Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Global BV News and Trends February 2023

Business valuation news from a global perspective.

Ipse dixit nixes some of expert’s opinion

In an economic damages case in Delaware, both sides filed a number of motions to exclude expert testimony, evidence, and arguments.

Global BV News and Trends January 2023

Business valuation news from a global perspective.

Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2023 Edition

January 2023 PDF, Softcover (195 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

The legal coverage and in-depth analysis from the BVR legal team including an Introduction by Jim Alerding, BVR Legal Editor delivers lessons learned to help appraisers reach better and more defensible valuation conclusions. The 2023 Yearbook illustrates how financial experts helped their side win (and lose) in the courtroom and includes 70 new cases were added to BVLaw in 2022.  Learn more >>

Business Valuation Update Yearbook, 2023 Edition

January 2023 PDF, Softcover (426 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

It's that time of year again, BVR's “greatest hits” publication is here!  The Business Valuation Update Yearbook 2023 covers the previous year’s most groundbreaking and thought-provoking advancements in valuation.  It captures changes in regulations and professional standards, key takeaways from professional conferences, and tactical practice-building ideas. This critical desktop reference puts you ahead of the competition with on-the-ground reporting by the BVR editorial team including an Introduction by Andy Dzamba, BVR Executive Editor and insights from notable BV experts. Learn more >>

Lack of quantifiable damages dooms IP complaint

In a California case concerning intellectual property (IP), the defendant asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and asking for damages.

LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP

In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.

Delaware Court Grants in Some Cases and Denies in Others Motions to Exclude Expert Witnesses and Certain Evidence to be Presented

In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.

Dentists Ins. Co. v. Yousefian

The plaintiff insurance company in this damages case waived work product protection when the plaintiff’s expert disclosed alleged “secret” information to the defendant’s expert. The court required disclosure.

Plaintiff’s Expert Waives Work Product Protection

The plaintiff insurance company in this damages case waived work product protection when the plaintiff’s expert disclosed alleged “secret” information to the defendant’s expert. The court required disclosure.

WL All. LLC v. Precision Testing Grp. Inc.

In this partnership dispute, the 11th Circuit U.S. Appellate Court affirmed the district court and ruled that trial testimony of witnesses provided specific evidence that an energy utility company needed technicians the partnership provided before the disassociation and was not likely to change in the future. Damages were deemed “reasonably certain.” The defendants’ argument that, without an equitable accounting, the damages were too speculative, was waived because it was first raised post-verdict.

U.S. Appellate Court Rules Sufficient Evidence to Support Future Damages

In this partnership dispute, the 11th Circuit U.S. Appellate Court affirmed the district court and ruled that trial testimony of witnesses provided specific evidence that an energy utility company needed technicians the partnership provided before the disassociation and was not likely to change in the future. Damages were deemed “reasonably certain.” The defendants’ argument that, without an equitable accounting, the damages were too speculative, was waived because it was first raised post-verdict.

Commercial Success in Patent Litigation

To obtain a United States patent, the claimed invention may not be obvious in view of prior art. Whether a claimed invention is obvious often arises during the examination of a patent application by the United States Patent & Trademark Office. After a patent issues, obviousness may again arise as a defense to infringement by an accused infringer in litigation or as a basis for invalidity by a petitioner in post-grant proceedings, such as Inter-Partes ...

Huge turnout for the AICPA FVS conference

At 800 attendees, the AICPA & CIMA Forensic and Valuation Services Conference in Las Vegas was the largest event we’ve been to this year.

In re Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Litig.

A pharmaceuticals company sued its former CEO for, among other things, breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment establishing the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. This resulted in counterclaims by the former CEO, Michael Goldberg. Goldberg submitted for testimony of damages Terry Lee Orr, CPA. In this matter, the company sought to exclude Orr’s testimony and, absent his exclusion, to present their own expert, William F. Murray, CPA, as a rebuttal expert. Goldberg sought to exclude the testimony of Murray. The court excluded portions of Orr’s testimony and denied the exclusion of Murray as a rebuttal expert.

U.S. District Court Partially Excludes Witness in Securities Value Case and Allows Rebuttal Witness

A pharmaceuticals company sued its former CEO for, among other things, breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment establishing the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. This resulted in counterclaims by the former CEO, Michael Goldberg. Goldberg submitted for testimony of damages Terry Lee Orr, CPA. In this matter, the company sought to exclude Orr’s testimony and, absent his exclusion, to present their own expert, William F. Murray, CPA, as a rebuttal expert. Goldberg sought to exclude the testimony of Murray. The court excluded portions of Orr’s testimony and denied the exclusion of Murray as a rebuttal expert.

Global BV News: New CBV Insight on damages published

A new paper examines two damages approaches generally used in a disputed matter: reliance damages and expectation damages.

Prevailing expert comments on ‘moonshine’ case

In an earlier issue, we reported on an appellate court case involving the valuation of an owner’s one-third share in a Tennessee moonshine distillery (click here for the prior coverage).

U.S. District Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motions of Dismissal by Company Against Blockchain Researcher

The defendant, CasperLabs LLC, in this trademark dispute in U.S. District Court (California) moved for dismissal of eight causes of action from the plaintiff Vlad Zamfir’s (Zamfir) second amended complaint. The actions dealt primarily with trademark infringement and alleged damages therefrom. The actions also included allegations of fraud and misrepresentation under California law. After analysis of each of the actions, the court granted dismissal of some of the actions and denied dismissal of some of the actions.

Zamfir v. CasperLabs, LLC

The defendant, CasperLabs LLC, in this trademark dispute in U.S. District Court (California) moved for dismissal of eight causes of action from the plaintiff Vlad Zamfir’s (Zamfir) second amended complaint. The actions dealt primarily with trademark infringement and alleged damages therefrom. The actions also included allegations of fraud and misrepresentation under California law. After analysis of each of the actions, the court granted dismissal of some of the actions and denied dismissal of some of the actions.

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.

Tennessee moonshine formula caught up in business divorce

A partner in a Tennessee distillery making flavored moonshine felt the other two partners improperly disaffiliated him.

Pinto v. Schinitsky

The Supreme Court of New York denied motions to dismiss assertions of excess compensation, payments to a consultant, and a salary paid to the defendant’s mother. The court also denied a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert on the reasonableness of compensation. The plaintiff’s expert, a CPA, was found to qualify even though reasonable compensation was not his competency for his practice.

New York Court Denies Claims in Three Damages Categories, Denies Daubert Motion to Exclude Experts

The Supreme Court of New York denied motions to dismiss assertions of excess compensation, payments to a consultant, and a salary paid to the defendant’s mother. The court also denied a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert on the reasonableness of compensation. The plaintiff’s expert, a CPA, was found to qualify even though reasonable compensation was not his competency for his practice.

1 - 25 of 747 results