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.
A Tennessee Appellate Court Affirms the Allowance of a DLOM and Affirms Calculations Under the Income Approach
This case revolved around the value to be paid for a one-third interest in a business partnership for a business that produces and sells flavored “moonshine” liquor. The trial court initially resolved all issues and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the fair value of his one-third interest in the partnership. Defendant appealed, among other things, the trial court determination of value for his interest. The appellate court remanded for elimination of the discount for lack of control. On this appeal, the plaintiff disagreed with the trial court value and believed the DLOM should also be eliminated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The value affirmed was a conclusion of value issued in a summary report.
Boesch v. Holeman (II)
This case revolved around the value to be paid for a one-third interest in a business partnership for a business that produces and sells flavored “moonshine” liquor. The trial court initially resolved all issues and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the fair value of his one-third interest in the partnership. Defendant appealed, among other things, the trial court determination of value for his interest. The appellate court remanded for elimination of the discount for lack of control. On this appeal, the plaintiff disagreed with the trial court value and believed the DLOM should also be eliminated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The value affirmed was a conclusion of value issued in a summary report.
Parties' Motions to Exclude Each Other’s Experts Are Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.
Redcell Corp. v. A.J. Trucco, Inc.
In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.
Calculating Infringement Damages (A BVR Workshop)
In 2019, the AICPA published the latest guide on calculating intellectual property (IP) infringement damages. Chaffe’s IP professionals will discuss a how-to of best practices for valuing IP for infringement purposes, including walking through a case study.
BV News and Trends July 2022
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Agnelli v. Lennox Miami Corp.
In this lengthy opinion dealing with the fair value of a 12.5% interest the plaintiff held in a Florida hotel holding corporation, the U.S. District Court determined that discounts for minority interest and for marketability are not allowed. The court also determined damages for the breach of contract, or, in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty, on the part of the plaintiff.
U.S. District Court Denies Use of Discounts in Determining the Fair Value of a Hotel Holding Corporation in a Dissolution Case
In this lengthy opinion dealing with the fair value of a 12.5% interest the plaintiff held in a Florida hotel holding corporation, the U.S. District Court determined that discounts for minority interest and for marketability are not allowed. The court also determined damages for the breach of contract, or, in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty, on the part of the plaintiff.
Ohio Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of Permanent Injunction and Dismisses a Claim of Tortious Interference
An Ohio appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction to the plaintiff because the evidence did not show that it faced immediate and irreparable injury or harm. It was also held that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference because the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant induced a third party not to continue to do business with the plaintiff.
Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Tucker, Albin and Assocs.
An Ohio appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction to the plaintiff because the evidence did not show that it faced immediate and irreparable injury or harm. It was also held that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference because the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant induced a third party not to continue to do business with the plaintiff.
IP damages experts dodge exclusion in trademark case
In a trademark infringement case in Florida, the plaintiff’s expert (an economist) was to testify as to corrective advertising damages, but the defendant made a motion that she be excluded.
IP damages expert Bania testifies in Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial
One of BVR’s authors, Douglas Bania, testified that ex-wife Amber Heard’s allegations of abuse damaged Johnny Depp’s image.
Experts in, lay witnesses out in damages case
In a Michigan case, there were a number of motions to exclude expert witnesses in a damages case that involved employee poaching in the automotive industry.
Global BV News and Trends March 2022
Business valuation news from a global perspective.
Therapeutics MD, Inc. v. Evofem Biosciences, Inc.
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Magistrate Judge Recommends That the Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Defendant’s Experts Be Denied and That the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts Be Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Auto Konnect, LLC v BMW of North America, LLC
The U.S. District Court (Michigan) denied motions to exclude the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expert witnesses and granted motions from both parties to exclude “expert” testimony from lay witnesses. The case involved alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants regarding raiding of the plaintiff’s employees, and damages related thereto.