. Each side engaged an experienced business valuation expert to opine as to the fair market value of the equity shares. Each side now moved to exclude the testimony of the other side’s expert. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the motions of both sides and allowed both experts to testify.
In a Breach of Contract Suit, the U.S. District Court Denies Motions to Exclude Valuation Experts
The plaintiff sued for breach of contracts relating to ProPharma’s offer to have Donnelly join the board in 2016 and for not paying him for his incentive equity shares, implemented in 2017, at fair market value. Each side engaged an experienced business valuation expert to opine as to the fair market value of the equity shares. Each side now moved to exclude the testimony of the other side’s expert. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the motions of both sides and allowed both experts to testify.
Endless River Techs. LLC v. Trans Union LLC
The plaintiff sued for damages in relation to termination of a contract requiring the plaintiff to develop software for use by the defendant in comparing real-time online insurance quotes insurers give to their customers. The defendant terminated the contract and admittedly breached the contract. A jury awarded the plaintiff $18.3 million in damages relating to the breach. However, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant had a liability limiting clause, which prohibited recovery of “consequential damages.” After reviewing motions by the parties, the judge sided with the defendant in determining that the damages awarded were “consequential damages” and not “direct damages” and were not allowed under the contract between the parties.