New York Court Awards Lost Corporate Opportunity and Punitive Damages in Restaurant-Related Case
In a case of disputes among the owners of an Irish soccer bar in New York City, the court awarded economic damages and punitive damages after the controlling owners took proceeds of a lease buyout of the bar’s prior location to establish a new identical bar in a new location while cutting out the minority owners from the new bar. Using assets of the old corporation and thereby misappropriating a corporate opportunity of the old corporation, they started a new identical bar (including the name) in a new location in a corporation the control owners set up.
Johnston v. Vincent
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case, upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, appealed certain rulings of the Louisiana Court of Appeals. The defendants asserted that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the manifest error standard correctly in reversing the district court’s findings of what constituted trade secrets and their misappropriation. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the Court of Appeals as to the increase in the amount of lost profits damages. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals in its determination that actual damages must be trebled and that unjust enrichment damages must be awarded in some amount but were not to be trebled.
Louisiana Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Court as to Misapplication of the Correct Manifest Error Standard, Other Damages-Related Issues
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case, upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, appealed certain rulings of the Louisiana Court of Appeals. The defendants asserted that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the manifest error standard correctly in reversing the district court’s findings of what constituted trade secrets and their misappropriation. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the Court of Appeals as to the increase in the amount of lost profits damages. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals in its determination that actual damages must be trebled and that unjust enrichment damages must be awarded in some amount but were not to be trebled.
Final issue of Willamette’s Insights focuses on best practices
The Winter 2023 issue will be the final one for Insights from Willamette Management Associates.
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.
Valuing Winery Losses—Understanding the Process and Addressing Common Issues
Winery losses present unique challenges, and it can be easy to encounter issues when evaluating them. The goal of this session is to provide attendees with enough background on the winery industry and winery losses in order to know the right questions to ask when dealing with them. This program will cover an overview of the typical kinds of winery losses, a high-level walk-through of the winemaking process, the crucial variables when it comes to ...
Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2023 Edition
January 2023 PDF, Softcover (195 pages)
BVR (editor)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
Business Valuation Update Yearbook, 2023 Edition
January 2023 PDF, Softcover (426 pages)
BVR (editor)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
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.
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.
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.
U.S. District Court Overturns Jury Award for Consequential Damages
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.