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.
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.
In re Tesla Motors Stockholder Litig.
At issue was a 2016 acquisition of Solar City Corp. by Tesla. Some Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk caused Tesla to overpay for Solar through his alleged domination and control of Tesla’s board. The primary focus of the shareholders was that Solar was insolvent at the time of the acquisition. The court applied the “entire fairness” standard. The Court of Chancery found the acquisition to be “entirely fair.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision.
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds ‘Entire Fairness’ of a Tesla Acquisition
At issue was a 2016 acquisition of Solar City Corp. by Tesla. Some Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk caused Tesla to overpay for Solar through his alleged domination and control of Tesla’s board. The primary focus of the shareholders was that Solar was insolvent at the time of the acquisition. The court applied the “entire fairness” standard. The Court of Chancery found the acquisition to be “entirely fair.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision.
EllDan Corp. v. Steele (In re EllDan Corp.)
The remaining matter in this bankruptcy adversary proceeding was whether the covenants not to compete in the prepetition franchise agreements were enforceable. The debtor rejected the franchise agreements after the petition date of the bankruptcy proceedings. The court ruled that the covenants were reasonable in duration and geographic scope under Minnesota law and public interest was not harmed. The court also found that the debtor breached the covenants the franchisor was contractually entitled to injunctive relief.
Despite Rejection of Franchise Agreements in Bankruptcy, Debtor Remained Obligated Not to Compete
The remaining matter in this bankruptcy adversary proceeding was whether the covenants not to compete in the prepetition franchise agreements were enforceable. The debtor rejected the franchise agreements after the petition date of the bankruptcy proceedings. The court ruled that the covenants were reasonable in duration and geographic scope under Minnesota law and public interest was not harmed. The court also found that the debtor breached the covenants the franchisor was contractually entitled to injunctive relief.
Manbro Energy Corp. v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
U.S. District Court (New York) Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
Nothing personal about goodwill in dental practice
In a South Carolina divorce case, the appellate court reversed the family court on the issue of personal versus enterprise goodwill.
Bostick v. Bostick
The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.
Appellate Court Reversed Decision and Treated All Goodwill as Enterprise Goodwill Includable in the Marital Estate
The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.